The 3X.

The 3x is a lot lighter, and a lot easier to shoot with, than a 16x with an adapter on the front (this combo is a little on the heavy side). You're giving up the OIS, but you shouldn't need it on a wide-angle anyway.

About the Century adapters, the wider of the two is not full-zoom through, it loses the telephoto half of the lens. The other one lets you zoom all the way through the entire range of the lens.

Chris, what is the minimum focus for the 3X?

I see 3/4" at widest zoom on this canon page

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...5&modelid=8274

But at adorama and other retailers I see 0.5 m...

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20171962.html

Can you tell me which it is? Thanks.

See the bottom of my 16x review page.

Thanks, Ken. I'm wondering if it's just a typo on that canon page; do you think it's something else that the 3/4" could be referring to?

Roger,
One of the hazards of transcribing spec data from the little lens sheets is that you get cross-eyed after a while and are no longer thinking about what you're typing. That's apparently what I did on that comparative chart.

The 3x lens' minimum focusing distance at its widest setting is 20mm, not 20cm. That, of course, converts to just above 3/4". I just tested this with my own lens and it is accurate.

The other error regarding the 3x lens on my chart is that it does have a built-in ND filter, whereas I indicated that it does not.

My sincere apologies for misleading you. I'll see if Chris can make the corrections pronto.

I can confirm this as well. Several years ago I shot some wildflowers in the early morning with dew on them. I got so close that I got dew on the front element. The dew drops on the lens are in perfect focus. If I can find the footage, I'll make a screen grab and post a link to the shot. On another occasion I got spider webs across the lens hood and the silk from the web is in focus.

Thanks again, Ken.
Your updated spec and Jeff's anecdote have more or less convinced me to get this baby.

rog,

i have the 3x and through horsing around with it, i have felt that it has become an indispensible tool for closeups. if i need to utilize telephoto then i put on 16x auto but 3x all the way for closeups. in fact if you don't have 3x then it just doesn't have that 'broadcast quality'. i suppose part of the appeal of broadcast cams like real-world or newsmedia shows is that their lens is wider. apparently making everyone look a bit fatter is 'professional' =^).

Thanks, I think I'll get the 3x now... besides I guess I'll be able to use it when I upgrade my camera.

Gotta love that built-in macro. The little Canon single-chip DV cameras have this, too. Zoom out to full wide, and they'll focus right up to the glass.

Hi,
I read a lot here in the forum to make up my mind about the 3x vs. Century .6 or .7.

In the end I tested them side by side and I can agree with all who say that the 3x is worth the money (although not cheap).

So I've got one myself and I can say: It is now the standard on my XL1s. I only use the 16x when true 16x is needed.

I am very pleased with it, but have to admit, that the "getting the picture sharp" is an issue. As someone said here in the forum: Tha Canons are a bit on the soft side ;-)

Cheers from Germany
Jan