zoom lens opinions
 

I am going to be ordering an ef lens for my xl2

Was wondering about these three canon lenses:

100 to 400 L

70 to 200 L

28 to 300 L

the first two are significanly more economical.

I shoot all wildlife but a lot more birds than others.

Dale,

I just came back from using the 70-200L f/2.8 for the first time.

My initial reaction is: excellent optics. The 2.8 is necessary. The field of view is absolutely brutal. Even at the wide end I had trouble finding targets. I was constantly taking a long time to find targets and I lost a few good ones while screwing around. I should have had a scope (I had a cheap one stolen from my truck just before I left, and didn't replace it).

Also, you have to take the 20x with you everywhere because at 70mm x 7.2, your WIDE angle is 500mm. It was often a relief to put the 20x back on, when shooting intermediate targets - you can go full wide to find it, then crash zoom for shooting. Then get frustrated when the servo would continue spinning when I wanted just a little bit more telephoto.

Having said that - I wouldn't be without the bigger zoom. I just found myself changing lenses far more often than I was comfortable with.

Maybe that 28-300 would solve alot of the problems I mentioned. You'd be around 200mm on the wide end (far, far better than 500mm).

The 28-300mm has more range, but is not quite as sharp as the other two lenses. As zooms go, all three are OK.

Hi Dale,
I second what Ken and Tony say. When using ef-lenses I use the Ronssight almost every time. I know how Ken feel when you loose a shoot because you're not able to find the target!
Unfortunately I haven't been able to try out the 100-400 lens yet.
On the other hand I have been using the 70-200mm alot. Both Canon and Sigma f.2.8 is very nice to use in the low light conditions up north during winter. But one thing I have noticed is that it is very hard to archieve razor sharp focus with this lens (this is much more critical and visibly with the XLH1 and HDV). I think this is due to the small focus ring on the lens. Less than a millimeter fault on the focus wheel and you are stuck with a soft picture! This is especially difficult in winter conditions when you wearing thick gloves.

Even if its OT, I like to use prime lenses instead of the zoom. I find it more sharp and easy to handle good focus. May I suggest to look at two good alternatives to the zoom lenses:

The Sigma 150mm F2.8 APO EX DG Macro, even if it's a macro lens, I have archieved beautiful teleshots with it. And it's perfect for doing macroshots too!

The Canon 300mm 4.0L, a friend and I tried this lens out last weekend and I must say it was a big surprise and a pleasure to use. Even if it's a f4.0 I got nice and clean footage on a cloudy day. And it's light, no need for any rail to attached it to the camcorder. Compared to the Sigma 300mm f2.8 I could not see any significant variation in the footage.

And as always it's very important to invest in a good and steady tripod when you plan to use external telephotolens. Believe me I know what I'm talking about. Being on the 1500mm ++ end, even a tiny wind or your heartbeat will distort your footage if you not able to "nail down" your camcorder.

I would like to second all that Per has said and add that I have found a support bracket is a must, besides giving extra support for the lens, I find I have my left hand on the support to give smoothness to any panning movement. Using a 300mm lens, the 2 handed approach to panning gives the best result

Bob Thompson
Hong Kong

Dale,
In your list you left out the lens I use, the 70-300 zoom. This lens has almost the reach of the 100-400, is a lot lighter, and doesn't need the accessory mount shoe. It also is 1/3 the price. As Per points out, you will not get the tack-sharp focus with any zoom that you will with a prime lens, but when you are shooting birds, you often need the rapid change in focal length that only a zoom can give.

Canon 300mm F4
 

Per,

With reference to your remarks on the Canon 300mm F4, how did you find the overall sharpness? was it as good as the standard 20x lens. I have 70-200 but am also looking for a canon prime that is not to heavy. You seem to be the first person to have tried this lens on a H1

Regards

Mick

Mick, to my eyes I found this lens to be very suitable for my use. Even though I haven't been trying it for more than a weekend, viewing the footage is very pleasant.
When I compare the footage to a Sigma 300mm f2.8 I can not see any visibly difference even on a 39'' HD TV. We did shoot with two XLH1 side by side one with the Canon 300mm f4L and the other one with the Sigma 300mm f2.8. The camcorders was set up with the same settings, same shutter, and adjusted aperture to suit a good exposure.
The sharpness of this lens is remarkable good, giving you a nice DOF. Comparing it to the 20x HD lens is difficult cause of the difference in focal length but when I look through the edited reel with a mix of footage from both lenses they fell seamless well toghether.

The 300mm f4 lens is own by a friend of mine, and I'm considering to switch to it myself. The pros is that it is much lighter than the 2.8 primes, you don't have to use any rail to attached it to the camcorder and it's well suited to stand out in cold, snow and humidity.

Per,

Thanks for that, like you I too find the 70-200mm difficult to focus, when you get it right its great.

regards

Mick

Almost all the pro-level 300mm f/4 lenses from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Contax, Minolta etc are extremely good and almost match the 300mm f/2.8 lenses for biting sharpness. I very much like the AF Nikkor 300mm f/4, but much prefer the 300mm f2.8 ED-IF, especially for it's extra light-gathering power without the need to lower shutter speed on still cameras, or up the gain on the XL DV cameras.
An extremely lightweight, well-built, and very sharp 300mm f/4 is the MF version Pentax A* 300mm f/4 - a superb optic and probably the most compact of all ED-glass 300mm ED optics (and Les Bosher would make a Pentax to XL mount if you need one).
The Sigma 300mm f/4 APO Macro is also an extremely sharp and well-made lens that I have used a lot.

"would like to second all that Per has said and add that I have found a support bracket is a must, besides giving extra support for the lens, I find I have my left hand on the support to give smoothness to any panning movement. Using a 300mm lens, the 2 handed approach to panning gives the best result . "

Not sure i undrstand what you are saying here. You need a support like a rail (I have one) but what exactly do you mean by two handed approach. I always shoot with two hands one at the servo and one on the barrel of the lens.

I have a pretty heavy duty tripod, but much of my shooting is out of the 4x4 window resting on a bag.

Probably the greatest reason for using a zoom is for composition purposes as in most circumstances you are filming from the best position you have. If the three hundered makes them to mostly do not have time to change lenses and continue shooting. the 150 is only about 300 mm difference in reach and the three hundred fundementally doubles that.

I was hoping to hear some replies on the 100 to 400 and the 28 to 300. The later apparently has some aberations in the closer focal lengths.

It is good news to hear about the 300 f4. that and perhaps a zoom of some sort would make a great combination.


How about some various ideas on two lens combinations. I like pers idea.

I have about 1800 dollars to spend on lenses.

Thank you all for so much input!!!

I have found that with the right hand on the pan handle ( it has servo attached) and the left on the support is best. If you are gripping the lens barrel, there is the possibilty of bumping the focus.

It really doesn't matter as long as which ever method you use is comfortable & gives you smooth pans & tilts.

Bob

Dale,
If you are going to be using a lens as powerful as 300mm, I think you will find that an open car window and a beanbag is quite insufficient as a support.
Your tiniest movements will be hugely magnified. Use some of your money for a good video head for your tripod.

Steven,

I have a heavy tripod with a fluid head. It is rather inconvient for much of what I do.
I do understand the movement issue, all to well, and it is an area I need to improve a lot up-on.

Much of the wildlife here is readily approachable with a vehicle within 50 to 150 yards as long as you stay in the vehicle. It is vast and open prairies here with not much to use to stalk closely.

I have had the notion of building a true door mount with a tripod head that would accept my 75 mm fluid head and allow one to shoot. I have also thought of having my wife drive the 4x4 and I would set up in the bed with a rope seat and steadied tripod. Perhaps this summer I will work on that. last week in the -20's to -30's kinda rules out setting in the truck bed!!!

Panning, I use right hand on the arm with a 521 remote and I use my left arm on the camera for steadiness or camera adjustments on the fly. I need more practice.

Reading the interesting opinions I think I may go with one zoom ( not to sure about which one, and the 300 f4 .

I was hoping to hear more about the 100 to 400, the fact that there is no comment I reckon is a comment in itself.

A friend has the canon 500mm lens, l;ooks like a canon in both rights. I will try it once for kicks, but I know I will not likly be able to handle it!!!


dale

Hi Dale,

Some very accurate responses from this group. I guess if you would like some comments about the 100-400, I can respond since it is 1 of 3 main lenses I use most often. What is your final application with this footage? Weight does not seem to be an issue with you since a majority of your shoots are from the vehicle. One thing to consider when changing lenses with your H1, is to use different presets. It's more convenient than adjusting in post, on the other hand, shooting with a neutral preset allows more flexiblity but that's a whole different thread altogether.

Dale

In reference to the 100-400mm Canon L, I used it extensively since 2002 on a Canon XL-1s body. I am an extremely serious amateur and had the camera with me on an almost daily basis. At times I used another camcorder which didn't have interchangeable lenses which I used for wider shots and the 100-400mm remained on the XL, sometimes for months at a time.

All of these judgments are subjective, but I found the following. The 100-400mm is sharper than the 35-350mm which I used previously and still use to some extent. It is not as sharp as the 70-200mm, but is little harder to locate animals with, as the lower end magnifications are not that far apart. The 500mmF4 was sharper than the 100-400m, but of course with the obvious drawback that it is much more bulky and hard to control with no ability to zoom out, so it is seldom used. In short, the 100-400mm was my hands down favorite as it was usable reasonably early in the morning and evening and had much more reach than the 70-200mm.

I am not certain how things will shake out now that I am shooting an XL-H1 as it seems to require a wider aperture to shoot in low-light conditions, and I find myself using the 70-200m quite a bit to get acceptable exposure in low light shots.

I have never found an acceptable method to shoot from a vehicle with the long lenses. The only success I have had is with the normal lens, and that usually not zoomed completely in. This is a frustrating situation. Sometimes, if the vehicle can be positioned right, one can get out on the side away from the animals and get the tripod set up, but as you well know this is not usually the case.

I have not tried the 300mm primes, but I do not like the idea of having no control over composition other then getting further away or trying to get closer, but they may be worth the hassle of doing this. I know that is my main gripe with the 500mmf4 in still photography, but it is so superb performance wise that one doesn't mind working around this.

There must be a point where the quality of the sensor becomes the limiting factor rather than the optical performance of the lens? Has anyone found this?

Yes, very much so.

The image quality of all my Nikkors are way beyond the quality of the XL1 or XL2 sensors, in fact even the XL-H1 sensor.

The biggest real problem is the amount of air and distance between the front of the lens and subject when using the incredible 7X multiply factor of the XL series of bodies.

It is also extremely difficult to obtain top image quality with lenses over 800mm on 35mm film SLRs or 16MP DSLRs, so trying to obtain anywhere near the same image quality using the same lenses boosted to way beyond 2,500mm or even 4,500mm is impossible.

Just try using the Nikkor 1200mm prime lens with a 2X converter and see how hard it is to obtain decent images on quality 35mm emulsion film...so no wonder we struggle with similar extreme telephotos pushed to the limits when they are focussed on a tiny XL2 DV sensor or HDV sensor.

Tony,
This is really the dilemma when using a lens over 300mm w/ any of the XL series. We all must have the proper setup (tripods, heads, rails, sights etc.) but when it's time to use the long lens, my main tool is the Weather Channel otherwise your only option is the magic hours. All it takes is a cloudy day (no rain, snow or fog) and I can shoot all day at 4200mm and capture incredible footage.

first,

Thank you all for the information.

1. I will lily acquire the 100 to 400 canon l series zoom. (any thoughts on the sigma 80 to 400??).

2. The idea of the 70 to 200 f 2.8 makes total sense but wonder about the focusing comments!! I have enough problems focusing the standard lens and have been thinking aboout a fu 1000. Any comment??

3. I think having a lens that can do Macro is a great idea as I also shoot the small things. So I am going to take Per's advice on the 150mm f 2.8 Macro.

I do not want to fall into the "Perpetual dissatification" that consumer marketiers perpetuate. On the other hand also want reasonably good optics I can be happy with!!

Some things are beyond the point of diminshing returns which means you pay a great deal more for the name and a bit of improvement over high quality optics. I find this most visible in Binoculars!!! They are my most used tool in the field.


thank you all again!!!

Although my experience with the Canon 100-400mm on the XL body is limited, I would make the following comments:

1. Optically excellent up to 300mm, a little soft from 300-400mm
2. I'm not a fan of the push-pull zoom action. It can act as a dust vacuum, is clunky to use, and changes the balance point of the camera

I have a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, which seems to be excellent (my copy at least), although it's a big, heavy beast.

Generally speaking I find 300mm (i.e. 2100mm with crop factor) to be the longest focal length I can comfortably use on an XL without being locked down on a tripod. While it's perfectly possible to get good shots at much longer focal lengths, getting steady pans and good follow focus is very difficult even with experience.

As for shooting from vehicles, I find this isn't always successful with very long lenses. Even moderate winds cause some vibration, as does any movement by the operator. Cars make great blinds, but wherever possible, I try to open the door, put the sticks on the ground and shoot through the open side window.

I've had pin-sharp shots using a 500mm f/4.5 lens handheld and braced on cross-legged knees from a vehicle...but that was on a stills camera, I wouldn't even attempt the same on a DV camera with the added magnification factors involved.

The longest lens that I use on a DV Canon XL body is my 600mm ED-IF lens, and always on my heaviest tripod + heavy duty head, locked down tight and then stop/start record using the wireless remote control to avoid all tremours.

Even then I may still obtain some footage with slight blur or shake due to wind, or if I use the finger start button on the Manfrotto pan-handle control. In these circumstances it is normally only the very beginning and end of the sequence that has slight tremour, so it is quite easy to edit the extreme ends of each clip during post.

Some more thoughts on the 100-400mm. I do not mean to disagree with Duncan, but rather to look at the situation from another angle. The push pull zoom can seem clunky and it definitely changes the balance of the rig when focal length is changed yet I find this a plus to the extent that one can zoom out wide to locate a subject and then zoom back in to the desired composition much quicker than with the rotating ring on the 70-200mm, and of course one can engage the locking ring to keep the zoom from creeping when carrying, or to stabilize the lens more while shooting when it is at the desired focal length.
That being said the 70-200mm is very solidly constructed and while I usually use it with a rail support, it will function decently without one.

I have had the 100-400 since 2001 and it has seen almost daily use. Dust has not been a problem with it,nor with the 35-350 so these lens must be fairly well sealed. I did use a 170-500 Sigma for a short time and it ended up with quite a bit of dust on the inside of the front element in a short time. I also have quite a bit of dust in a 28-135 mm Canon.

Either lens is a good choice, but what can I say-it's really nice to have both. It's a deep never ending money pit.

I had shooting at mature eastern wild turkey gobblers this evening and used the standard 20x lens, the 70-200mm and the 500mm. No chance yet to look at the footage, but it will be interesting to compare how each performed on the XL-H1. I can't post any footage however as I am on dial-up yet.

turkey footage
 

Will,

I would love to see the footage off each of those lenses if you have an opportunity to make the clips!!