This is a fairly sophisticated question, quys. I have an XL1 which has served me well. I've used both the standard 16x and 3x wide angle lenses and gotten good results. But I know there would be a real advantage in getting the 16x manual-servo zoom lens.

My question is this: Now that Barrett Bilotta has an EOS adapter for the XL1 with only 2x multiplication of field of view (versus the 7x of the canon adapter), might I be better off in terms of overall image quality to go with his EOS adapter for use with a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L lens with the XL1. This would give me some "zoom" capability with sharpness almost on par with a prime lens and greater flexibility. The cost might work out to be almost as much as the 16x manual servo zoom. Fact is, the zoom effect is not all that important when you think about it. Pros rarely use it. Better to simply frame and focus your shots with care. The standard 16x does a pretty good job in the zoom department (in manual hitting the auto button) for "run and gun" work. Your feedback on this is greatly appreciated.

What type of things do you shoot, Don? It makes a big difference, for many subjects. The 2X zoom range of the 16 - 35mm lens is too restricing for most things I shoot. The 16mm would become a 32mm lens and isn't near as wide as the 3X XL lens.

Thanks for your reply, Jeff. I shoot a wide range of things, but not much in the way of extreme telephoto type shots, at least not yet. I would be shooting documentary type material. The idea is to get the highest image quality possible. While 32 mm is not as wide as the 3x, as you've observed, it is still fairly wide. I could zoom up to 70 mm. The main thing is I would have manual focus and, hopefully, a notably sharper image. I wonder if anyone has any idea how the image would compare to what you can get with the 16x manual servo zoom? That particular 16-35 mm lens is a new one from Canon, and is considered to be sharp.

I just got one of those 16-35mm EOS L series zooms.
The image is much sharper than the 3X (no surprise).
Not nearly as wide as the 3X (@ 16mm X 7.2=115mm no surprise either)

PS. The other day I had the chance to go along and tape a bobcat
release. I was so unaccustomed to using the regular canon video glass
that I could never feel like I was in focus . . . really!

Thanks Jacques, this is just the kind of feedback I was hoping to receive. I assume if I'm using the 16-35mm lens with Bilotta's new 2x magnification EOS adapter I should obtain a wider field of view, though still not as wide as the 3x. Have you been able to zoom through the range of the lens with good results?

This sounds great! can you show us more info on the lens and the adapter? Itwould be great to use a professional lens for wider shots.

I have an Canon EOS adapter, so I am not sure about the zoom through
on the www.xl1solutions.com adapter.

I would hope that they would allow you to try their adapter out
for a day or two in your living room (read: no gig use),
and if it is not liked for whatever reason,
return it less shipping and handling costs.

I know www.xl1solutions.com monitors this list, so Barrett, please feel free
to let us know your return policies.

Jacques,
Did ou ever get any response (privately) from xl1solutions about their return policy?
Mark

No, I didn't email him personally, but one would think he has read this
post by now. No response these days is the same as saying NO.

My guess . . . you buy it; you own it.