Chris,

Thanks for the reply.... You had mentioned that the Pappas System was an old work around and really had no relevance today. Why is that? To me the biggest advantage of using the Pappas System is still valid -> that being you can acheive a 45mm focal length at the widest, but by using the EOS lens your depth of field would remain much shallower than if you just used any video lens.

I want to achieve a depth of field that is similar to 35mm. The only way to do this (other than the P+S Technik) is to use an EOS lens.

I get shallow depth of field all the time with the standard 16x auto lens. Just add plenty of light, a wide aperture and a fast shutter! Presto... shallow depth of focus. Try shooting in AV mode at f/2 with bright lighting and the shutter will automatically adjust accordingly. Should give you what you're looking for.

Hey XL1'ers and Mr. Hurd,

I am looking into buying an EOS adaptor and telephoto lens.
I am taking some footage of a Blue Heron rookery here
in Michigan. I use the 1.6 extender now on the 16X, and it works
pretty good, but I need MORE ;)


I've been reading the other posts, but I am still not sure
which lens it is that Canon is recommending for nature
videography. Is it the
Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM Autofocus

I am correct that auto focus will NOT work?

Has anyone priced them?

B&H the place to buy?

I have used a cheapo 75-300mm Canon lens on my Xl-1 for some time, and am happy with the results. What everyone has said earlier is absolutely true- a good set of sticks AND a really expensive head are necessary for truly professional results. The image clarity is there, and the tremendous focal length available is really useful in the nature photography I do, BUT, focusing is very critical, as the auto focus does not work with this setup, (nor does auto exposure)and seems to vary somewhat depending upon the focal length used. I suspect the cheapo 75-300 I'm using is the reason. I'd like to hear from others using the higher quality zoom lens, as I'm considering getting one as well. Overall though, I'm happy with the results I'm getting- I'd say the clarity, and color are as good as the 16x lens, when not zoomed out all the way. I would recommend this arrangement. Mike

I've found that light-gathering with any EOS 35mmm lens on the xl-1 is always very good. Figure, the eos lens was made to cover 35mmm film, not a small CCD, so you're using the middle of the lens most of the time, and a lens aperature of 5.6 gives you PLENTY of light. Exposure is never a problem for me. Most of the time I'm shooting around 1/900 sec. at f8 or so. There's a LOT of exposure latitude available- it's not an issue at all. Mike

I looked at one today at my camera store, and figure that spending $1200 for a lens that won't provide auto-focus or auto-exposure when conected to the xl-1, probably isn't worth it, as I don't need it other types of shooting. I saw a Tamron 200-400mm for half the money that might provide
the level of quality I want- anyone know about Tamron's quality, or lack of it? Hoping to make some decisions soon- I may take the xl down to the store and shoot some stuff i their parking lot. Will let you know how that comes out. Mike Rupp

That would be great. I too would really love to try out the newest
generation of IS USM lens like the 70-200 with the EOS adapter
before plunking down $2500.00.

Hey Mr. Hurd,
is there anyway you could inquire with your cohorts at usa.canon.com
about having an EOS/EF telephoto package at NAB? Barring that, some
actual tests to see how the new '3rd' generation of image stabilizer USM
lens works with the XL1 :)

I have used the Canon 75-300mm IS, The Sigma 170-500mm, and the Canon 35-350mm L lens on the XL-1s. The 35-350L lens is significantly sharper than the Sigma lens. The 75-300 IS has good image quality but is more prone to problems from vibration unless IS is used, but surprisingly the IS works fairly well especially if one is touching the tripod handle. I do prefer the 35-350L except for its weight. The lenses are not auto focus with the EF adapter but auto exposure works. One must have the lever on the left side of the adapter pulled back toward the camera, but the change in exposure level may not be as smooth as with the normal lens. I prefer to use this control much as the push auto focus button is used on the 16x lens, leaving it in the forward position and just pushing in on the button when lighting conditions change. I bought my 35-350 used from B&H for$1,200. Do I feel it's worth it? The answer is an emphatic yes.
Will

Mike and I are of like mind. The el cheapo 75 -300mm works great, sometime I battle to focus when in low light situations and that on the pod you obviously loose the OIS feature.

The original post referred to footage of the Grey Heron so lets go back there. If you can get close, great. In my experience which is limited to wildlife footage is that I run out of lens. If you are into birding then I am told that the SIGMA 170 - 500mm F5,6 is superb. I am busy investigating this at present. The fact that autofocus will not be present is also not a problem for me as I am often focussing past twigs leaves etc. and could not work with AF. The lens has had rave reviews.

Has anyone got experience on the SIGMA? I know in South Africa they were selling for R 7000 which could mean about $500, not too shure.

Andrew

I have been looking closely at the 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM.
I want as fast a lens as I can afford. Much of the action
happens at dawn and sunset, so I want to go with the
best low light lens that's under $2K.
I'd love it if I could spend only $500, but I've found you get
what you pay for, and $500 for a telephoto worries me.

This new Canon lens also has the "3rd generation" image stabilizer, which claims you can choose to only stabilizer up/down motion, thus enabling
better pans. Though how smooth could a pan be at full zoom
even with a good tripod? (I have a Vinten Vision 3.)

Seems like a 500mm (~3500mm w/ EOS adapter) is so long
that it would be hard to get a steady image or even find
anything as the slightest movement (wind) would send you all over
the place.

Hello Jacques

You are right, in most instances it costs to have what you want. I have met a couple of professional wildlife photographers in the Kruger National Park (one of Africa's best). In most cases they use exclusively Canon equipment and Canon Ultrasonic lenses. The lenses used are often these superfast telphoto lenses that cost what my car does think one was F2,8 at 400mm.

One of the pro's happened to have the SIGMA lens I spoke of and he spoke highly of it, thats how my interest was aroused.

Apart from the 16X I use the 75 - 300mm ultrasonic, yeah, probably not the best but affordable. I do not generate any income from my hobby.

As a matter of interest have seen filming crews in KNP using betacams and a Novoflex 600mm with 1,6X extender and large bean bags. I don't know what the ratio is for Betacam is.

At 200mm I would not have enough lens, no question. One may not alight from ones vehicle owing to the danger and you may also not leave the road to get closer to the subject.

Regards
Andrew

Andrew and Jacques- I really think that anything beyond 300mm (2150mm on the XL) puts you in "no-man's land". I've shot extensively, and really smooth, professional results are difficult at this focal length. I've tried various tripods and heads, including Millers, and CSI's and still, it's difficult to get a perfectly smooth pan. Close, real close, but you're right about even wind affecting the shot.I've been looking at the Tamron 200-400mm, and might give that a try, but my quest for longer, longer, actually translates into "harder, harder". I'm looking at using camo like some friends here, to try to close the gap in distance to the bird somewhat, rather than go longer on the focal length. This has some promise.
On another subject, I've been posting to the "audio and mics" forum as well about shotgun mics to cancel lateral and rear audio out during shooting- either of you have a suggestion on this, as the ME67 Sennheiser I just tested did poorly at that. Parabolic? Gosh, how much stuff can one drag into the field? Mike

Folks,

I agree with Mike that these longer lenses are very difficult to adapt to. I've been using the 100-400mm on a very good head and sticks. Other than the equipment the main thing that helped me was to practice often. I breath like I was doing Qigong (from the stomach) and developed a steady hand. You would be surprised how much better you will be after several hours a day for a week. Not much you can do if you are caught in the open if it's windy though. But in the end the shots are well worth the trouble. Kind of opens a whole other world.

While the Sigma 170-500mm is a good lens for 35mm use it is less than ideal for video use. In low light conditions the image at the longer telephoto lenghts becomes very soft at the edges. This is very noticeable both in the viewfinder and on the monitor. As the light fadaes one must continually drop to a lower focal lenght in order to obtain acceptably sharp images. I originally bought this lens because of the 500mm upper end and it does quite well in good light but would I buy it again? No! I would rather put the money toward a 35-300, 100-400. or 70-200 Canon lens, all of course the L series. There is a definite difference. Surprisingly, the 170-500mm is not all that hard to control at the 500mm length. The lens is very rigid and resists wind vibration etc. very well. I am not completely condemning this lens but I seldom use mine anymore and I think most serious videographers will find themselves considering replacing the lens after a time as they become more irritated with its short-comings.
Will

The 16x lens does not do it for me. I need a more extreme backblur effect. But with a focal length of let's say 2000mm (an ef lens with xl1) should do it i hope. I need to shoot full figure people with total blur in the background. Anyone tried this out with an ef lens?

Thanks in advance

Regards,


Erik T.

I need an extreme backblur effect. But with a focal length of let's say 2000mm (an ef lens with xl1) I should make it i hope. I need to shoot full figure people with total blur in the background. Anyone tried this out with an ef lens? Is it possible?

Thanks in advance

Regards,


Erik T.

Is anyone using this lens with the EF adapter? As I understand it, the image stabilizer and auto-exposure will work on the XL1S, but not the auto-focus, is this correct? Does the front element rotate, or is it stationary? Macro focus capability? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

I have used this lens and it would not be my first choice. I found the 100 to 400 to balance a little nicer and it is smaller. You might want to check out the specs at Canon's site but I don't recall the 35 to 350 having IS or the front element rotating. The EOS lenses do not AF when on the EF adapter.

Jeff

Jeff -

You are correct, I was getting the 35-350 confused with the 75-300 (Canon P/N 2570A003) which is image stabilized. The 100-400 is $1000 more than the 75-300 which puts it way out of my range.

Steve (stevenyc1@aol.com) uses the 75 - 300 and i believe he is quite pleased with it. You may want to email him or wait and see if he replies here.

Jeff

Hi,

I use the 75 - 300mm USM IS lens and have had good results. I tend to use it in full manual as the as I find the "fluttering sound" of the iris / motor as it hunts for the correct aperture a little irritating.

This lens has allowed me to get shots that I normally would not have managed. I do find it difficult at times to focus but that would be true for any longer lens.

I only use this lens when on a tripod and consequently turn off the IS. The IS works when mounted to EOS adaptor as does the auto exposure, the auto focus does not. The great thing is that I bought a EOS camera and only need one set of lenses.

Macro focus, not to sure what you would consider macro focus. If I think back some months ago I went for a walk in the bush determined to "film all the little things". If I recall correctly it is possible to full frame a 1" long spider, the only problem is you need to be about 6 or 7 ' away.

Will have to check the lens to see if the front element rotates. e-mail me should you need any other info. aleigh@iafrica.com

Cheers
Andrew

How about the Sigma lenses? the 70-200mm 2.8 Apo gets very nice reviews, that lens combine with the 1.6Converter should be a nice cheap solution. and you get f2.8 at '1440mm' :)

<a href "http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83598_3128crx.aspx#reviews">

Hi,

The 1.6x convertor works with XL lenses only, it will not work with Canon EOS EF lenses or lenses made for EOS mount. Instead, try the Canon EF adapter. It allows Canon EOS EF lenses to be used on the XL. There is an effective gain in image size by a factor of 7.2x. This is the result of going from 35mm film size to 1/3" chips. So, my 100-400 Canon EOS zoom becomes 720-2880 zoom or a magnification of 58x.

Jeff

Hi,

The 1.6x convertor works with XL lenses only, it will not work with Canon EOS EF lenses or lenses made for EOS mount. Instead, try the Canon EF adapter. It allows Canon EOS EF lenses to be used on the XL. There is an effective gain in image size by a factor of 7.2x. This is the result of going from 35mm film size to 1/3" chips. So, my 100-400 Canon EOS zoom becomes 720-2880 zoom or a magnification of 58x.

oh jtdonald i meant '1.6x extender' sorry! i know you have to use a EF adaptor,.

if you use a 'EOS 1.6x Extender' with a EOS lens instead of the 'XL Extender', could that work?

> XL1s > EF adapter > EOS 1.6x Extender > EOS EF- lens ?
or
> XL1s > EF adapter > XL 1.6 Extender > EOS EF -lens ?

.

XL 1.6 adapter should not be used with EOS lenses. Instead use Canon EOS EF 1.4x or 2x extenders

XL>EF adpt.>EOS 1.4/2x> EOS lens

Jeff

I was just wondering if the image stabilizer is of any use when the 70-300 is used with the XL1s; i.e. could you handhold even at 70mm which is 500mm on the XL1s? I'm guessing it wouldn't. I don't have a Canon still camera so whatever lens I buy would only be used on the XL1s.

im dizzy today lol , i meant 1.4x Ef,,,,

Not for hand holding. However, most peoples tripod won't hold it steady at the 300mm position. I would say try it both ways and see what works best for your particular subject matter and camera/tripod combination.

jeff

Hmmm... I'm wondering if the Canon 28-135 might be a better choice. It would be 200-972 on the XL1s. Leaves less of a gap with the standard lens, and from past experience with 1000mm lenses, 972 is about it. Really difficult working with anything longer.

I've used the 28-135 and it works well for me. I have to reconfigure the camera a little, too back heavy, but otherwise a joy to use.

Jeff

Jeff -

Are you using the 28-135 IS? If so, are you able to handhold at the shorter focal lengths? When you say "reconfigure the camera", what exactly are you doing?

I use the 28-135 now and then for certain shots. It is not as big and heavy as the 16x XL lens. Normally I have the CH910 on the back with 2 batteries. The lighter lens on the front throws the balance off too much so I remove the CH910and attach a smaller battery to the XL body. It lowers the center of gravity, makes it more comfortable to hold and it counter balances on the tripod better.

Jeff

I'm a big fan of using EOS lenses with the EF adapter- the resulting video is usually super sharp (you can't get better!!) and very well saturated....possibilities are numerous (macro-tele etc), even with the less expensive lenses....the biggest problem is no-image stabilization- so anything longer than 100mm will likely require a tripod.....

..Sigma makes a 50-500 lens that's i'd love to try...what a focal range!

..have fun.

Ron,

you have not mentioned why you need "more" lens in terms of increased focul length. Perhaps if the forum could get a better idea of your requirements more focused opinions could be offered.

e.g. My requirement left me with no other option but to get more lens. I do almost all my serious shooting in the Kruger National Park where one may not leave your vehicle. This in essence means at most times you may end up far from the subject matter. I have a VW Microbus which, with the middle seat removed, allows for the full installation of a heavy duty tripod and 5" monitor, with the sliding door open the opportunities are great. I would prefer the 100 - 400mm but don't think it was available when I was in the market, and truth be told could not have afforded it. I find it almost impossible to hand hold the 75 - 300mm but with a bean bag you can get reasonable off tripod results. What I like about the 100 - 400mm is the option of variably selecting the mode of stabilisation.

Even on a solid tripod I rarely try pan or touch the camcorder when in the exended zoom ranges. It is O' so easy to introduce vibrations. I use the remote to start and stop.

<<Sigma makes a 50-500 lens that's i'd love to try...what a focal range!>>

Steve I too have lusted for, courted and fondled such lens. Having done this I posted for other users to offer opinions, can't remember the forum but think it was here, have a look for my posts. The result was not that promising. It would appear as if the lens is not that sharp and shows severe drop in resolution at full zoom. In fact there was gardly a good mention so I gave up my quest knowing the advice is good. Canon glass still kicks butt.

Cheers
Andrew

Andrew -

My needs are opposite of yours. I sometimes make training videos for electronic assembly. The stock lens works fine for table shots, but doesn't work for closeups of small parts, etc. Often this has to be done handheld as well which means an image stabilizer is a plus and the less weight I'm holding the better. The more working distance, the better since I often have to stand to the side or on the opposite side of the bench. There are also long shots of multiple workstations or though windows in areas where I am not allowed to go. It looks like the 28-135 IS USM might fill the bill. Money is always an issue and I believe this lens is about as cheap as you can get for an "IS".

Hi Ron,

can't help here.....good luck.

Cheers
Andrew

This coming winter I shall be undertaking a project that involves filming wild geese, which from past experience will be far away and completely unapproachable. So I have decided to take the plunge and get an EF adapter and EOS lens. But which lens?
I've had a chat with my local camera shop who who have said they will get the lenses I want to try so I can have a play before I part with my money.
I've so far, thanks to the info contained on this boards mainly, ask them to get me the Canon 75 - 300mm USM IS and the 100-400mm to try.
Dose any body have any suggestions of other lenses I should ask to try?
I've been involved in multimedia and video editing for a good few years now but have only recently started to shoot my own video footage and the wonders cameras and lenses are still make my head hurt, therefor any advice will be gratefully received.

Thanks

Several of the past threads here address wildlife video questions. You might browse them for ideas and contacts.

I own both lenses and with out a doubt the 100 - 400mm is the better lens. It also carries the better price, probably 3x what the 70 - 300mm IS costs. Is it 3x better optically? No, but if you're after the best optically and have a tripod to support it, the 100 - 400mm wins. I've tried many other lenses and I can discount the 35 - 350mm (too heavy, doesn't balance well) 28 -135mm IS (not enough telephoto) and 100 - 300 (too slow). The 100 - 400mm is an L series lens, uses Cannon's best glass. You will be able to see the difference.

Jeff

I really wouldn't discount the 35-350 Canon L lens so quickly, at least for many uses such as larger animals such as deer and elk.
The 100-400 would probably be better for geese to a certain extent. No one is a greater fan of the EF adapter and telephoto lenses than I, but I hate changing lenses and often larger wildlife does get too close for a lens with a bottom end of 75 or 100mm while the 35-350 gives more margin on the closer shots. There isn't all that much difference in handling characteristics, just compare the specifications. I have handled both lenses and can tell little difference in that respect.
35-350 100-400
weight 3.05 lb. 3.0 lb.
diameter 3.3" 3.6"
length 6.6" 7.4"
min. focus 2.0' 5'9"
In summary both are heavy, well made lenses of nearly equal physical proportions with the 100-400 being somewhat sharper and more powerful and the 35-350 focusing to closer range and working better on close encounters with the larger animals. Both are excellent choices. I have also used the 75-300 IS extensively and it is not as sharp as either of the L lenses mentioned but it is
an excellent choice for the price.
Will

You are correct about the specs. But the feel of the 35 - 350mm is not as nice as the 100 - 400mm. Now that's just me. Everybody is going to feel and hold equipment differently. But look at the MTF charts on Canon's site and you'll see the 100 - 400mm performs much better. But it should, it's a newer lens. I also didn't mention the 100 - 400mm is an Image Stabilization lens. As Will points out, the 100mm range can get you too close to large mammals. But with birds it's a different story. You can almost never get too close to a wild bird. So, it may boil down to how you feel about changing lenses. If you hate it, get the 35 - 350mm, if not, the 100 - 400mm IS. Either way you'll get great shots of your geese.

Jeff

Anyone try a Sigma 50-500mm looks killer and would seem a blast to use- anyone try one?

(seems very versatile)

There was a post here recently mentioning the Sigma 50-500mm and I just searched and couldn't find his post. Lost in the crash, I guess. But, if I remember correctly, he was not overall pleased with the Sigma lens. But I can't remember if it was size, weight, sharpness or what, that he didn't like. You could probably try one at B & H. Shoot some things with the stock lens, the Canon 70-300mm and the Sigma. I would think it would match the 70-300mm Canon pretty well.

Jeff

I just purchased the 100-400 USM.
Worth every extra penny IMO.

I have to mention, as everyone usually does, a GOOD
tripod is vital. You won't be hand holding this combo at 400
and getting anything but trash.

I use a vinten vision 3 and I can good footage (when I'm good
and lucky) following Osprey in flight. I've been to NAB and
tried every single tripod made. I chose vinten.

The weakness of the vinten vision 3 is the tripod plate and the
way it attaches. It is pretty poor considering the rest of the unit.

Also, plan on making a plate that will enable you to bolt not only
the XL1 to it, but the lens to it as well. The vinten plate attaches to
that plate.

Good luck!

Thanks for all the advice.

I've asked to test the Canon 75 to 350mm, 100-400mm and the Sigma 50-500mm.

With reference to Jacques post. I recall reading somewhere – I though it was this forum but can't find the post - that the 75-350mm, unlike the 100-400mm and I assume the Sigma, does not need a the extra support of a tripod plate to bolt onto both the lens and xl1. In other words its safe just hanging from the front of the camera.

Is this correct? As I would like to have the option of changing lenses quickly, which a plate attached to both lens and camera would hinder.

Thanks again.

It can be mounted without additional support. The lens does not have it's own tripod mounting adapter. However, from expierence, I would recommend building your own lens support. Maximum sharpness can only be attained through the use of additional support. At 300mm (that's over 40x magnification) a breeze can vibrate the lens.

Jeff

As Jeff says, the 75-300 will work without a plate between the camera and the lens. I haven't compared the specs., but it is about like the normal lens as far as physical characteristics go except that the front barrel section has some play to it and the combination of this and the high magnification results in vibration in strong wind, but it works quite well in most conditions and the IS feature can help eliminate much of the jiggle. The camera is very easy to carry with this lens attached.

Well I've just tried the Canon 50mm USM and Canon 100 Macro lenses- I found the Macro to be a bit less useful in that it magnifies the images too much and quite a distance is needed to keep the objects in focus- the Canon 75-300 USM seems to do much the same but with less effort and closer focusing......the 50mm is an excellent alternative to the stock lens but with a marked improvement in sharpness- it's probably an awesome lens for interviews and can be handheld....so far the 75-300mm remains my favorite- although I hear the 100-400 is the true "star" amongst the EOS lenses...I'm gonna try a few Sigma macros and get back to you guys......

Steve

Can you tell a little more about your expierence with the 100 macro? I was considering that lens. It is supposed to be one of the sharpest Canon makes. Any comments or impressions would help.

Jeff