I've seen conflicting information about what functions of a Canon EF lens are passed to a XL1/Xl1S via the EF adapter XL. Can someone give me a definitive answer?
autofocus, iris, image stabilization, zoom?

Thanks.

Hi all,

finally looking at adding an EF lens adapter to our gear for extra-long lenses. Canon's site has a strange comment:

"The optional EF Adapter fits onto the XL1S allowing use of Canon EOS EF lenses for quality still imaging."

Am I missing something? Is this adapter ONLY for still images? Does anyone out there have any experience with it?

Thanx in advance,
Chris

NO you can shot video as you would with the the xl1 lens.

I am interested in purchasing the EF adapter and a telephoto lens for my XL1.

Has anyone out there had any experience with this? I would like to get the
75-300mm or 100-400mm. However, because of the 7.2 multiplication factor
on still lenses I was worried that the setup would shake so much it might not be usable. I would be using it for surf and wildlife videography.

Also, on the longer telephotos, the lense mounts to the tripod, seems like a lot of weight for the XL1 body to be hanging off the end of the lense.

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

while on the subject.......can non-Canon EOS compatible lenses be used such as Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc....and do they retain auto focus when used on the XL or strictly manual focus?

Any SLR lens used with the XL1 and the relevent adapter will be manual focus only. As for sigma, tokina etc, I'm not aware of an adapter but they honestly don't have the quality of glass that would warrent using them. The standard XL lens is far better than any of those lenses. There is an adapter for Canon FD lenses which is a cheaper alternative to EF (EOS) lenses.

For surfing, I use a 70-200/f2.8L and it's fantastic. It gives and equalivant to about 500 - 1450mm and I find it more than ample for shooting surfing.

What are the differences between EF and FD lenses- are they both slr lenses for cameras?

As for Sigma, Tokina, Tamron- i'd have to disagree- some 3rd party upper end lenses have optics on par with the OEM (Canon, Nikkor) lenses- professionals today use them quite frequently- but of course the OEM brands are always more desireable, more expensive and retain their resale value- other than that 3rd party lenses work great.

I'm interested in finding out what a FD lens is and what they were used for....any words?

I'm interested in learning more about the value of using my existing Carl Zeiss 35mm SLR lenses on the XL1S (hope to get it later this month).

I understand the adapter marketed by ZGC.com costs about $6,500 (at least, I think it does). That's quite expensive.

These are my Zeiss lenses: 28 mm, 60mm macro, 85mm, 135mm, 180mm. Not really understanding what those lenses might bring to my pending XL1S setup, would it behoove me to really consider the 35mm lens adapter?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

Zeiss lens are world class and some other manufacturers as well. I own a Contax 645 that uses Zeiss lens, its great for medium format.. the photos I get back oozes with definition, fidelity and eye popping colors..

My Canon lens are not match for it. I do own a few L lens and they are great, they are great to work with when you are on the run, its autofocus is blistering quick. In regards to Sigma/Tokina/Tamron lens, I own a 17-35mm Sigma EX and it performs just as good as the Canon equivalent costing twice as much. Only gripe I have about the Sigma is the lack of full time manual focus...

I'll be interested to see if the EF adaptor really works as well as my theory: Consider you will be using only 1/7th of the 35mm lens area, I dont think you will get any barrel or pincushioning distortion at all! Digital SLRs have multipliers of 1.3 - 1.6! Using smaller areas of the lens usually eliminates the problems of zoom lens. If you were to use a medium format lens, the division effect will be even greater! 50mm (in 35mm format) = 80mm (in 120 format)... Straight lines will be perfectly straight! Can anyone back up my theory?

Regards,

I have used the Canon L2 (predecessor to the XL-1) since 1997 and have used the eos adapter with that camera extensively for wildlife videography. The L2 has a 5.4 multiplication factor. I ordinarily use a 35-350mm Canon L zoom which gives me an equivalent to a 35mm lens of 189mm-1,890mm ( Ihope my math is right). This is extremely usable when the camera is mounted on a sturdy tripod. Strong winds will cause problems with shake and one must be very careful to control breathing, etc . It requires experience and practice to get good results with this outfit, but it will open a new world to you. It is possible to capture footage that has smashing impact. I have also used the canon 2x extender with this rig and it too is usable but I prefer to avoid it if possible.
I have also used a Sigma 170-500 zoom and a Canon 75-300 IS zoom. The 75-300 is about the same size as the normal lens that came with the camera and is used by mounting the camera directly to the tripod. The big Sigma and the 35-350mm Canon are mounted directly to the tripod by means of the tripod ring and of course the camera hangs on the end of this. I have carried this type of outfit for five years now with no problems to the camera from hanging on the big telephotos, but one would no doubt damage it if they mounted the camera to the tripod ,and then put the lens on the camera, letting the telephotos weight pull down on the lens mount.
I always use manual focus with these lenses. In fact I usually use it with the normal lens. The XL-1s may be better in this area and I hope to find out as I intend to get one within a month or so. I hope you find this information helpful. This set-up may require some effort to master but in my mind the results you will obtain far outweigh any inconvienence
As a closing thought the 35-350 is not the sharpest of Canon's lenses but it is good. I picked it because it has a relaticely wide low-end and is a fairly powerful telephoto on the high end. It is sometimes difficult to find an animal or bird with the small field of view of the telephotos. I often zoom out to locate the subject and then zoom back in to my desired composition. I do find that with practice one can also use a75-300 or 100-400, but be aware that at least with my rig, that eos image stabalization lenses will consume a lot of eos adapter batteries while they last almost forever with non IS lenses.
Hope this helps!

thanks for that post- was just the info i was looking for-

a good Sigma or Tokina 70-300 or 400 should do the trick.

The FD lens range is the predesessor to the current EF(EOS) range. The lenses are all manual focus but that's not a problem as when you hang any SLR lens of the XL1 it's only manual.

I'm not against 3rd party lenses, I've got a Sigma 90/f2.8 Macro that's a fantastic, but unless you really need huge focal lengths you won't gain anything as the XL lens is still a great piece of glass.

I shot surfing with it (on manual) for ages with great results before getting the EOS adapter and hanging my 70-200 of my XL1. The only reason I changed was for the better glass in the L series lens I already had.

Remember your multiplication factor, a 400mm will yeild an approx lenth of almost 3000mm. Do you plan to shoot the zits on young surfers faces in New Zealand?

Good luck, hope you get good waves.

I'd like to thank everyone for their posts to my questions on using the EF adapter on the XL1 with long telephotos.

I spoke to a Canon tech rep in new York who also gave me the following info: The EF lenses do work with Image Stablization but not as good as the video lens that comes with the camera. Their rule of thumb on mounting the lens and camera body to the tripod is... if it's a black lens mount the body to the tripod and if it's a white lens mount the lens to the tripod. Also don't leave the MA 100 or MA 200 on the back of the body as that adds extra stress on the adapter ring. Use a heavy tripod!

Thanks again to everyone.

Larry Olsen

sounds scary all this hanging things off eachother. I've
got no experience with such systems at all, but there
is much $$$ hanging off eachother :) ... I've read some-
where that they use some support system in the
"professional" film world to support both the lens
*and* the camera. I think I saw such a system too once
for the XL1 on one of chris' pages. Perhaps he can comment
some more on this. It might be an interesting option
for you (although I believe those systems tend to be
expensive)

Good luck!

the problem with manual lenses on the xl1 is that you must rely on the cheesy lcd viewfinder to set focus... which doesn't work because there isn't enuf resolution; it's a guessing game as to whether or not the focus is perfectly correct.

if you are shooting something like motorsports or even surfing, you'll need a lens that has the ability to hold focus thruout the entire zoom range... which the factory xl1 lense does not do well.

i would really like to know if the people using eos lenses and the like are able to set focus once, then zoom around with ease... does it hold focus, and is there a motorized zoom option with those still lenses?

thanks,

dan
oceanstreetvideo.com

I have been using the XL1 for wildlife
videography for a year and a half. During that
time, I have used the stock lens, a Sigma 50-500,
and a 150-600 FD Canon lens. Both the Sigma and
the FD lenses produced a better quality picture
than the stock lens. Several friends of mine who
use the 100-400 Canon also feel its picture
quality is better than a stock lens. I have not
used the stock XL1S lens yet, so I can't comment.

As for stability, I mounted the Sigma and XL1 to
a 1/4 in. aluminum plate, which worked much
better than the XL1 hanging off the back of the
lens.

I have also had a problem focusing using the
stock viewfinder. The cheap fix is the
VariZoom 5.6 monitor, though there are issues
with glare when shooting outdoors. The expensive
fix is the Fujinon black and white viewfinder.

The particular 150-600 FD lens that I now use will
hold focus if you zoom all the way in, focus, then
pull back. I've been looking into 35mm motion
picture lenses since they hold focus. If anybody
has any information on 35mm SLR zoom lenses of
400mm or greater, that hold focus, please join in.

I have been using the EOS Adapter with EF lenses for wildlife video for several years, and find the system works well. If you can afford the 100-400 zoom it gives a crisper image than the 75-300, but the latter works fine, and better than a second market lens (Tokina 80-300) that I have used. A sturdy tripod is absolutely essential. Lightweight won't keep down the shaking.
I have found no strain on the XL-1 couplings with the 75-300 lens, but always take it off in the car because of the constant vibration while driving. Larger lenses need a support like Wolfwatcher's aluminum plate (mine is plywood). As mentioned several times, the real problem with the XL-1 and these lenses is the viewfinder. One little trick may be of use. If your subject has a really light area, even a tiny one that will show zebra stripes, the stripes max out in intensity at best focus.

Steve Siegel
seiurusvideo.com

So.... is there a commercially available solution for supporting the Canon 35-300 L lens when used with XL1s?
Canon techs say it needs some support but they have no off the shelf solution.

actually the lens is Canon's 35-350 L Zoom ....weight 3 + lbs.

A point to remember is that it really doesn't matter what size lens you attach the XL-1s to as long as the lens is what is attached to the tripod. There is no more strain on the adapter or the camera lens mount with a 600F4 than with say a 70-200mm 2.8 L lens.
As I said previously the 35-350mm works extremely well on the old L2 with no problems in the lens mount area for five years. Tape transport problems yes, leaking capacitors yes, but no problems caused by unsupported use of big telephotos. Admittedly the XL-1s weighs somewhat more--3lbs 11 15/16 oz. without battery compared to the L2 weight of 3.1 lb.
Is this enough additional weight to make a significant difference, I don't know ,but I intend to find out shortly. It logically boils down to three possibilities. 1. The XL-1s is not constructed as strongly as the L2 2.The slightly heavier weight of the XL-1s is just enough more to cause problems with the big lenses 3.There is no need to use additional support to prevent damage.
If someone says that the support they use reduces shake, I will not argue that point.
If one uses a support plate does this slow down changing lenses? If I understand the principle the plate would be attached to both the lens and the camera and then the plate attached to the tripod so the entire outfit would have to be dis-assembled to change lenses. I do like to use the normal lens when possible and find this to be a real problem.
At any rate I intend to get the XL-1s soon and I will report back if I notice a difference in vulnerability of this camera compared to the L2 once I have had some experience with it.
Will

Hi,

Maybe you can help me:
I am thinking about buying the EF-adapter because I have a range of Sigma and Tamron lenses (both european) which I use with my Canon EOS 300 camera, so the mount must be the same. But will it really work? The answer I got from Canon was not very helpful (they said, it might or it might not work).

Cheers, Peter

They should work fine Peter. As they aren't a Canon product they can't gatentee they'll work as they probably haven't tested them.

A couple of points using the EF adapter though.

1. The lens focal length is increased by a factor of 7.5. eg a 50mm lens will become a 375mm lens.

2. The lenses will be MANUAL focus only.

3. Unless you have a specific reason for using these lenses, eg you need a huge focal length for shooting wildlife, save your money and just stick to the XL lens, you get auto focus, image stabilization, and the optics are probably better.

Thanks for your advice, Adrian.

I know the use for these over-the-top sniper-like focal lengths is a little limited, but a friend of mine is studying biology and will be on a field trip this summer and me and my XL1 will follow her through the wilderness.

and btw, it sounds kinda cool if you can impress people by telling them you´ve got a 2100mm lens. :-)

Peter

ANYONE HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH CANON 100-400 L SERIES LENS WITH XL1S? OR XL1. IN REALITY HOW USEFUL ARE THE LONGER ZOOMS LIGHTWISE?
HOW DO YOU THINK IT WOULD COMPARE WITH STANDARD LENS USING IN LINE EXTENDER ANS SAY A CENTURY DOUBLER IF NEEDED?
Regards
Rick Banfield

Rick, please turn off your caps lock. No need to shout. ;-)

I believe you're referring to the white IS lens, with image stabilization. I've often thought that this particular lens might be perfect for the XL1, with an effective focal length of 720mm to over 2800mm (remember the focal length of EOS lenses is multiplied by a factor of 7.2 when used on the XL1).

But my Canon Professional Services friends have advised me that this lens is not best suited for tripod use, and any EOS lens on the XL1 should be used on a tripod. So I'm looking into the Canon EOS 35mm to 300mm IS zoom lens and also the 70mm to 200mm IS zoom lens. The one thing about the 100-400 you mentioned is that it's more affordable at appx. $1500USD, vs. more than $1800USD for the others.

You can use them with extenders but you must have a bright, sunny day and absolutely rock-solid tripod mounting. I don't know how useful these extreme focal lengths are, considering they're multiplied by 7.2 on the XL1/XL1S, beyond say wildlife videography or surveillance work. Hope this helps,

I'm pretty pleased with the canon 1.6x on the MK II lens. I've been a bit gunshy re: the focus concerns, but I think I'm about to be over it after my next shoot. Still uses the stabil, and AF, which is nice. Not to mention, they are mated. I'm still debating the <$300 nikon lens adapter because of losing those features. However, a single focal length lens might be sharper than a zoom. If I can manually focus (I'm lazy, I like push AF).

Back focus, me thinks, WILL work on this rig. I keep seeing different focusing as I zoom, but on my last tests, I think that backfocusing WILL work like a charm. (ie- zoom in 100%, push AF, and Zoom out [back off] to the right framing)

My last test revealed to my eyes, that Backfocusing works best (as it is supposed to). Truth will be in the shoot. Wish me skill!!!!!!!

That is unless they are the paronoid type who thinks you'll be down the street spying on them.

Umm... sorry but the focus method you're describing, a good one I might add, is actually called "critical focus." Backfocus is an entirely different thing altogether -- it's an adjustment of the back element of the lens in order to calibrate the whole lens assembly. You should only have to adjust backfocus very rarely, and usually on a test bench.

The act of finding Critical Focus, however, is an excellent practice to get into whenever you set up for a shoot, and is done exactly as you describe... zoom all the way in on the most distant object, set focus, and pull out to proper framing -- everything will remain in focus when you change focal length (that is, zoom in or out). Thanks,

Rick, I'm using this setup (Canon 100-400mm on XL1) now for surf and wildlife footage. It's works great. The picture is much cleaner than the stock lens. However, you must use a sturdy tripod (I'm using a Mathews) and practice awhile. I found that a light touch on the tripod handle is a must, otherwise there is a lot of shaking.

The IS feature on the lens does not work well, during any pans the lens wants to "hunt" after the pan.

I also made a bracket to fit between the lens and the camera body because there is too much weight hanging off the back of the lens when mounted to the tripod. I tried finding an off the shelf bracket that would work but couldn't find anything.

I've shot footage at sunrise and sunset without a lighting problem. Also this lens will not work with extenders.

Howdy from Texas,

<< during any pans the lens wants to "hunt" after the pan >>

Yes, this is exactly what Canon Professional Services described to me, and how they convinced me that this particular IS lens is not the best choice for the XL1. So I guess I'm looking into the 35-300 IS.

Just when I thought I had the answer! There is always another factor!
Thank you, esp. Larry Olsen and I found your original inquiry and the replys from others. Today I was looking at the EF 70-200L f2.8 (fixed) IS USM Lens.
Any comment about using this with a doubler on the front if avail..Century? as opposed to the 100-400L zoom same price here in Australia.
How many f/stops do you lose with the EF adapter?
The deer I film in NZ and Australia are nearly nocturnal and light is constantly a problem.
I would not normally pan at long focal lengths, so would the stabilizer "do its job" for wind and "heartbeat pounding" whilst turned on, even with tripod mount?
Regards from Phillip Island
Australia
Rick Banfield

Hey Rick,

My aunt and uncle have a house there in Cowes, probably right next door to you.

You won't lose F stops with the EF Adapter, the only thing that changes is the focal length.

Further to part of my last message...do you lose any light with EF adapter?
Rick Banfield

Chris, the "hunting" this lens does is similar to what happens with the stock lens when OIS is turned on and the camera is mounted on a tripod, only much more pronounced. So I'm not sure if it is possible to use any lens with the IS turned on while mounted on a tripod. Anyway, I just leave the IS off. Plus it is much easier to focus this lens compared to the stock 16x.

Even with this problem I have had some excellent results with the lens and I needed as much telephoto as I could get without turning it into a telescope. The main thing that helped was using a much sturdier tripod. I switched from a Bogen 503 to a Libec H60 made by Mathews and some good sticks.

Rick, there is no f stop loss with the EF adapter. The 100-400mm lens is 4.5 to 5.6 and that range is available when mounted on the Xl1.

There is still a certain amount of "hunting" even without panning. It also is more pronounced at the extreme telephoto. I just leave the IS off and learn how to breath right.

I don't have any experience with the Century doublers but the more glass you put in between the lens and the chip the more you will effect the overall quality of the pix. The quality of the picture from the 100-400mm is excellent.

I was considering the canon EF adapter..

Will i be able to use any SLR lense?

I have a 50-200mm zoom and a standard 50mm i want to use..

the reasons being is that i would like to get a better depth of field
in close-up interior shots.

does anybody know?

To use the EF adapter you have to use an EF-compatible lens.

As to depth of field, you will get the depth of field associated with the lens, by the field of view will also correspond to that focal length. What this means is that a 200 mm lens will produce a field of view that is similar to a 1400 mm telephone on at 35 mm still camera. The 50mm similar to a 350 mm telephoto.

i see..

i assume EF lenses are readily available to buy individually?

how do you know what EF lenses are? what makes them differ from standard
35mm lenses?

if so i would be interested in buying the smallest mm size lense
to compinsate for the focal gain of the adapter. that way i wouldnt
have to shoot from far away to get the close up i would need.
is that possible?

thanks for the reply.

EF lenses are Canon lenses specifically for their EOS range of SLR cameras. They are buy no means a cheap lens. The widest lens in the EF range is a 14mm ultra ultra wide and will set you back around US$2200 + the EOS adapter. This will yeld aprox 105mm in 35mm terms.

In my opinion you'd be better off just getting the 3x wide lens made for the XL1. For more info read the Pappas Method article on the Watchdog.

Hello, I will buy a Xl1S very soon, but I can't afford to buy the manual X16 Zoom (but I want a manual/mechanical focus).

I already bought a second hand EOS adapter, and after seeing the article on the "pappa's system", I thougt it might be possible to use an EOS Zoom instead of buying the expensive Canon manual X16. But...
there is the 7.2X factor on the adaptor.
So is there anyone to manage to get a system as the "pappa's system", but working with a zoom with the equivalent of a 40mm at wide position (or even larger?)

Let me know if there is a way to do this.
Thanks

Just curious, which Canon 35mm EOS lenses do you have? You'll be giving up any ability to do smooth motorized zooms with this method. Plus you'll have nothing but telephoto focal lengths due to the 7.2x multiplication factor. The ability to use an EOS lens on the XL1 is mainly beneficial for wildlife and surveillance videography. Beyond that, it doesn't have much practical purpose. If you can't afford the 16x manual lens, then the standard 16x auto lens should serve you quite well. I use it all the time on paying jobs. Hope this helps,

Due to the 7.2x multiplication factor of the focal length, using a Canon EOS lens on the XL1 will prevent you from doing any kind of serious indoor close-up work, unless you can position the camera from a long way away, down a long hall or several rooms over. Plus you'll need to add a lot of light. This particular set-up is best suited for outdoor long-distance wildlife or surveillance work. You'll have a difficult time using it indoors, and the close-ups will be *extreme* as in microscopic.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Just curious, which Canon 35mm EOS lenses do you have? You'll be giving up any ability to do smooth motorized zooms with this method. Plus you'll have nothing but telephoto focal lengths due to the 7.2x multiplication factor. -->>>

I've got a 28/70 and a 70/300, but I'm ready to buy a 15/80 or else if I can find a way to compensate the 7.2X adapter factor with a 0.3X converter or else.
In this particular case, I will have a 32/172 fully manual lens without the cost of the canon manual 16X, and added possibilities of the Eos adapter.
It sounds to me a pretty good solution, except I need to find a 0.3 converter which can be fit onto a widezoom photo lens.
I don't think something bigger (like a 0.2 converter :-) ) is existing.

If anyone know a good (and cheaper than canon 16X manual) combination of zoom photo lens and converter to fit on, I'll be glad to heard about it :-)

I'm not sure if Canon have a 15-80 EF lens. The widest Zoom I'm aware of is a 16-35mm and it costs around the same as the 16x Manual Servo Lens. If I'm wrong please point me in the direction of the 15-80 as I'd be interested in it for my still work.

Everyone speak of the 7.2x focal length multiplier, as if it were a teleconverter.
Actually, the focal length remains essentailly the same, it is just that most lenses intended for a 35mm still camera are rather longer focal length than the video lenses used with the 1/3" CCD so the CCD sees a much narrower field of view. When enlarged to the same image size on the display it has a telephoto sort of effct.

Consider the standard lens at 5.5mm. It produces a field of view similar to a 40mm lens on a 35mm still camera, a field-of-view factor of about 7.2

<<<-- Originally posted by afterburnerDV : I'm not sure if Canon have a 15-80 EF lens. The widest Zoom I'm aware of is a 16-35mm and it costs around the same as the 16x Manual Servo Lens. -->>>

I've no idea if there is a 15-80 or not, it was just for exemple!

But, I just saw a Sigma (cheaper but still very good) 17-35 lens at about 400$.

Now, I need to find the second part:
a 0.3X lens converter (82mm diameter filter mount)
That's the difficult part :-)


Nobody ever try this before???

The Sigma is a great ultra wide lens. I used one a few times in Canada for shooting some halfpipe stills. It had a max apature of F2.8-4. It should work well but the 82mm dia will cause some problems in finding a WA converter

Maybe it's possible to use an adapter ring from 82 to the larger 0.3 avaliable (like the Century fisheye).
I'm not sure if there is problem of vignetting, because the lense is only used at its center.

I posed the following questions to Michael Pappas, perhaps some here may be able to answer the following questions as well:

I am going to be shooting an indie film this summer. For obvious reasons we don't want to use the standard 16x lens. We are now debating between the "Pappas System" with the EOS lenses and a standard 14x manual lens. I can see that with a 15mm EOS lens and the .42x adapter it is possible to achieve the equivalent of a 45mm lens. We will be shooting in a house, and will need to be at times, a lot wider than 45mm. Now here are my questions:

Q. What is the best way to accomplish a wide angle? Use the 14x manual and the .42x wide angle adapter? Or just use the Canon 3x Wide Angle Lens for the XL1?

Q. How is the depth-of-field affected with the EOS lenses? I would assume the depth-of-field becomes a lot shallower with the 35mm lens. What has been your experience?

Q. How is the depth-of-field affected in the "Pappas System?" With the light passing through a wide angle lens, then an EOS lens, and then the .42x adapter, how does this affect the depth-of-field? I see that with the 15mm EOS lens it becomes the equivalent of a 45mm lens... does the depth-of-field correspond to that as well?

Q. Is more light needed in general with the EOS lenses compared to the standard or manual video lenses to obtain the same exposure?

Q. On another topic. The only real place I know of in LA to rent Canon and XL1 related DV equipment is Samy's Camera in Hollywood. Is there any other places that you know of that rent a lot of DV equipment, lenses, and adapter like those I've mentioned?

Apollo

Howdy from Texas,

<< For obvious reasons we don't want to use the standard 16x lens. >>

What are those reasons, because they're not obvious to me. Steven Soderbergh just shot a feature in which 85% of the material comes from an XL1S with the standard 16x lens.

<< Q. What is the best way to accomplish a wide angle? Use the 14x manual and the .42x wide angle adapter? Or just use the Canon 3x Wide Angle Lens for the XL1? >>

Not possible to accomplish wide angle with an EOS lens on the XL1. Best to use the Canon 3x lens, or a wide angle adapter on a longer 14x or 16x lens. For example Soderbergh used a Century Optics .7x on the 16x standard lens.

<< Q. Is more light needed in general with the EOS lenses compared to the standard or manual video lenses to obtain the same exposure? >>

Yes, because different EOS lenses have different minimum apertures. Only the most expensive EOS lens are anywhere near as fast as the video lens. Most have minimum apertures of f/2.8, f/3.5, f/4 etc.

The Pappas System idea which Michael submitted many many moons ago was basically a work-around which served before the Canon 14x even existed. These days, it would be more expensive to implement, and less considerably effective, than nearly any other lens option.

<< Q. On another topic. The only real place I know of in LA to rent Canon and XL1 related DV equipment is Samy's Camera in Hollywood. Is there any other places that you know of that rent a lot of DV equipment, lenses, and adapter like those I've mentioned? >>

Most be several in L.A. but Birns & Sawyer comes to mind right away.