I am at the point of purchasing an XL1s, but I can't afford two lenses at the moment.

What would be the most versitile lens to purchase -- the "standard" automatic lens or the manual lens.

I will be using the camera for documentary/live event coverage more than formal cinematic dramatic story telling.

Hands down the standard 16x IS II Auto lens. It's far more versitile than the Manual Lens and isn't anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be. In fact 80% of XL1 users never need anything more.

Later you might want to buy the 3x lens or a Wide Angle converter like the ones from Century Optics.

I agree with Adrian. The new 16x auto lens is optically identical to the 16x manual focus lens but the auto lens has image stabilization and servo focus. With practice I've learned to use the focus ring on this lens. As is recommended, for critical work, don't rely on the autofocus feature except to push the auto-focus button while the lens is static(not panning).

In fact if you are doing interviews or shooting in tight spots, I would go with the 3x. I don't know how you could manage without it.

I'm in the same boat. I'm ready to get an XL1s, but can't afford 2 lenses at the moment. I've read some pretty good things about the new 16x, so it seems rather than buying the body only and paying $1200 for the 3X (bringing the total to $4700 vs $3600 w/16xII) I might be better off sticking with the stock 16x and getting by with an adaptor. I do prefer using wide shots alot, so the 3X does make sense, but if I were to get the 3X and the new 16X II later, I'd have to shell out $1500 for it.

Has anyone compared used the CAVISION .6X adaptor yet? Has anyone compared it to the Century Optics adaptor that Soderburgh chose? My understanding is the CAVISION is full zoom through and the Century .6X is only partial. I did buy a Kenko WA at some point that wasn't really adequate in quality. How will these adaptors stack up against the quality of the 3X? Doesn't Canon make a WA for the 16X II? How does it compare with the other two options above?

Thanx,

Skip Hunt

a wide angle adapter will NEVER give you the same optical quality and image resolution that you can get from a single lens design.

I'm aware of this, but I'm curious if we're talking night and day difference? Or, just being a bit sharper all the way out to the edge? Has anyone tried any of the WA adaptors on the XL1s? In particular, the Cavision .6X, the Century .6X, the Optex, and the Canon wide adaptor?

Skip Hunt

Has anybody read why Soderberg chose the Century adapter for his wide-angle work in "Full Frontal"? Is this add-on really that good that he wouldn't use the 3x or whatever else he could afford?

dave

I believe he used the 16X Standard XLII Auto Lens because of the image stabalization. He probably wanted to still have image stabalization which would be lost if he used 3x Lens. I'm not sure though. I'm considering purchasing the Century Optics Wide Angle for my 16X Manual Lens if it is compatable.

Good point about the Image Stabilizer. I guess I assumed that the 3x lens had it already...duh. Have there been any sites with comparison frames comparing the Canon 3x against the add-on lens attachment? TIA, dave

We should probably work this up for the Watchdog sometime soon. There is a review of the 3x lens compared to the 16x. Articles Menu > Lens & Optics on the Watchdog at www.dvinfo.net/xl1.htm

Funny, How I'm bringing this tread back up but I have to tell you guys, the 3X is the way to go. 80% of the time its my 3X but thats because its whats required for what I'm doing. I have my 16X auto, if anyone wants to buy it off me for I'll sell it. Its only been used about 3 times. Anyway... if you use a tripod you have to turn the image stab off or else the picture just drifts and drifts and drifts. If you ask me its a poor algorythm.