I read the in depth review of the manual servo lens on the XL1 Watchdog, but still have some questions for anyone who can answer any (or all) of them...

- Does the lens produce a sharper image than the standard 16x II lens? If so, is it a small difference or a more noticeable difference?

- Does the weight of the lens truly make hand-held shooting extremely difficult (as suggested in the review)? If so, what do you use to support the cam for handheld use?

- Does the manual servo lens have any effect on low light performance when compared to the standard lens?

- If you boost the sharpness to the limit and use this lens, does it equal the sharp look of Sony cams like the PD150?

- I've read that the XL1S can't handle high contrast lighting as well as a PD150...I assume this is still the case with this lens (being an electronic issue, I presume)?

Thanks!

Hiya Bill!

Welcome to DVinfo.net! How goes everything in the Mount Washington Valley? You may remember me from RSN.com. I used to love reading your movie review columns in the Daily Sun! That was you, right? Is Herbie Schneider still gracing the slopes on Mt Cranmore? I hope so,,, I'll never forget one morning, as we rode the Red Triple up to the top of the mountain. Hearing his wonderful stories and seeing him ski so skillfully, and so effortlessly, was such an inspiration to me. Is Joe Quirk still running the Majestic Theatre? Say hello to him for me when you can!

>>>>>>- Does the lens produce a sharper image than the standard 16x II lens? If so, is it a small difference or a more noticeable difference?

- Here's a simple test for you to look at. Straight frame grabs from tape, no color correction or processing of any kind, just simple file conversion to a standard JPEG file. All I did was add text so you would know which image came from which lens. Shot in standard Movie Mode. (turn off Image "Fit to screen" if you are using a PeeCee)
http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo

>>>>>>- Does the weight of the lens truly make hand-held shooting extremely difficult (as suggested in the review)? If so, what do you use to support the cam for handheld use?

- Naw. Let's be clear, the XL1S is not exactly a 'handycam' form factor. On that note, it is still extremely light and easy to move about when compared to the larger shoulder cams. I grew up on a large, heavy BetaCam, so the XL1S is a treat for me to use in that regard. I have no problem with it. I just wish we had the opportunity to use the XL1S way back when I was shooting on skiis with RSN. Back then, we were shooting with the much larger Panasonic SuperCam as well as a BetaCam on occasion. The XL1S is milestones more sensitive in low light than those cameras were.

>>>>>>- Does the manual servo lens have any effect on low light performance when compared to the standard lens?

- Nope. More or less the same thing really.

>>>>>>- If you boost the sharpness to the limit and use this lens, does it equal the sharp look of Sony cams like the PD150?

- Not exactly. Boosting up the sharpness setting all the way will induce some noise artifacts. Keep it to about 2-3 notches above default for that kind of stuff. If you are shooting with the XL1S -and- a PD150, then I would suggest dialing down the sharpness on the PD150 a wee bit. I'd much rather have the Canon 16X Manual/ Servo lens than the lens on the PD150, especially when pointing the camera up a slope at skiers and such.

>>>>>>- I've read that the XL1S can't handle high contrast lighting as well as a PD150...I assume this is still the case with this lens (being an electronic issue, I presume)?

- I have yet to have any tangible problem in that regard worth mentioning.

Bill, I hope this info helps!

Do tell us what you are up to and what you are looking to do with your next camera.

Happy shooting,

- don

Don:

Yep, that's me. No more movie column, alas. RSN bought an XL1 a few years ago, BTW.

Thanks for those resolution shots. I really didn't notice much difference between them. Is that normal or is my monitor not sharp enough?

Wouldn't the manual servo lens on the XL1S be hard to keep from shaking when in telephoto mode?

Basically, I shoot with a Sony DSR250 and love it, but am looking at smaller cams that still have a professional "look". The XL1S sounds good, but I've read so many horror stories about the standard 16x II lens having back focus problems and poor autofocus that I'm wary of the camera. That's why I asked about the manual servo lens. It sounds like a good lens, but I'm worried about it being too front heavy to hold in telephoto zoom settings when not on a tripod. You thoughts? Should I wait for an XL2?

The thing that drove us nuts about the auto-focus 16x lens is the inability to consistently shift focus manually as when panning from a distant object to a closer one. We found the auto-focus usually had trouble racking accurately and the focus ring, when in manual, had no feel at all. Once we got the manual 17X lens the autofocus lens was permanently retired...now if we could get a manual 3x...

Yes, at maximum telephoto the manual 16X is hard to hold steady but no more than any other camera/lens combo at that magnification. If a tripod or even a monopod is out of the question, look into the Glidecam 4000 Pro...we've had reasonably good luck with it.

Bill,
I certainly can't add much to Don's usual thoughtful, detailed post. (Whew, nice res chart comparison, Don!)

No, there's nothing wrong with your monitor; the resolutions are basically identical.

Re: the weight of the lens, yes I noted that it's heavier than the 16x auto...which it is. But the issue with the XL1s is not so much weight as it is balance and center of gravity. Unless you're using, say, an MA-200 with a loaded CH-910 dual battery holder fully extended the majority of the camera/lens weight falls forward. It's more fatiguing to hand-hold than a heavier camera with better shoulder balance.

Iv'e added three more (b-i-g) images, comparing the sharpness between the PANASONIC AJ-DVX100 and the trusty 'ol CANON XL1S with 16X Manual/ Servo lens. The 16:9 letterbox mask on the DVX100 images are generated in-camera, except for the AJ-DVX100 image #3 in "5.jpg"... that one was applied in PhotoShop. On the XL1S images I added the same mask via PhotoShop, much in the same way you would with any decent NLE. The last image "7.jpg" shows the differences in the way each camera handles color.
These shots were taken with each camera in their own version of "Full Auto" mode.
***Again, if you are viewing these images via Windows, turn OFF "Fit Image To Screen" in Internet Exploder.

http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo/5.jpg
http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo/6.jpg
http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo/7.jpg

- don

My 49 yr.old eyes can't see a difference in sharpness or resolution. I can see a marked difference in gamma and saturation, though, on image #7.

Ken,

I'm thinking of not buying the standard lens at all when I get my XL1s (or hopefully XL2). Is there any BIG reason not to just by the 16x manual-servo. It seems to have every thing the other has and more.

Alex,
Many people bypass the 16x Auto lens completely. In fact, I did that when I bought the XL1, although I eventually bought my XL1s with the Auto lens.

As long as you don't feel you will need an image stabilizer and are comfortable (to the extent possible with the XL1s) with the slightly heavier manual lens, then go forth with confidence. Just note that buying the the 16x Auto lens separately can be an expensive proposition, although you may be able to find someone willing to sell one for a good price.

Yeah, ZGC, has several package deals including one with the body, the 16x Manual-Servo, and the FU1000 for about the same as the regular price for the standard kit. So it's really quite easy.

Alex...

Don't bother with the auto lens if you can get a package with the manual lens.

I acquired a manual lens and use it exclusively. Got tired of the focusing problems of the stock lens.

Resolution seems about the same. There's more weight, but that's actually an advantage for handheld shots. The added mass helps reduce shake a bit.

If you absolutely positively need an auto lens, let me know as I have one availble for sale.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

Don,
Do you remember what sharpness settings you were using for the XL1S in these pics? Or were they shot at "normal" sharpness settings?

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Berube : Iv'e added three more (b-i-g) images, comparing the sharpness between the PANASONIC AJ-DVX100 and the trusty 'ol CANON XL1S with 16X Manual/ Servo lens. The 16:9 letterbox mask on the DVX100 images are generated in-camera, except for the AJ-DVX100 image #3 in "5.jpg"... that one was applied in PhotoShop. On the XL1S images I added the same mask via PhotoShop, much in the same way you would with any decent NLE. The last image "7.jpg" shows the differences in the way each camera handles color.
These shots were taken with each camera in their own version of "Full Auto" mode.
***Again, if you are viewing these images via Windows, turn OFF "Fit Image To Screen" in Internet Exploder.

http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo/5.jpg
http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo/6.jpg
http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo/7.jpg

- don -->>>

Normal middle default was used. Sorry for the short reply, I'm typing this on my Treo 600 - still in San Fran at the Moscone Center for Macworld.

does anybody know what size filter to use in this lens? 72 mm

Yes, 72mm like on the auto IS II stock lens.

thanks

I went to the CanonDV (www.canondv.com) site and went to the XL1s,
accessories, lenses and then the manual one. You'll arrive at
this page (http://www.canondv.com/xl1s/a_lenses_16x_manual.html) which lists the complete technical specifications,
including the filter size:

Filter Diameter: 72mm, P0.75 (hood filter diameter: 82mm, P0.75).

Also see Ken's great article (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article82.php) about the lens here @ DVi

Yes, Torrey, it's also a 72mm diameter just like the 16x Auto lens.

I'll soon be purchasing the 16X manual lens for my XL1s, with the intention of using it it for shooting feature-style (dramatic) setups. For those who've been using this lens for a while, do you ever use a measuring tape for establishing focus distance to the subject, then dialing it in on the lens barrel (as is the standard way of doing it on a film set)? If so, what point on the XL1s camera body do you use as the center of focus, equivalent to the "film plane"? Is there a mark provided on the camera? (I haven't seen one.) It seems that most users speak of establishing critical focus with a BW CRT viewfinder, or an external monitor. But is anyone actually measuring it with a tape?

Thanks...

The "film plane" would be established at the CCD block.

All professional film cameras have a small hook attached at the film plane to accomodate a measuring tape. The XL cameras do not have that option and they do not have a mark indicating where the film plane is. I am sure that if you needed to, it would not be too hard to add one to the XL body.

On film shoots, the focus is never, ever, set based solely on a measuring tape. The measuring tape is used as a reference by the Focus Puller. While using wide lenses, it would be OK to use the tape as the DOF will carry give or take a few inches.

When establishing critical focus, the Focus Puller will do a focus check through the lens and mark the barrel accordingly. This will usually be double-checked by the Camera Operator just prior to rolling, as well.

Once the Director yells "ACTION", and the actors and camera start moving, the rest of the focus process is carried out using PFM...for folks not acquainted with this highly technical term, it is an acronym for Pure F*****g Magic!

The B&W eyepiece is the way to go for critical focus. It is extremely sharp.

Unless you are actually pulling focus and not operating, there is really no need to measure with a tape.

RB

Rick...

Thanks for the excellent reply. It was something I was wondering about, and whether anyone bothered with it. I'll be purchasing the 16X manual lens this week.

I recently purchased a used Canon 16x manual lens for my Xl2. It did not come with a manual and I can't find one on Canon's web site. Can someone tell me if there is a recommended method of setting up the back focus.

Do a search, the methods have been discussed many times.

I've recently got back from a full day of testing the Optex Wide angle adapter matched with the Canon 16 X manual lens. My apprehensions about using an adapter - instead of the 3X lens - soon disappeared when I looked closely through all the footage on a big TV screen later that same evening.

My primary concern was sharpness, and I must say that the Optex + 16X produce a superb full-frame picture which is almost undetectable from the 16 X manual without the adapter.

My second concern was that I would need to be constantly adjusting the back-focus screw each time I moved in close or changed positions. This actually wasn't the case, and the Optex gave such an increased depth of field, that I could take some wide-angle scenery footage on a tripod, followed by a sequence of footage interviewing a fisherman beside the river (off the shoulder), and then cut in tight to do a series of takes of only his hands tying knots in the line - all without having to re-adjust back-focus. Sharpness was kept to a high level throughout.

The heavier setup of 16X manual plus Optex (when compared to a 3X lens alone) was not the problem I thought it would be, and in fact it actually helped me maintain stability (combined with the MA-200 secured to the back of the XL1s) during handheld sequences. My partner, on watching the end-of-day footage played back on a big TV screen, actually commented that she thought my handheld footage with the 16X + Optex was filmed while secured to a sturdy tripod…so I’m more than pleased with results!

To cut a long story short, I am very pleased with the quality of the Optex lens matched with the 16X manual lens. The need to sometimes re-adjust the 16X back-focus when you remove the Optex and use the 16X on its own, can be a negative aspect I suppose, but the positive side of this is that at least the manual lens allows very fine adjustments for the setup - something the AF 16X or 3X lenses do not.

Probably the only visual downside of the Optex, was that I noticed the occasional mark showing on the TV screen during sequences when harsh sunlight was streaming in from the side. A later thorough check of my Optex front and rear glass revealed some very minor marks on the large front element (the Optex was bought second-hand as part of a package and I hadn’t noticed these on purchase). For most of the filming, these minute marks do not of course show up, and a very clean, sharp image is maintained.
Results have now made me want to continue to use the Optex for the main filming in USA, but the thought of brighter light during summer could cause a problem during some extreme conditions.
The use of a polarizer - like I often use with 16X lens on its own could help a little to avoid harsh light or reflections bouncing off those minor glass marks, but unfortunately, finding a polarizer filter to fit the huge front element of the Optex is not really an option. The Optex does have a small lip surrounding the outer rim that helps prevent some sidelight, but a true lens shade is really needed to stop almost all harsh light from skimming across the front glass.

The Optex does have a front filter thread, so I may be able to find a very large hood somewhere to screw onto it. My huge 122mm filter that fits the front of my 600mm lens is slightly too large, so I'd think the thread is around 100mm-110mm on the Optex. I was hoping that the large secondary clip-hood on my 300mm f/2.8 would fit the Optex, but it is too loose (and could cause it to vignette). Has anybody any idea of where I can find a super-large lens shade to fit the Optex? I tried phoning Optex, but they do not have anything that fits.

Thanks for the report, most encouraging.

I've just been talking again to Optex headquarters. What I first thought was a thread for filters or hood on the .7X Wide Angle Optic, is in fact a special thread designed to accept another slightly different .7X Wide Angle Optic, that when both are combined, increases the angle of view from 30% with one element, to 50% with two elements.

The reason why Optex do not actually make a lens hood to fit the Optex is mainly due to problems with vignetting. However, I did find out the size of the thread - and that should be (Optex thinks!) the same as the second Wide Angle outer Optic, which is 93mm.

Now all I need to find is a lens hood with a 93mm filter thread which has a cone that doesn't vignette on the .7X Optex...I think I've got more chance of catching a salmon in the Thames! It looks like I'm going to have to try and make my own ultra-large lens shade to fit, or live without one.

I've always thought that this Optex method of combining two single spherical elements to form a powerful wide-angle converter is the wrong way to go. Two elements = 4 more glass surfaces ahead of your VAP.

As you've found out Tony, tiny imperfections in the glass, coating, or minute traces of foreign matter can really begin to shadow the chip at the sort of focal lengths we're dealing with here. Your lens is 5.5 mm at the wide end. With the Optex combo in place you're filming with a focal length of 2.75 mm - that's well under 1/8". The depth of field - even at fairly wide apertures - can come to within millimetres of the front element, and can even come inside it at close focusing distances.

So beware. Avoid using polarisors, UV filters or anything else that presents more air-to-glass surfaces when using these minute focal lengths.

I agree that these very wide-angles can make your shots looksteadier and your hand-held tracking shots look devine. Now one thing you didn't mention was the barrel distortion. Any comments?

tom.

I was recently out on location, testing my lens combinations again. A lot of the time was spent near and around water, testing for reflections in bright conditions, using the polarizer, etc, and then followed by an afternoon testing both the Manfrotto stability, and Reinhardt windsock on the mic during really strong winds blowing across open heath land and hilltops.

To really put the 16X manual and Optex through its paces, I did a lot of shooting with sunlight either in or just outside the frame. It soon became obvious that my setup just didn't cut it. The glare was bad in the Optex, and even showed in a lot of shots using the 16X manual on its own.

I've spent a long time looking at options for shading bright light from my lenses. I could buy an expensive extension hood or bellows shade for the 16X lens, but the large Optex Wide Angle Optic would need a larger and even more expensive shade.

I looked at lots of different options from barn doors to various Matte boxes - all would either vignette or would simply not fit, even with adapters. Above all, the cost for a very large Matte Box system seemed madness!

I thought that this Cavision shade might do the trick, fitted on the outside of the Wide Angle Optex:

http://www.cavision.com/LensHood/LH100w.htm

But it is far too small and wouldn’t stop all the bright sunlight.

Then there is this:

http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/Mattebox.htm

Or a French flag/Shade set-up such as this:

http://www.cavision.com/french_flag_for_3x3.htm

Then I looked at the cinetactics model:

http://cinetactics.com/mb100m-ffl.php#

Now, this looked closer to what I needed; however, the system really has to fit over a hood, and the tiny rim of the Optex is just too narrow. Not only that, but all of the options so far cost king’s ransom, considering what they are made of.

In desperation, before I forked out good money, I cut out a section of black plastic, to the shape of the Cinitactics Matteblox kit (but in larger pattern), and then tried to fit it to the Optex. No way, it just wouldn’t hold in place or work well…I’m glad I didn’t order the complete kit plus adapters etc!

Another thought went through my mind - When I was filming beside the lake - with lens pointing slightly towards a sun that sent shafts of bright light across the front of the large glass element (making the footage look like I had a fog filter over the lens!) - it only needed my hand held out high and to the front of the lens, to block out all sparks of sunlight…all internal glass reflections disappeared, bringing back full contrast and deep, saturated colours back to the scene.

It is OK to hold out your hand for a static scene on a tripod, but certainly not for slow pans or handheld shooting etc. My mind span at different options…then I thought of a ‘flag’ held on an extended arm. Ebony make such a model for use on Large Format still cameras, shown here:

http://www.ebonycamera.com/acc.html

I ordered one to try. When it arrived, I cut out an extra-large wide crescent shape from a lightweight, semi-stiff sheet of matte-black plastic, and then slipped this between the clamp jaws of the Ebony Shade Holder (The shape, size and stiffness can be made to your requirements and any type of photo shoot).

The Ebony Lens Shade Clip also has a hotshoe foot, so fits nicely inside the Canon XL1s hotshoe mount. The extension of my Light Waves Systems SI-XL1 mount pushes the Ebony clip forward beyond the long 16X manual lens combined with the Optex Wide .7X optic, allowing full shading from bright sunlight, and the small ball & socket joint of the Ebony allows for adjusting the ‘Shade’ to block out light from any angle.

I went out on a really bright and sunny day to give it a full testing on my 16X and Wide Angle Optex. All I can say is…Superb…and it has saved me a packet of money!
The system is so flexible and so lightweight, I can now use it for most of my outdoor shooting and with any lenses I choose.

I am looking to slow down the servo zoom on the 16 X manual lens for some shots (without clicking the zoom manually off servo control). Is it possible to slow the servo zoom right down to a very smooth creep, similar to the autofocus 16X or 20X, by using the ZR-1000, or Vari-zoom?

Ken mentions in his report: "...The 16x Manual Servo lens’ variable-speed servo is capable of producing a good, slow creeping zoom ..."

On servo, the zoom is just one fairly fast speed, so "variable servo zoom" does not seem correct...or did Ken mean variable with the use of the remote?

This lens will zoom fairly slow, though not as slow as the white 16x auto lens. On servo, you should have a feathered zoom with about eight distinct speeds. If you're only getting one speed, it's most likely because you have the camera's internal menu set to govern that zoom speed, so you'll need to change it.

The Canon ZR-1000 will allow you to dial in the slowest speed the lens is capable of, and maintain it or change it as you see fit. These controllers are an absolute neccessity in my opinion, they're well worth the cost.

Chris, Thank you for your answer, it has helped a great deal!

does anybody know where I can find the instructions for the 16x manual zoom lens??

check your mailbox

I appreciate it !!

Ok here's a question about DOF.
I've read the articles on the 16x lens but my question is about DOF. Does the 16x have shallow DOF like the glass on the "big" cameras? I realize how deep this question can be but I'm looking for answers from users of this lens...

Thanks
Steve

Ok here's a question about DOF.
I've read the articles on the 16x lens but my question is about DOF. Does the 16x have shallow DOF like the glass on the "big" cameras? I realize how deep this question can be but I'm looking for answers from users of this lens...

Thanks
Steve


I think the one word answer is, no! See this thread and others, for the whole story.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58363&highlight=16x+manual+depth+field

Good luck----Mike

Thank you Mike,,, that's all I needed,, have a great one

Thank you Mike,,, that's all I needed,, have a great one


Also see this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58244&highlight=dof+16x

basically the longer the lens the better for DOF.

Mike

It's not the lens, it's the size of the imager that determines depth of field...as long as you are using a 1/3" camera (XL1, DVX 100, the HDV cameras, etc.) the depth of field will be the same on all regardless of which lens is in use. This is why devices like the Mini35 and it's knockoffs have become so popular, it's the only way to get the shallow depth of field on a 1/3" camera that one would expect from a 35mm size imager.

It also depends, along with the mm length of the lens used, how wide the aperture/iris opening is set.

From what I understand, you would get less depth of field or the "illusion of sharpness" with the 20x than the 16x because the 20x is a longer lens (now, this is under the assumption you have both lenses zooming out to the most powerful end and your camera and subject have not moved and you have the same framing and are using the same F-stop. Remember, all depth of field is "apparent sharpness" - The only true sharpness is your FOCAL POINT - and this is the true focus on what you are actually focusing upon - eyes, usually on a person - so depth of field or apparent focus will be sharper or less sharp depending on what F-stop you are using. If you use F 22 you will have MORE depth of field in front and behind the subject. If you use F 1.6, you will have LESS depth of field in front and behind your FOCAL POINT or whatever you are focusing upon. I teach a college class in digital and film still photography...and pretty much the same goes for digital photography with lenses. BUY the 16x - MANUAL FOCUS lens and you will be happy about the control you have over focus issues.

"....From what I understand, you would get less depth of field or the "illusion of sharpness" with the 20x than the 16x because the 16x is a longer lens..."

No, the 20X is a longer lens than the 16X.

correct....the longer the magnification of a lens, the LESS the depth of field will be. Hence the reason the guys from SI shoot with long lenses with Large apertures so they can "blow" the background out of focus. Also your camera to subject has a lot to do with less DOF, too....

1. Length of lens
2. Camera to subject
3. F-stop

all of these affect depth of field