Hi all:
Just to pick up from a discussion I was having on another thread -
I've brought my choices for XL1S lenses to the Canon 14x manual, or the new 16x manual with servo zoom. Just a few clarifications required:
1. I'm used to having the iris ring on the lens barrel itself; I'm informed the new 16x lens has focus and zoom rings on the barrel, but the iris is controlled by the wheel on the camera body. Does the wheel allow the full range of f-stop adjustments (intermediate positions and all) or does it keep going to camera determined pre-sets like the PD150?
2. Are there any compatibility issues with 14x - like, does the camera work with it, but show a no lens indication?
3. Does the 14x come with in servo zoom option, or is everything purely manual?
4. How much of a practical 'reach' difference does the 2x difference between the two lenses make? I can understand the difference between the 14x and say the Nikon 19x available for the DSR-300...but a 2x diff ?
Best,
Ram

Hi Ram.

1) I have to leave this to an owner of the 16x and/or someone more familiar with the PD150. However, going from the 14x manual to the 16x optical (white) lens, I find the iris the hardest thing to get used to. I find it extremely difficult to pull iris on the fly using the wheel, compared to a standard iris ring.
2) The 14x from Canon is electronically compatible with the body, unlike the Optex which forces a "no lens" flag.
3) There is no servo zoom option with the 14x, short of an external system that would be added (I have such a thing adapted from another setup, but it's not what I would call commercially viable). Chris H., any 3rd party mechanical zoom drives for the 14x?
4) Depending on how you intend to shoot--if you are constantly at the telephoto end of the lens, it may make a difference. The 35mm equivalent of the end of the 14x is 574mm: the 16x is 624mm. Not what I would call too significant for most work.

Ram,
One point I'll add to Charles' remarks is that the 14x's iris ring has no click-stops, although the settings are clearly marked on the barrel. That is, the ring rotates completely smoothly. So, for all practical purposes, you can set an infinite number of intermediate settings between the standard stops.

I doubt you would even see the difference between the 14x and 16x, less than 10%. I wouldn't base my decision on that. I also use the 14x mostly for the feel of it over the white 16x lens. I prefer the iris control on the lens.

Jeff

I use the 16x manual lens almost exclusively. The only time I switch over to the standard lens is so I can use my wide angle (it won't fit on the manual lens).

I like almost everything about the 16x. It feels much more like the "Pro" lenses I'm used to...except of course for the iris control on the camera body.

To make matters worse, that iris control rotates the opposite direction of a lens mounted control. I've been using the 16x for several months and still get confused which way to turn the thing.

However, I'd still choose the 16 over the 14 if I had to do it over again. I'm in the habit of using the servo zoom to change and recompose shots and I can't get used to reaching up for that manual zoom lever to do that.

However, one of the guys who works with me prefers to use the lens in a completely manual mode...for him the 14x would seem to be an ideal compromise.

I guess it depends on which features you value most. I can tell you I've been extremely happy with the image quality and ability to hit focus with the 16x though.

mike avery

Charles, Ken, Jeff, Mike:
Thanks for all your comments - I think the votes are going both ways!
I might add that I'm used to shooting on Beta SP with Fujinon and Canon manual/servo zoom lenses (usually the 12x - 12 to 144 mm/f1.8 -f4)with Sony D-35s/Hyper HAD 637s/Hitachi Z-1Ds. These lenses can go into pure manual mode, but invlude with Auto iris functions and a smooth iris ring movement.
Mike, I'm used to recomposing shots with the servo zoom as well - I mostly shoot docs, and it's useful to work with the zoom on the fly like that - but i have seen a lot of colleagues go purely manual with the zoom to save battery time.
Ken: Like I said, the iris wheel on the camera gives me pause - I can't spend very much time initially getting used to the concept, because I will probably be shooting a full project quite soon after I get the lens. But the lenses I'm used to have smooth iris rings without click stops.
Jeff, I guessed as much - I don't think the 2x difference is enough cause for concern, either.
Does the Varizoom grip controller work with the 14x Canon manual through the LANC connector? Chris? Anyone?
Best,
Ram

Re: "Does the Varizoom grip controller work with the 14x Canon manual through the LANC connector?"

No, the 14x is truly a strictly-manual lens with no servo capabilities whatsoever. When using the 14x lens the Varizoom controller only runs the start/stop record function.

Ram:

If you are used to working a broadcast servo, you may have a hard time with the 16x manual lens in servo zoom mode. The fact that it (as well as the standard 16x) has only four speeds rather than a continually variable motor (activated as you know by variable pressure on the rocker) personally drives me up a wall. It's like driving a car with really clunky automatic transmission; you never quite know when it's going to shift and it it's noticeable when it does. It's certainly better than nothing, but if you have spent the time getting proficient at feathering in and out of zooms, it's a definite setback.

I have opted for the 14x manual as I am using a zoom control with an outboard motor, which does allow for fully variable speed. Fortunately I already owned it for other uses, so I didn't have to consider it an XL1 expense. To me, the mechnical looking action of the "prosumer" zoom can be a serious detriment to the look of the production (I am admittedly picky!).

Ram, in thinking about what would be involved in performing a manual zoom and still working focus, it would take some getting used to but I feel it could be mastered since the throw of these barrels is not that great (i.e. it doesn't take many turns of what is already a small diameter lens). I could see zooming in with the thumb and forefinger and rotating the focus with the pinkie and ring finger. Very sexy. For subtle zoom work like on an interview, there is always the old trick of extending the little zoom lever by attaching a rigid tube or stick (I used to use a ballpoint pen with the ink and nib removed, it fit nice and snug over the lever on the lens). This gives you a lot more leverage and allows you to make very smooth and controlled zooms.

And if in your doc work you are used to riding the iris a lot, I think the electronic iris knob is very funky compared to a manual iris ring. Just like the zoom and focus functions on the standard lens, there is a little delay when operating the iris knob before the iris actually stops down. Let's imagine you are following someone from a dim hallway into a brightly lit room: with the manual iris, you simply reach up and dial the iris down a couple of stops, judging exposure from the image in the viewfinder (and if you are like me, you have removed most of the displays in the viewfinder so you can actually see your subject!). With the iris knob, you need to have these displays active so you can tell just how far you are taking the exposure, since if you wait to see the effect you may have gone too far or not far enough. Plus, for a substantial iris pull you need to make several spins of the knob rather than the instant action of the iris ring. I think it's a bit of a pisser for doc work, meself.

OK, enough blabbing. I've done one of my marathon posts again. Sorry!

Charles, thanks for the 'marathon post' - they're always welcome, believe me! :-)
You're quite right, having a non-continuously-variable motor for the servo zoom function would be a real no-no for me - I hate it when the zooms are jerky/variable speed-ed/unfeathered! I'd much rather go fully manual and control the whole thing by hand. Interesting about your outboard servo motor though - what is it, and where did you adapt it from?
I'm also used to judging the image thru the viewfinder when I adjust iris on the fly - a lag between adjustment and result could be a serious issue for me, since I tend NOT to consult viewfinder displays except for 'low batt' and 'tape end'!
I am used to adjusting iris and pulling focus with forefinger/thumb and pinkie/ring finger respectively, as you've mentioned...but not all lenses have barrels with enough traction to carry out the really slow zooms I sometimes use. Some of the Fujinons move soooooo smoothly and freely that you tend to overpull, and that's a real bother....
The ballpoint pen zoom stick is a cool idea :-) - I used to use a plastic straw cut to size - one of the stiffer ones, like the McDonalds guys use. Gives you a custom-made zoom lever that you can change as you change lenses (I carry a supply of straws), especially if you're asking someone to pull focus.
Ken, any inputs on the kind of outboard servo that Charles is referring to?
Best,
Ram

Re: Charle's lens servo for the 14x manual lens, I believe it's gizmo originally designed for use by focus-pullers on film productions. I think it attaches to the barrel ring and uses a friction wheel to turn the ring. I've no idea where you'd get one. (Am I close to right, Charles?)

Interestingly, however, the 14x has what appears to be a servo motor housing on the barrel. I suppose it's empty but it's there.

Re: getting a continuously variable movement with the 16x auto lens, and perhaps the 16x manual, you might consider a Varizoom Pro controller. It enables you both to dial-in a fixed zoom speed and to smoothly vary the speed during a zoom. (It takes a bit of manual dexterity and practice but, the, what doesn't.) It works perfectly with the 16x auto on both the XL1 and XL1s. I don't know about the 16x manual.

I know the item you are referring to Ken, but I don't have one of those. I use a Preston Microforce DMF with their DM2 motor which mounts on the mattebox rods. The Microforce zoom control is sort of the equivalent of the Varizoom, you can mount it on the panhandle & I am having a bracket made to use it as a front handgrip for handheld. There are pictures of the components at www.prestoncinema.com/products.html if anyone is interested. As I said, I already own this as part of my Steadicam package (the FI+Z pictured on that page is the wireless lens controller I use) & it's not a practical setup to purchase for DV use--the Microforce with motor and cables will run over $5K! But it is silky smooth, extremely responsive and precise and has nifty features like the ability to temporarily program limits onto the travel of the motor so you can do a snap zoom to a specific focal length, every time.

I primarily use my Canon XL-1 to do stop-motion animation. I use it to capture individual frames directly to a Mac computer using Firewire and a neat little program called BTV pro. Workes great as it has a feature called frame averaging which you can choose how many frames it averages. The results are very clean nosie free frames. I create a quciktime movie by using Adobe AfterEffects. I add effetcs, add blur to the stop motion, do green screens using Primatte Keyer and Composite Wizard ( I get good results as I've always read that MiniDV does not have the color depth to do good green screens) use Magpire Pro to read voice sound tracks and create exposure sheets and edit, add sound FX etc. in Adobe Preimere. I'm not listing all this to brag but to let you know I am serious about what I'm doing and am at a fairly high level of professionalism. Always trying to improve what I love to do my question is this. I use the 16x zoom lens that came with the camera and have read that the manual 14x or 16x is much better. I've read the messages on this board with great interest. But I have not read ( or maybe I have just not found it) do these 2 manual lenses produce a sharper image? Oh, yeah I've also produced a few live action videos for companies using my XL-1 it does get out in the field once and a while. Any feedback would be great as I am chomping at the bit to buy a 14x lens!!

I own the 14x Canon lens and my subjective opinion is the 14x is sharper than the 16x XL lens (white). I come from a film background and believe there is more to an image than the specs. The color accuracy, rendition of skin tones, sharpness, contrast etc. all combine to make the image. I have not measured the performance of this lens with a waveform monitor or resolution charts. But, rather compared side by side images on very high resolution broadcast monitors. I can see a difference.

Jeff

To Dan Anderson: I'm doing my first and possibly only stop motion piece, using clay models with armatures. Someone pointed me to animateclay.com, which helped with some of my issues, but I have more questions and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to help.

Dan,
I have the 14x. I think you will find it enables you to be more creative. It's really nice to really see and control (easily) depth of field. The 14x is a very smooth lens.

Bruce

Bruce, Jeff, how does the 14x trade off against the new 16x manual with servo zoom? I believe there are issues with the zoom speed of the servo on the 16x; and that there are no servo zoom attachments available for the 14x. But what have your experiences with the 14x been like?
Best,
Ram

I bought the 14X and never bothered with the 16X stock lens. Recently my production company shot a hypnotist act with my Xl1 and 2 XL1s'. Garbage lenses apparently come stock on these cameras. After two years of using the 14X not knowing anything else, indeed I would have to say invest in the 14X lens. The stock lens appeared out of focus and foggy.

Personaly I have not seen the new 16X lens in action, but more than likely it will be better than the stock one.

PS: Ideosync, my band "GLOW" (don't laugh) played at Djinns a couple of years ago did you happen to see me? I was there for three months.

Chow for now- Nori

Nori, hi:
Thanks for the 14x endorsement - I'm trying to decide which one to get right now (14x or 16x manual), so your inputs were really helpful. Someone on one of the other threads was mentioning an external servo zoom type attachment for the 14x...ever used something like that? Or do you just zoom manually with the zoom stick? [Or - horrors! - don't you like using the on-shot zoom at all? :-)]
I'm not laughing! GLOW is a great name :-)
No, I didn't get to see you at Djinns - pity! Tell me when you're here next...
Best,
Ram

The 14x is all manual. It has no zoom servo, no AF, but it does have a manual aperature ring. I have seen external zoom servos for this lens for sale on ebay. I do not recall the Mfg. The price was around $1000, which is pretty steep considering the lens goes for around $700 on ebay. I use a long stick, attached with a large rubber band. The rubber band streches a little. This makes the starts and stops a little smoother. The 16x is a current, production lens. The 14x was replaced by the 16x, but some dealers may still have new ones.

Jeff

Jeff, thanks:
On another thread, Ken Tanaka suggested that the Varizoom controller that Chris Hurd suggests on his must-have-accessories list might be usable with the 16x manual with servo zoom - he says it definitely works smoothly with the 16x standard lens that comes with the XL1S.
Any info on that? Know anyone who has used a Varizoom (or similar) controller with the 16x manual with servo zoom?
Best,
Ram

I'm just curious: I had a friend tell me that he'd worked the zoom ring on his camcorder manually. I do not understand this. I know I don't have the steadiest hand ever, but I just don't see how anyone could work the zoom ring (16x manual lens, Canon XL1s) manually and get good results. There's no resistence or anything. . .you'd have to be like . . .God or something. I mean for snap zooms, sure. But for a slow creep zoom no way.

Josh, I know exactly what you mean! :-)
Wish all of us were blessed with hands like the Rock of Ages...
But having said that -
1. I have seen a few cam operators and focus pullers who have REALLY steady hands - and I mean REALLY. I know the lenses we're talking here have next to no friction/resistance when turning, but...I've met an operator who could tape a pencil to the matte box on his Arri and write names on a sheet of paper by operating the wheels on a geared head.
2. A long time ago, the Hungarian filmmaker Istvan Gaal - who was a cameraman before he started directing - showed me a manual technique for the slow zoom which required huge dexterity and control - but gosh, was it smooth! Basically, he used his thumb and pointing finger to grip the lens barrel, and the wrist and middle finger to turn the zoom ring. What this did was to create an artificial resistance, which controlled the zoom rate. (I never did get it right, but I'm still hoping!)
I haven't used the 16x or 14 x manual for the XL1S, though - how free/frictionless are the zoom rings?
Best,
Ram

The 14x is not very loose. But because of the location of the housing on the side, it is difficult to adapt to a focus rod. Chris, I think, posted he uses a pen put over the small zoom lever. I adapt a rod using rubber bands. It takes experimentation to get what works best for you. The hard part for me is the starts, they tend to be too abrupt. So, I set up the shot with the intent to edit out the first second. Zooms are then nice and smooth in the edit.

Jeff

Ram:

Yup, you're right, it takes a tremendously steady hand and practice to manage a beautifully feathered manual zoom. Actually I would feel more comfortable performing the geared head maneuver you describe! The nice thing with geared heads is that they require a larger motion of the hand to achieve a small effect--making a continuous slow pan in first gear is a less delicate procedure than the same move on a fluid head, where one's breathing can show up in the final frame.

As for writing names or performing flawless figure 8's, I used to joke with a DP that we should design a shot that requires the camera to move exactly in a figure 8 pattern so I could put my hours of practice to the test! Once you've gotten the basic skill down, that sort of thing is actually pretty easy and becomes automatic, sort of like touch-typing. In my first few months of geared head practice I mounted a laser pointer to the top and sat around tracing everything in my office, including show cards printed with lettering (script is a lot more fun than print!).

And the fun side result is that you become killer at the Etch-a-Sketch. Boy, can I make circles on that thing! Very impressive with the nieces and nephews (for a few minutes, at least).

Charles: Wish my directors would settle for a great diagonal line on the Etch-a-sketch! :-) (Would make life a whole lot easier!)
But, seriously, you're absolutely correct - a lot of the manual operation and lenswork boils down to just plain hours of practice. It took me a long while to get the trick of operating iris ring and focus ring simultaneously and precisely - I work a lot on docs, and end up working the entire shebang myself - but it's quite automatic now.
Jeff: Given the same docs issue, I often have no idea what the shot is going to be like, especially during the interviews. I usually work out the pattern of questions and the key points with the director beforehand, so that I know where I may start to go close...but it's pretty much on the interviewer to get it right. Sometimes something pretty important starts happening when you least expect it - and then I can't plan to edit the first few seconds out.
I can see you planning the zoom on a setup shot for drama, but have you ever done it on a doc?
Best,
Ram

I always try to plan ahead and pre-visualize, but you never know what might hapen next. I always shoot lots of cut aways when I do a doc, and I mean lots. They have saved my butt in editing many a time. I also own the 16x, XL1 lens (white) and use it in some situations. But it has its own set of faults, AF can seem to drift, Manual zoom and focus are not true manual, but servo controlled. If good video was easy, everyone would do it.

Jeff

Jeff:
<<I always try to plan ahead and pre-visualize, but you never know what might hapen next.>>

Amen to that! I love taking lots of preparatory time on docs, but that's a two-way street - I expect the directors/interviewers to have done theirs as well, and that's often a forlorn hope. I'm sure there are a lot of camerapersons out there who've had to take on the entire job of visualizing the sequence just because no one else has (and curiously, that's happened to me a lot on dramatic productions as well!)
This is not to take away from the few directors whom it's been a pleasure to work with: Their genuine and intelligent inputs, as well as their knowledge of camerawork has made my job both easier and worthwhile on the projects we've done.

<<I always shoot lots of cut aways when I do a doc, and I mean lots. They have saved my butt in editing many a time.>>

Brother, did you get that right! :-)

<<If good video was easy, everyone would do it.>>

Just what I was telling some guys who were beginning to feel their professional status was in question with the advent of low cost digital equipment that was affordable to every Tom, Dick and Harry: Just because the equipment is accessible doesn't mean everyone can make a good film. Having a word processor or a good pen is no guarantee that you can write a great novel :-)

Best,
Ram

When I was talking (or writing) about all the preplanning, I keep thinking in terms of my so called actors who complain and want to leave. I'd much rather get everything down pat so that I can shoot and and send them on their merry way, rather than getting to the location early and being like ". . .hmm let's move the camera here and aim upward, and you stand next to him, no a little right, no back a little, no forward. . ."

And by the way, what are these "geared heads" you speak of? For I am but a humble caveman, and know no greater technology than coupled charge devices and servo mechanisms.

Josh:
Not to worry, not many people beyond the Hollywood folks get to used geared heads on their tripods anyway! :-)
Actually there are three types of tripod heads:
If you've been working with made-for-video tripods for medium size cameras, you've probably used the FLUID HEAD. The fluid head uses adjustable hydraulic resistance within the rounded head portion to create the smooth panning and tilting movements. [Unfortunately, they're also extremely good at passing on those arm-muscle tremblings that one gets at the end of a long day! :-)]
GEARED HEADS (generally used for motion picture 35 mm and 65 mm cameras) use mechanical gear-based innards to achieve the panning/tilting: Kind of like the worm-gear car jacks one used to get. The head is tilted/panned by way of two wheels placed at right angles on the tripod head: Turning the wheels together gives a diagonal movement. It takes some time to master, but gives extremely fine and precise movement when operated correctly. Since the gear wheels act as a sort of cut-out between the operator's hands and the camera, shake is virtually nonexistent, making this THE professional head of choice. They also cost an arm and a leg. :-)
The worst one by far (IMHO) is the friction head. This one uses surface friction (head to tripod socket) to generate the resistance required for smooth movement; but it wears out quite rapidly in my experience, and never gives you quite the panning/tilting you want.
Hope this helps...
Ram

Thanks.

Hi,
I just bought a Manual 14x Canon lens from ebay cause of my limited budget and now i'm just curious on the main differences between the "old" 14x and the new 16x of the lens.

I'd say i'm almost a newbie that loves his Xl1s, video and CG in general and actually this 14x and the 3x i'm trying to have are just my Xmas personal self made gifts (no more money for holidays:})

I found this link (http://jkor.com/peter/tipstricks.html) really interesting and the whole website too... but i wish to have more concrete comparison between those two lens... i'm pretty sure i'll surely have loots of fun with the 14x and i wonder what i "miss" with the 16x...

the link above talks about servo zoom differences.. what are they changing the way i use it or advantages using it?


thanks in advance for all your impressions.





[after looking around the forum.....]

SORRY.... i really found lots of information i was looking for just doing some "search" in this forum... so i can consider my topic Closed... sorry again.

i need some help

anyone got info about which is better (in quality and DOF and stuff like that) and which has better glass

not the fact that the fujinon doesnt communicate with the xL..... more visual differences . and... a conclusion on which to buy

any input?


thx
arthur

Don't forget to look at the Canon's 14 x manual lens. The Fujinon 14x was mostly used before the canon 14X hit the streets.

Both lenes are great, the 14X are fully manual and it have a manual iris control also but no built-in neutral density filter.

The 16 X can be switched from manual zoom to servo controled zoom (not focus) and have 2 built-in neutral density filters. However, the iris control must be done via the little wheel on the camera, like with the 16X stock lens.

In terms of quality, both lenes are equal I think. You should be able to find the 14 X for less money than the 16X too.

I have owned all three of the lenses (Fuj 14x, Can 14x, and Can 16x). I hated the Canon 14x manual. I think I got a bad one because the back focus would never set right. However, I really liked the Fujinon 14x. It had a very nice picture quality and I liked the iris dial on the lens barrel. It is small too. More like a film camera zoom than a ENG type lens. The last lens I owned before I sold my XL1 was the 16x mechanical. That is a very nice lens as well. Canon more then made up for the lack luster 14X they threw at us. Great picture quality and a nice working peice of gear. Depending on your needs, the two lenses work in slightly different ways. The Fujinon would be cheaper, but used. If I were shooting a controlled film, i.e. controlled lighting, locations, actors, etc. I would feel fine using the Fujinon. Because you are going to need to manually set white balance, exposure and possibly use ND filters. Whereas the 16x is more of a run and gun lens because the camera body will do auto everything except focus. The exposure ring on the fujinon is a lot better then the Canon 16x because you can dial in anywhere along the latitude, half, quarter stops. The 16x uses the camera body dial and only sets exposure in steps. The coolest thing about the 16x canon is that the exposure registers at f1.6 at wide angle and STAYS there all the way through the zoom! Plus you get a little more reach than the 14x fujinon. I used this all the time because I could get incredible DOF. The internal ND filters in the Canon 16x are okay but for serious work I would put one in flont of the lens anyway. Over all, I would go with the Canon 16x over the Fujinon 14x. That is my own opinion.

Will Boggs
DustBowl Productions

I've used the 14x Canon with absolutely no problems. Will, it sounds like you got a bad one, it's the first time I've heard complaints about it.

On the 16x Canon, the front element doesn't rotate so you can use a clip on mattebox; not so with the Canon 14x and I'm not sure about the Fuji?

Also in the case of the Fuji there is the issue of the camera not recognizing the lens; you can remove the "no lens" flasher in the viewfinder on the XL1s (not the XL1) but on either camera I believe that it will not save white balance settings when you exit shooting mode for playback or power down the camera, which is a real pain.

My personal recommendation is the Canon 14x; it's very good optically, a real iris ring and inexpensive these days. If I had experienced back focus issues such as Will has I'd be turned off also, however I haven't seen that on the multiple 14x's I've worked with.