The distance is measured from the chip (CCD's) not the front element of the lens. Minimum focus distance is the same if your using AF or manual focus. AF will hunt and search in low contrast situations, when subject is very small and can't be picked out from background, low light levels etc. So, the bottom line is, this not unusual for macro work. Try increase the light level, putting something larger in place of the small subject (then remove and shoot once focus is locked) use an object with strong vertical lines (AF works better with vertical lines). Or you could just focus manually.

Jeff

I'll just focus manually. :)

Thinking back to location, the lighting was very low on the close up object, even though the rest of the room was well lit. I know the amount of light makes a big difference to the AF, but I just didn't think about it at the time. That's probably why it was behaving like that.
Thanks!

Folks

I have an XL-1 with the standard 16x Lens. I also have the 0.6 Wide Angle from Century Optics attachment that goes in front of the 16X lens. Can this be also attached in front of a 3X wide Angle Zoom to create an even wider angle?

Thanks

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : After debating between a wide angle converter, or the 3x lens, I chose the lens. If for nothing else, it's got a great re-sale value on Ebay. :)
-->>>

Hey Dylan,

As you know I picked up Jim's 3x lens. I wanted to get your feedback on your 3x lens. Have you had a chance to shoot with it, if so tell me your impression.

Paul

Yes, I am pretty sure it will work fine without any vignetting, since it is a .6x adaptor.

Same thread size on the 3x as the 16x IS lens.

You may experience some vignetting if you place a sunhood on the front of the CO adaptor - I could try this out next week at WEVA and let you know.

- don

It's a great lens, I've used mine extensively and am very happy with it. The only drawback is it doesn't have quite enough zoom. 5x would probably do it, but 3x is just a little short for a lot of things, expecially if you don't have time to change back to the 16x.
Still, it's a valuable toy, er.. tool to have.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : It's a great lens, I've used mine extensively and am very happy with it. The only drawback is it doesn't have quite enough zoom. 5x would probably do it, but 3x is just a little short for a lot of things, expecially if you don't have time to change back to the 16x.
Still, it's a valuable toy, er.. tool to have. -->>>

I saw mention that at full zoom (or was it the other way around) that there is a bit of a focus problem around the edges of the frame. Have you found that to be true?

Now the next lens you need to get is the 16x Manual Servo Lens. If you don't already have it!

Lack of zoom range: that points to the main benefit of a full zoom through converter, such as the Century. You get the 16x zoom range - and a bit more weight on the front of the 16x lens to go with it.

Some folks even run their GL1 with a 0.65x or 0.7x adapter left on full time.

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Palomaki : Lack of zoom range: that points to the main benefit of a full zoom through converter, such as the Century. You get the 16x zoom range - and a bit more weight on the front of the 16x lens to go with it.

Some folks even run their GL1 with a 0.65x or 0.7x adapter left on full time. -->>>

Don,

Forgive my lack of knowledge, but does adding the converter distort the image?

Regarding converters, there are several different makes on the market. I believe someone said they will give you distortion once you zoom past a certain point. If you do a search through this section, you'll probably find the post.

As far the the 16x manual goes, I think I'd probably opt for the 14x manual. I'd rather have on-lens iris control, and an extra $500 in my pocket. But if a good deal on the 16x lens came up, I'd probably take it. :)

Oh, I haven't noticed any soft focus at full zoom on my 3x.

I just got a new canon 3x wide angle lens in and didnt have much time to play around with it before my shoot. On the day of the shoot I was having trouble focusing the wide angle lens and put it off on the color view finder of the XL1s... (I could not get the names on the street signs in my shots to appear sharp) So as sunny as it was, I shot at F16 hoping that this would remedy any slight focusing issues I was haivng... Well, when I got home to check out the footage, the names on the street signs were not even readable! So thinking something was wrong with the lens, I ran outside to do some quick tests with it. I used both my standard 16x lens and the 3x to shoot similar footage of some wordage on my gas grill from about 6 feet away. You can tell a slight difference in the shaprness of the two lenses but overall, it wasnt that drastic. But what I did notice was, it seems so much more difficult to obtain sharp focus on the wide angle than it does on the standard 16x, does this make sense or is anyone else experiencing similar issues with theirs???? Is it a combination of the wide field of view of the 3x and the crummy color viewfinder???

Thanks,
Chris

Read Chris's thread dated 5-16-03on the sharpness of the 3xwide angle lens.
I too, have the problem of getting a sharp focus with this $1,000 lens....What goes with the lens....could it be operator error or defective lens?? Anyone have any suggestions....
Thanks
Tom Turney<><

I got some things to say about this, but I think im gonna put some shots together to show. I don't like the focus on the 3x at all, I wish it was more like the 16x manual lens than the 16x auto lens. I really hate that unmarked spinning infinity eletronic focus ring. It really does contribute to the arbitrary focus.

That being said, you can achieve focus on the lens. The color viewfinder probably threw you off a bit, but I'm going see if I can acertain the limits of this lens.

Has anyone tried focus using the FU1000 B&W viewfinder or an LCD monitor, rather than the relatively poor colour viewfinder?

I'm interested in this lens myself!

I think what most of you are encountering in your use of the 3X WA lens is a limitation of the resolution in video. Also by stopping the lens down to F16 you are causing diffraction which decreases sharpness. I suggest you set the lens to about F4 or F5.6 at the most and control exposure with ND filters. The WA lens has an extreme amount of Depth of Field and focus probably isn't an issue, except up close.

Video is a close up medium and does not look good with wide shots covering subjects at medium to far distances. The subjects will not appear as sharp. But the WA is a very sharp lens, shoot something very close at F4 and you'll see what I mean. Video is a close up medium.

Yes, my experiences with my 3x coincide with Jeff's remarks. Video, by it's resolution nature, just does not do as well on wide panoramic shots as film. The standard color lcd viewfinder exacerbates the apparent problem while shooting, since it's a rather coarse display. Opening the lens, even if you have to use an ND filter, really will help most wide shots.

Also, as Nigel observed, using a higher-resolution viewfinder or production monitor will also greatly help your focus judgement while shooting.

I think that it's a common misconception that wide lenses are best applied to shots covering large expanses. In fact, they are equally well-suited, some would say better-suited, for close shots.

My personal belief is that Canon video glass (16X & 3X) does not resolve
more than 250 lines. I say this because when you hook an XL1(s)
up to either Canon 35mm glass or film lens via the PS Technik adapter,
the image appears almost twice as sharp to my eye on a Sony HR monitor.
If I plug the camera's output into a regular/low res sony monitor
that resolves only 250 lines, the image is back to being as blurred as
if I had put video glass back on the camera.

But both Jeff and Ken are right. Closing the iris doesn't help the cause
and NTSC is a old and dated format with severely limited resolution when it
comes to fine detail in wide shots.

While I was down in AZ I figured the next item on the "must have" list was a wide angle. The stock lens did a good enough job of capturing the wide expanses of AZ however I felt that a wider angle lens would do that much more. Now after reading this thread I find myself concerned that after I pony up well over a grand for a lens I'll find that I made a BIG MISTAKE!

Will the wide angle do the job? Will I be able to capture the landscape better than the stock lens? Will I be able to use it lens in a closer envirorment (such as recoding the inside of our home?). Will it be sharp?

Is there a better solution out there? Or, am I just nuts this morning......

Hi Don!

How's retirement treating you? (Or, how are you treating retirement?)

In my opinion the relative value of the 3x wide-angle lens depends largely on what type of material you shoot. If you shoot principally nature and wildlife such a lens may not be very useful since you often have a greater need for a long zoom than a wide shot.

On the other hand, if you shoot a great deal of dramatic or people-based documentary work where flexibility of frame coverage, often in tight spaces, is your greatest need then the 3x can quickly become your primary lens. This is also true if you shoot more hand-held than mounted. Wide-angles are far more forgiving of camera shake than longer lenses.

I really like my 3x and often have a hard time justifying not using it. It shoots every bit as good of a frame as the 16x's and has an internal ND and manual focus switch.

The less-expensive alternative, of course, is to get a good w-a adapter for your 16x lens. This makes sense if your budget is tight and/or your shooting only occasionally calls for a wide angle shot. But every time you add glass to a lens something's bound to degrade in the additional refraction. (Not to mention the additional weight that adapters hang on the camera's front.) Since the XL1s offers interchangable lenses I really advocate that folks consider getting the 3x lens if they need wide angle capabilities, rather than an adapter.

I wouldn't trade mine for the world. But I also accept that the images will not be as sharp as the long lenses, or EOS lenses that I use. But it is sharper than the other lenses with a wide adapter (like the Century adapters).

Ken

Jim MacAlister's article (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article38.php) leaves no doubt that the 3x is a fine close-up lens. From what you're saying, it's not so hot for distant objects, which makes sense.

But from Don's message, I gather that he's interested in panoramic views of wide-open vistas, rather than zoomed shots of distant objects. This would be a useful attribute for me here in the beautiful Alps.

So what do you think of the 3x's capabilities in 'big country' shots?

Nigel,
I think it does a fine job on panoramics within the confines of the camera's platform. But I don't believe that today's standard-definition video technology does as good of a job with panoramics as film (or, perhaps, as HD -- although I've not seen enough of HD to have a firm opinion of it). This is one area where DV's lower resolution and limited contrast latitude really hurts the results. Since shooters cannot control lighting in such scenes we have to take what we can get. Good scenic panoramas rely on an extremely rich palette of hues and subtle contrasts to convey depth and scale. DV just has a hard time conveying such subtleties.

So, by all means, shoot scenics with the 3x. It's the best tool available to XL1s shooters for the job!

So, DV is not great for panoramas, but the 3x is as good as it gets for the XL1s.

Since I'm not looking to buy into film at all, or into HD for the foreseeable future, I'll just have to live the confines of SD DV.

My glass is half full! :-)

Ken - thanks for the reply. I'm still working for Uncle Sam at least until Oct 3rd after that it’s recess without the bell!

My thoughts from my trip to AZ were that what I was able to capture was good (bordering on great). I shot most of the time in wide angle doing some reverse zoom. I want to be able to capture as much of the scenic beauty as possible.

I think I understand that the 3x will do an adequate job for what I’m expecting – better than the standard lens yet not as good as someone with deep pockets (film studios). I thought about an adapter, however dismissed it almost as soon as I thought about it.

Nigel’s statement seems to be on the mark “the 3x is as good as it gets for the XL1s”.

Thanks guys, once again you helped me out. Yes, I will be getting the 3x sometime soon.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : I wouldn't trade mine for the world. But I also accept that the images will not be as sharp as the long lenses, or EOS lenses that I use. But it is sharper than the other lenses with a wide adapter (like the Century adapters). -->>>

Is the picture sharpness / quality very noitceable? My plan was to get the 16x servo, and slap on the Century .7x zoom-through wideangle. I've been told the .7x has artifacts when totally wide, but zooming in just a tad corrects it. I thought the quality of the servo lens, and the versatility of the adapter would be a good combination. But I'm having doubts now! :)


<<<-- Originally posted by Don Libby : I thought about an adapter, however dismissed it almost as soon as I thought about it. -->>>

Please cover your reasons for dismissing the idea, because it's an idea I'm pondering over right now. I don't want to make a pricey mistake.

If you can afford the lens, by all means, get it. It will provide the best wide angle shots for the XL1. It's as good as it gets, provided you understand the limitations outlined above. The 0.7 is a more affordable substitute but is not as sharp as the 3X WA. It also is not as well corrected and shows more barrel distortion.

thanks for everyones advice! I was looking back into my days of schooling in photography where you could easily stop down to create greater DOF... that didnt necessarily give me the result I was looking for and instantly went to blame it on the new lens. However, my last shoot I did try shooting a mid-range aperature and concetrated more on the focusing and got some nice results back. BUT, I still stand by my guns when I say this lens is much more difficult to focus then the standard 16x is. I am hoping a new viewfinder down the road will help remedy that.

So now I feel much better about my $1200 purchase! I would not have been able to get the shots I did if it wasnt for this lens!

thanks guys,

Chris

Hi Chris...

I use a Century 0.7 WA adapter and have it mounted on my 16x lens almost full-time. A lot of the shooting I do is at close range and I developed a habit of shooting wide from years of news photography.

The results are good. Not tack sharp, but definitely acceptable. It also allows me to use the full 16x zoom range, although the long-end of the lens is now 0.7 of the max focal length.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

I got a 3x wide this week, practical for my needs as I'll always stay wide with it. I have not yet had a chance to really try it out for sharpness however, I'll give you my first impressions this weekend.

I have actually done my third shoot with it and I can say I am happy with my purchase now. Still getting use to focusing it but my shots have come out perfectly these last 2 times.

I still think , this lens is soft for the most part. It's possible to achieve focus, a decent one, but not razor sharp like on the 16x. They cut some corners with this lens.

It also only has one ND filter setting, which lies between too much for indoor and to little for bright daylight.

It's zoom and focus rings feel like they are digital. You can spin them 360 degrees and you never get a real feel of pulling focus. A rack focus nightmare.

You widest apeture is going to be 2.0/1.8

However, if you need to get a nice wide angle shot, this will do it for you. If you are far back enough, you will be able to get a decent shallow depth of field going.

is $800 shipped considered a good price for a used, in good shape 3x wide xl1s lens?

I picked up my 3x lens for $900 brand new in box off E-bay

Ken, was that from those Seaggie guys? Or Somewhere in NY/Brooklyn?

edit - My bad - JOHN :)

Who is ken? i bought it from someone in brooklyn, ny

$800 seems a little high for a used one, especially off Ebay. I'd probably be more likely to spend $100 more and get a new one. Whichof course, may or may not be new...

<<<-- Originally posted by John Threat : Who is ken? i bought it from someone in brooklyn, ny -->>>

Sorry John! I meant John. Sorry, I've interacted with so many K-names this past 2 weeks, I've got K on the brain. Appologies :)

The one i got from ebay, and i know this doesnt happen everytime
was absolutely new and flawless. I seriously doubt it was ever mounted anywhere.

The 3x wide angle is a nice lens. There's one issue I thought you should know about. If you're planning on using screw-on filters, you can use a maximum of one if you're going full-wide. Since the lens zoom is fairly weak in magnification, most people will be using this lens wide anyways.

I shot video this weekend, and the results in Vegas show a nice circular masking over the corners where my polarizer was sitting. I did not see this in my viewfinder during the shoot (FU-500 colour) however, so just a friendly warning. :) Perhaps the colour viewfinder is just too small (both in physical size and resolution) to pick up small problems like that...

Using a single filter is fine, I had a UV filter on for protection, and it was a bright day so I threw on the circpol.... all my full wide's are problematic, I can cut and crop but damn.

Otherwise I'm enjoying my 3x.

That's a good tip, Andrew. I've never tried to use more than 1 filter with mine, but I can certainly imagine how a stack would begin to vignette the image at wide settings. Using the "thin" models of filters, where available, may enable you to use two without causing trouble.

If you use the 3x wide, you should think about buying a matte box that holds filters (4x4) to avoid the vignetting that comes with screwing on more than one filter at once.

It will also save you a bit of time when switching lenses as you dont have to risk touching the glass of the lens or the filter by trying to swap them between your lens.

Regarding this 3x wide angle lens, I was wondering if someone could either post, email me, or point me in the right direction of some frame grabs of the same scene between the 3x and the regular or manual 16x lens.

I'm curious to see just how wide it can get. Thanks.

Brad,
As you can see from the spec page (http://www.canondv.com/xl1s/a_lenses_3x_wide.html) the 3x's widest angular coverage is just over 70 deg horizontally by just under 34 deg vertically. This compares to the 16x manual lens' coverage of just under 48 deg horizontally by just under 27 deg vertically.

So it gives you about 46% more horizontal coverage and about 20% more vertical coverage.

thanks Ken! That helps.

I have even seen vignetting on my standard 16x lense with two
filters on there at its widest. But I always add black bars so it
isn't a problem for me....

Dont forget the eletronic zoom ring which prevents you from doing any sort of professional level follow focus.rendering the lens a step up from a toy.

The DOF is pretty extreme with the 3X. There is not much to try and follow unless the subject is right on top of the lens. I use it with my Glidecam V-8 and it can virtually eliminate the need to worry about focus in some shots.

Does anyone know if this lens can be used in a XL1s
Thanks
www.video.com.mx

No, these lenses only fit the XL1's predesessor. Sorry.

See the article Canon VL Lenses on the XL1? (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article13.php) by Don Palomaki.