The following has been said numerous times on the boards in one
way or another. The issue with the 3x lens being soft on the XL1(S)
was probably due to the relative low resolution on the camera.

The XL2 has a much higher resolution and can resolve much more
detail (which a wide angle view usually seems to have). I've never
heard anyone describe the 3x lens being soft on the XL2.

Doing mostly dramatic shorts with the XL2...Do you think I can get away with just using the 3X WA. Trying to keep the XL2 as small as possible. Besides DOF issues, do you think the zoom range can cover a majority of my shots or will I be wishing I had that 16X? Again, this is for dramatic work.

There's not a lot of difference in *size* between an XL2 equipped with any of the XL-series lenses.

I'm using the 3x on my XL2. There is little difference between this lens and the 20x, in terms of optical quality. I like the auto-stabilization on the 20x that I don't get with the 3x. The 3x is approximately 1/2 inch shorter. Not much difference. In fact, with an eyepiece extender on the viewfinder, it sticks out further than the 3x lens. BTW, the eyepiece extender REALLY helps balance tha camera much better on my shoulder.

what eyepiece extender are you refering to?

see bottom of this page:
http://www.amechad.com/profeel/xl2.htm

Also, check out this article (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article45.php) for more info, Greg.

Bill, do you think you could post a photo of this item with the XL2?

Trying to discern an answer to the original question, would it be feasible to go with just the wide-angle lens? I'm going to be buying an XL2 for shooting dramatic narratives, many times using small interiors for my locations. As I would like to get close to my actors in these situations, I'm wondering about getting the body-only package with the wide-angle lens (as I can't afford the standard package and an additional lens). But, like Ed, I'm wondering if this a bad idea. Will I be missing the auto-stabilization of the 20x in hand-held situations? Obviously, at some point when I could afford it, I'd buy another lens (though, I'd probably consider the manual one).

Unlike Ed, I'm not concerned about how any of this affects the size of the camera. Any input is greatly appreciated!

hi brandon,

check this article out:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php

i think chris has done a tremendously awesome job in displaying the differences between each lens's zoom capabilities. from that i think you can decide. if you really don't need any long-shots for dramatic shorts then 3x will do fine.

I bought the 3x wide angle a couple of days ago, and am confused...( just recently learning how to shoot in manual).

1. I was taught to focus (with the 20x lens) by first zooming all the way in, focusing, then pulling back to where I want. Then my subject would be in correct focus.

2. I tried this with the 3x.First zoom in and focus, But when I zoom out, the focus is not the same on the same object. Is this the way the lens is supposed to work, or is it faulty?

3. Another thing I noticed was that outside in daylight, I couldn't even get the focus to change, but once I went inside the house and had to open up the iris, then focus worked.

I did a search on th 3x and read lots of posts, but I'm still confused. Any feedack would be appreciated.

Bruce Yarock

To your queries:

1. That is textbook focus racking. Just like the pros with manual lenses. Hopefully the back focus troubles have been eliminated with the 20x lens.

2. Common to the 3x lens. Tends to be generally soft at full wide.

3. This is true with all lenses. Small iris = greater depth of field or less discrimination of near and far objects in focus. The minute you step inside, the iris needs to be opened up and presto, less depth of field and more control over the objects needed to be in critical focus.

You will have to decide as you work with the lens (the 3x) where it will be useful to you. I like it for grand, up close shots at low angles to reveal a dramatic look of large objects. Also, for in vehicle shots it is absolutely a must. Used tactfully, it is a great lens.

Thanks for the info,Jimmy. I was under the impression that if I were shooting several people in a small area ( patio table today outside, 3-4 people) then the 3x would be the best. However, I was bothered by the look at full wide, and thought maybe something was wrong with the lens. Now I ubderstand what you mean by "soft' at full wide.
I'd like to hear what situations anyone else prefers the 3x over the 20x.

Bruce Yarock

Can I put threaded 72mm filters in front of the Canon 3x wide-angle lens?

Has anyone tried mounting several to see at what point vignetting starts to happen?

I can't seem to find much detail on the front end of this lens anywhere.

1.) Yes you can

2.) Just how many do you want to mount?

I can easily see situations where I might slap the three threaded filters I own on it: polarizer, UV and an ND filter.

Might be better to have a three-stage clamp-on matte box for all those.

What's the weather like down there? Isn't it springtime in NZ right now?

Can you post a link to an example of a three-stage clamp-on mattebox?

It's a glorious summer day down here. Christmas parades are marking the start of the "the Silly Season" and it's hot out. Hot being a relative word in NZ - a pleasant 23 C and blue skies.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Mills : I can easily see situations where I might slap the three threaded filters I own on it: polarizer, UV and an ND filter. -->>>

I heard the 20x lens that comes with the XL2 turnes in the front when zooming so you can't add a polarizer lens in front. Is that true ?

Frank

Why would you need a UV filter with a polarizer & ND on?

Nothing saying one couldn't give it a try if desired, but Canon does specifically say in the instruction sheet for the 3x that more than one filter is not recommended. Dust and image defects from the filters are expected to be much more visible than when using a long lenses.

Frank, I'm pleased to report that it is NOT true that zooming causes a filter to rotate on either the 30x or the 3x...NOR will focusing do so. One may use a circ polarizer at will!

Your polarizer alone will accomplish all you will likely need. It does what it does to blue skies, swimming pools and car windows. A by-product of this filter is that it will absorb f-stops. If you need even less light, try -3db gain. This way you will not need the ND filter. Of course there is the built in ND that will take you to far end.
As for the UV, this will also become redundant, when using the polarizer.
The 3x lens is soft enough without any filter.

Can anybody recommend any UK retailers that stock this item?

Thanks in advance

Have you tried Optex?

http://www.xl1s.com/products.php?cat=11

Thanks guys eventually ordered from simply computers

http://www.simply.co.uk/kelkoo/68993/VS/simply_computers/index.htm

£800 inc Vat

The best thing to do is to search uk web retailers to find the best price you can get it for and then go to Jessops and price match the online price. That way you get the best price but with a little more reliability in terms of customer service. Also as Jessops don't keep any of the 3x wideangles in stock they didn't seem to require that the online retailer has them in stock either to match the price. (I got mine down to £750)

They have to get them directly from Canon and it took about a month to arrive once I'd put the order in.

Good advice there Kieran. I wasn't aware that Jessops price match (more the fool me). I will keep that in mind for any future purchases.

Has anyone experienced problems with the focus on the wide angle lens?I zoomed into two people indoors at an amply lit table on a high shot.I manually focused, started rolling tape and pulled back while rolling only to see the couple get soft in the viewfinder which was only confirmed on playback.I also notice that the focus drifts easily and there's never a great affirmation that you are in focus or that it won't drift......very frustrating.-Tom

Hey Tom, I'm getting my 3x lens sometime next week and I'll let you know if I experience the same thing. I postivie it's not your technical skills as your profile states that you are a staff cameraman at FOX. Maybe a bad batch? I'll keep you posted.


Andrew

When I first tried out my new 3x lens, I was also frustrated. I found the focus to be a bit soft in wide position. Since I'm still learning to use my xl2 in manual , I wasn't sure whether it was me or the lens. I posted about this problem, and the feedback I got was that this softness in full wide was typical of that kind of lens.
But the more I use it, the better I like it. Yesterday I shot the inside of a condo for some friends, and it was great. ( No way to get the wide shots in a tight space with the stock lens). I also did a shot for my motorcycle business, and sitting close on the ground, I got a nice dramatic shot of the bike thanks to the 3x.
I'd be happy to hear any other feedback.
Bruce yarock

There is something on Chris Hurd's watchdog pages about a soft focus problem with Canon lenses set to small apertures (I think any number larger than f11). Not sure if this applies in this particular case, or even if it applies to the 3X lens at all, but the solution was to use an ND filter or faster shutter to open up the aperture.

Change of focus while zooming sounds more like a back focus problem though.

Article referenced is at http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article19.php.

Most common issue with the 3x however is the Pxel Averaging phenomenon common to all wide fields of view in DV.

Tom

I know of at least one other 3x lens (mine) that has this issue, and it is not the "pixel-averaging" phenomenon that Chris refers to...it is a backfocus issue (one I haven't taken the time to deal with). Another member contacted me and said that he had the problem and that canon was not able to fix it. I'm hoping that this isn't the case with mine (or yours).

you can see an example of my problem here:

http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html

notice how I'm able to refocus the image after I zoom wide...this indicates that it is a backfocus issue, not the typical wide angle softness often seen on DV. Otherwise the 3x is extremely sharp...perhaps a little crisper (when focused) than the 20x at the same magnification.

Barry

Also, in addition to Richard's comments, keep in mind the other extreme as well. Shooting wide open (f1.8) will yield softer results than if you were shooting stopped down, ie. to 5.6 etc. because of the shallower depth of field. Every lens has a sweet spot which yields maximun sharpness but in some of our cases, since we are trying to obtain the shallow DOF in our images, we would most likely be shooting wide open a lot of the time. If we are shooting wide open, or close to it, the focus has to be right on otherwise your subject will be slightly out of focus and thus soft since the point in focus will be narrow at 1.8. It may be a backfocus issue if you're using the autofocus switch to get your subject in focus. But in manual focus mode, it isn't a problem since you're using your eye to determine what's in focus or not (our viewfinders are a little small and it's hard to tell a lot of the time). This leads me to believe the lens may be soft wide open or suffers from the drift problem Tom stated. Also, don't rule out the fact that you may have a lens from a bad batch. In that case, I would have Canon or the store you bought if from replace the unit.


Andrew

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : Tom

I know of at least one other 3x lens (mine) that has this issue, and it is not the "pixel-averaging" phenomenon that Chris refers to...it is a backfocus issue (one I haven't taken the time to deal with). Another member contacted me and said that he had the problem and that canon was not able to fix it. I'm hoping that this isn't the case with mine (or yours).

you can see an example of my problem here:

http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html

notice how I'm able to refocus the image after I zoom wide...this indicates that it is a backfocus issue, not the typical wide angle softness often seen on DV. Otherwise the 3x is extremely sharp...perhaps a little crisper (when focused) than the 20x at the same magnification.

Barry -->>>

Holy cow Barry, I just saw your vid and that's a nasty problem! They are definitely designed not to do that and I'd try to get my unit replaced. The zoom in, focus, zoom out technique is universal and your lens shouldn't be an exception. Your second zoom out seemed okay though. Any chance the focus ring was accidentally touched when you zoomed out on the first zoom?

If I understood the video example correctly, the second zoom out was performed on a 20x lens, not the 3x as a comparison

correct..the second zoom was with the 20x...the origin of this clip was a comparison of the two lenses...then I realized I had a problem...I'll be contacting canon soon, and let you all know if there is a resolution.

Barry

I've been hearing tids and bits of this phenomenom with the 3x since the introduction of the XL2. It seems to be hit or miss as to whether one has the problem or not with a particular 3x lens. Is it a lens problem or is it a camera problem?

Does it mean that I should bring my 3x lens to the dealer to try various bodies to find one that is compatible?

Has anyone had any dealings with Canon regarding this problem? If so, what is the official Canon response??

I checked the basic sharpness of he 3x lens and found it to be no less sharp than any of the others I've tested. The sharpness chart is at http://www.pbase.com/image/38413625. But does it have the zoom problem being discussed here? It certainly does! I'm not sure this is just a back focus problem (parallel incoming rays focus at a fixed distance from the back of the lens irrespective of focal length but that point isn't on the CCD plane). I think it's a design problem (rear focal point shifts as focal length of lens is adjusted). Does anyone have a 3x that doesn't exhibit this?

Hello all...got a question. I am about to purchase the XL2 and would like to incorporate a matte box along with the 3x wide angle lens. Has anyone used the 3x wide angle lens with a matte box. If so, which matte box? and how does it perform..any vignetting?

We are looking at the Chrozsiel 4X4, Cavision 4X4 and the Formatt FM-500 4X4. Does any one have any of these and what is your experience? Any vignetting when shooting in 16:9?

Thanks in advance

Hello Scott, if no one should respond, you may want to contact James Lee, the technical support manager for 16X9INC. He should be able to tell you which Chrosziel matte box you need for the 3X wide angle lens. 16X9INC is the sole authorized US distributor for Chrosziel, who in turn provides Chrosziel products for B&H Photo, EVS, ZGC, etc.

Contact him at: jamesl@16x9inc.com or 866.800.1699. Of course, any one of our sponsers (http://www.dvinfo.net/sponsors/index.php) should be able to help too.

The 411-53 Chrosziel matte box they sell specifically for the XL2 "suits lenses up to 5.2mm or 4.5mm with one filter". I think the 3X may vignette at full wide, but to be sure contact James. Of course, they have other Chrosziel models to choose from, perhaps one better suited for the 3X?

Cinetech on the other hand, offers a full size, four-stage(!) matte box that can accomodate nearly any lens. Additionally, it is a swing-away matte box so you can switch between lenses without having to remove the entire matte box. I'm 95% certain this Cinetech matte box can fit the 3X wide angle lens without problem or vignetting so long as you have the right adapter ring in place. It also has the added benefit of using either 4X5 or 4X4 filters.

This setup will cost you closer to $3000 though so it is not cheap ($500 or so for the Cinetech rods and camera plate, $2400 - $2700 for the matte box depending on where you go, another $100 - $200 or so for the eye brow/french flag). Check out Cinetech (http://www.cinetechonline.com) for more info.

Not sure about the Cavision or Formatt matte boxes.

Hello Christopher,

Thanks for the reply. I will call those guys at 16X9 and see what they recommend. I am suprised that as many XL2 owners that visit dvinfo, that none has responded to this question. Perhaps most don't use a matte box with the 3x or the 20x. and if that is the case, I wonder why. Perhaps there are problems when using a matte box with the XL2?

Hi

Being a bit of a novice to the XL2, and filmmaking can I ask a question:-
"what is a matt box?"
"under what circumstances would you use on?"

Ta.

I have used the Vocas 2 stage matte box with the 3 x lens with no problem.

I recommend the Vocas as I have found it to be of high quality and very durable. The model I have has two rotating stages on it.

I purchased mine at the Filter Gallery in NYC. The Filter Gallery has a lot of different manufacturers represented there to try out.

Actually, the reason we see so few reports of using the XL2 with a matte box is because matte box manufacturers only just started producing camera plates/rods supports for the XL2.

At least this was the case for Chrosziel who only announced their XL2 rods support just last month and in fact I'm not even sure they're shipping yet (they are however, available now for order).

Whenever a new camera comes out all the matte box manufacturers have to ensure that their existing systems will work as installed or otherwise redesign and machine new parts. This is exactly what happened with the previous Chrosziel XL1s rods support, which was too short for use on the XL2.

The Cinetech base plate also needed to be modified, this time because the XL2 had a slightly wider base. So not necessarily a problem with matte boxes, just that the XL2 is still very new! I only just started seeing new matte boxes for Sony's HDV camcorders as well.

Eric, a matte box is an overpriced product aspiring cinematographers purchase to make their DV camcorders look like film cameras.

Did I say that out loud? Seriously, a matte box is simply a kind of lens hood/sun shade which you attach to the front of your camera lens. However, unlike the simple lens shade that came shipped with your camcorder, matte boxes allow you greater control over the light coming into your camera because:

1) A good matte box has a much larger shade area then a regular lens shade, extending as far out in front of the lens without getting in the shot itself. Matte boxes also frequently come with french flags or eye brows, something akin to placing your hand above your eyes when you're trying to see when its bright outdoors. In fact this is exactly how a matte box works: helps prevent stray light or too much bright light from affecting your camera's vision.

2) A good matte box allows you to use several filters without having to screw them on to the front of your lens. This is accomplished through the use of filter trays, which you can install and remove in seconds. Using multiple filters helps you create different images. Most matte boxes have at least two filter stages, higher-end matte boxes come with four or more! Search the forums on different filters you can use, but most matte boxes allow you to use 4X4 sized filters. Other sizes include 3X3, 4X5.6, or even 6X6. The larger sized filtes are found primarily in motion picture film.

Something else you should know is that matte boxes can be attached directly to the lens (clamp-on) or installed via a camera plate and rods (usually 15mm in thickness). The rods solution is more expensive but will allow you to keep the weight of the matte box and filters off of your lens. Having rods also means you can enjoy the use of a follow focus and other cinema accessories.

So far I've discussed the advantages of having a matte box. Drawbacks include more equipment cost, more equipment to carry and take up space in your bag, and taking more time to setup and install. Larger matte boxes can rarely be left on the camera because they just won't fit in bags made for the camera alone. So this means the matte box needs to be attached before every new shoot (imagine driving to several locations in a day, each time assembling the matte box and rods to the camera). One solution for this is to use a very large bag or case.

If you shoot documentaries or run-and-gun type of footage, a large matte box may not be for you. Besides, they add more weight and can be bulky to shoot with handheld. A matte box is best for controlled filming situations, as on a narrative feature, short, or music video. You will be hard pressed to find a motion picture film camera without a matte box.

Finally, there is some truth to my first, shorter definition of a matte box: they do make your camera look very professional. This can be important if you have the need to impress clients or help actors feel they're in a "better" production.

Check these links for matte box photos:

Cinetech (http://www.cinetechonline.com)
16X9INC (http://www.16x9inc.com)
Cavision (http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/Mattebox.htm)
Century Optics (http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/matteboxes/xl1_mb.htm)
Cinetactics (http://www.cinetactics.com)
Petroff (http://www.petroff.ws)

Now I know what a matt box is.
Thanks Christopher, that was a very clear description.

Hey Guys,

I just received my 3x lens and mine does indeed exhibit the faulty focus problem as well. I agree with A.J. that it may be a design problem. I think we should get some kind of list going of 3x lens owners that exhibit this problem so we can contact Canon. I'm starting to think that no 3x lens works perfectly with the XL2.

If the current interchangeable lens system was what Canon was trying to preserve by keeping the 1/3 chip, I would rather have had Canon switch to a 2/3 CCD and get a new line of lenses that work flawlessly.

I guess we're all stuck till now until because the 20x isn't wide enough :(

A few questions just to clarify...

Does this phenomenom occur only in manual focus mode?

If you rehit the focus button on the zoom outs does that correct the focus properly?

Does the focus work properly in autofocus mode?

Hey Jim,

This phenomenon occurs in both manual and auto mode. In 24p mode, the auto focus is painfully slow so it's definitely noticeable. Besides, I'm sure a lot of us don't trust autofocus mode so it will be a problem for us to deal with. When you zoom out in manual mode, the image becomes blurry and if you hit the focus button, the image refocuses. I hope that helps Jim.