Hey guys,

I've got a recurring shoot where I need a truly long lens - about 2/3 the distance across a soccer field and I'd like to know if any of you have used the Canon J33x11B IAS lens on the HPX-500 before.

Last year I rented the newer HD version the HJ40x10B w/ stabilization, while it was a great lens and worked wonderfully, it was a pain in the arse to secure one for rental in my market - had to travel into NYC to get it.

Now, I have an option to purchase the older SD version of the lens J33ax11 for less then 10% of price for the new HJ40x10 lens!!!

How does this lens look on the 500 in HD?

Do I need to be concerned that it is not a CAC lens given the 500's chips?

Is there anything else I should be aware of?

Thanks

AFAIK the HJ40 is not a CAC lens either.
In my experience, and from speaking to others and from common sense, it seems that CAC only really works on cheap lenses. If you have a decent lens to start with it seems to make virtually zero difference. More than anything else it seems to me that CAC is there to allow lens makers to make cheap lenses - these lenses basically don't work well enough to give acceptable pictures from an optics point of view, but when coupled with the electronic compensation in the camera they are then raised to the level of acceptable.
So the J33 - it's a funny one. On the one hand it's an SD lens so you'd tend to say don't use it on the HPX500. But then you could say that the HPX500 is using virtually SD chips anyway, so could it be much less of an issue than if you put it on an HXP3000? Maybe.
I only ever used the J33 once, on Digibeta, and even on that I thought it was pretty soft anyway.
No matter what anyone tells you here I'd say without a shadow of a doubt, the only way to know is to try it, ideally some side by side shots with a lens you know is OK.
Steve

AFAIK the HJ40 is not a CAC lens either.
In my experience, and from speaking to others and from common sense, it seems that CAC only really works on cheap lenses. If you have a decent lens to start with it seems to make virtually zero difference. More than anything else it seems to me that CAC is there to allow lens makers to make cheap lenses - these lenses basically don't work well enough to give acceptable pictures from an optics point of view, but when coupled with the electronic compensation in the camera they are then raised to the level of acceptable.

Common sense would also say that there won't be CAC on a lens made before cameras were widely using CAC circuits, and that includes most of the lenses. The conundrum is that plenty of expensive HD lenses are plagued with CA.

Yes Tom, including the HJ40!
My understanding is that CAC is entirely a software thing. The techs take the lens and camera and work out what the camera needs to do electronically to correct the lens' issues. This data is recorded as a file that goes into the camera and when it's told that type of lens is on the camera it activates that file and the corrections are implemented.
This might be completely wrong though!
Steve

Hi
I have a Canon 33x11 lens and used it for football and nature. I would say that it could be used in HD when not using the extender - but it you want to use it to football and mix it with a master camera with a HD lens you probably would see some difference. If the master camera have an SD lens too - you could not tell the difference and it will work OK in HD.

Steve,

CAC is a bit more straightforward than it is in digital photography, since the blue and red layers are already physically segregated by having 3 image sensors. In still photography, CAC requires filtering the R and B from the G, and there can be some smearing.

I would of course prefer inherently converged images. I believe CAC in video only works in the horizontal.