...i have to let my bank account fill back up after this!

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/152989

(takes a few moments to load but worth it!)

bad, bad me.

it's really dreamy, though, nice and sharp, and oh the depth of field!

so, share everyone...what is the most ridiculous piece of non-essential gear you've ever shamefacedly purchased? as XL2 owners, surely you have stories to tell......

...i have to let my bank account fill back up after this!

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/152989

(takes a few moments to load but worth it!)

bad, bad me.

it's really dreamy, though, nice and sharp, and oh the depth of field!

so, share everyone...what is the most ridiculous piece of non-essential gear you've ever shamefacedly purchased? as XL2 owners, surely you have stories to tell......

Remind me to keep my blinds closed so you won't be videotaping me! Yikes, that thing is huge. Enjoy.

-gb-

Haha, you could see all the way to Krypton with that thing.

Heck, I'd never leave home with a lens of that reach. Somebody else did this before with an XL-1 or XL-1s. What next? A Baker-Nunn XL-2?

BTW, if this were a jpeg file instead of a bitmap, it'd be 1/20th the file size.

And how many times did you actually use it?

Haha, you could see all the way to Krypton with that thing.

It's wild when your lens needs it's own tripod!

Now that is what I call a serious lens!

It reminds me of the days when you could buy a truck mounted Nikon telephoto of 2000 mm focal length, as i recall.

Just out of interest, with the tripod connecting to the lens, obviously at the center of gravity, does that not cause problems where the XL2 connects to the lens? Does it not weaken the connection at all? I'd be very scared that the weight of the XL2 would cause stress at the connection points?

Or am I completely wrong and far too paranoid for my baby?

Meryem,

That's funny. It even looks like the XL-2 viewfinder is turned around looking down at the lens saying "what the...".

Reminds me of the monster lens Chris Hurd posted an article about here (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php).

So... Give us the specs on that thing- How much was it, what is the distance that thing maxs out at, what does it weigh?

So... Give us the specs on that thing- How much was it, what is the distance that thing maxs out at, what does it weigh?


Who cares. Lets the the video of the women you shot with it! :)

hey greg, stop that, eyeeew. disgusting! maybe i should return this thing after all....

believe me, i got this for looking at the cute, furry, winged animals, the humans don't bear up so well under close scrutiny....

here's the specs:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=381605&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

let's just say i bought mine for considerably, considerably less elsewhere....still a tad expensive, though....

as to other issues, the EF adapter connection is pretty strong, actually. i wouldn't leave it like this for long, but to snap the picture is fine. it's actually more secure attached to this bomber lens firmly attached to this substantial tripod than to a smaller lens, such as the 70-200mm.

evan, i bought this last week, and this was the first time i hooked it up to the XL2. i didn't buy it for the XL2 specifically, i bought it for still photography. it's nice to be able to use lenses for both. there are many times in colorado when i'm out just driving to a place where i plan to shoot scenery or wildlife, and the most interesting thing i see all day is just outside the car window, and i don't have the reach to shoot it. now i do! my plan is to actually use this on a beanbag. then there's the NCAR facility, where all the hawks nest and fly-over, and eldorado canyon down the road. there's many, many places i plan to take this. it is not a museum piece, by any means. if i get a good shot today, when i take it out, i'll post it.

here's the website of the guy who inspired me. it's one of the most interesting photo sites on the web, i think, if you want to know more about how people use this lens. this guy's moon shots are done with a still camera. i'll be really interested to point this thing at the moon with the XL2's magnification factor.

check this out:

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/testequipment

Meryem, that is one heck of a boom boom. I lived in Denver for many years and went to college there in the 70's. My wife is from South Fork, Colorado, down by Creede, on the way up to Wolf Creek Pass. I often video big horn sheep and mule deer there, plus lots of bald eagles. You ever video down that way? Bob

hi bob, occasionally get that way but there's never enough time to get to see everything in this state. i have friends in telluride so usually head in that direction, plus i absolutely love the whole four corners area....so much that's spectacular there!

okay, this is getting into "still crazy" country, but i'm feeling the need to post this link here....my first official shot with this big mama-jama lens. it was pretty casual, i drove about four miles out of town to my friend's farm, and look who was sitting in a tree in a field across the street. shot out my car window on a beanbag, so nothing special, but at least you can see what this lens can do...

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/153752

i shot the same bird with a canon 400mm prime, and the sigma is an even sharper lens. canon has a bit brighter colors, but for clarity, the sigma's tough to beat, and this is coming from a pretty die-hard canon loyalist.....

Yes, I've seen results with the Sigma 300-800mm zoom and it is a very sharp lens (close to the razor sharpness obtained with a Canon FD 800mm f/5.6 or Nikkor 800mm primes). The main problems with using lenses 600mm and over with an XL camcorder are keeping everything solid and tight on the tripod to avoid shakes, especially when there is a slight wind blowing against the lens. I've found that pre-setting focus and then stopping and starting recording using the wireless remote helps a lot in maintaining sharp footage without blur. However, the 300mm f2.8 prime in my opinion more often has enough pulling power for most wildlife subjects, is smaller and lighter, and easier to handle on the XL body to maintain sharpness.

i completely agree with most of what you've said, tony. as i said, i bought this for still photography, where, unlike video, there's no magnification factor, and the 300mm range is not nearly enough for small subjects in those circumstances. and this one costs about the same as a good 500mm or 600mm prime, so relative to the other lenses people buy for longer reach, it's not that expensive, just hard to wield. the fact that the big lens fits on the XL2 is more of a sidenote. for most outdoor video, my 400mm is the lens of choice.

the difference between shooting video and stills, too, is that camera shake is more of an issue with video. i found i can actually mount this directly to a monopod, and shoot crisp stills, but if i were to try to do the same with a video camera, the footage would be useless. and with the hood reversed, it fits in the same backpack i use to carry my XL2, so it's not entirely un-portable...

still, i am looking forward to the full moon, and to see what happens with the XL2 and the canon 1.6x....

I have to agree with Tony in that the lenses beyond 600 mm are too unweildy and subject to atmospheric conditions, bugs in the air, heat waves, dust and vibration. There are a few soles using the Sigma 300 800 with 35mm still cameras , and they are happy with the results. However, using the long end of that lens with a video camera is going to require extremely good conditions and help with stability. A perfect opportunity for me to mention my RONSRAIL, designed specifically for long lenses such as this. Some of you are familiar with the product, others may be interested in my website. Take a look!!

well, fortunately, i'm not trying to convince anybody of anything here, only displaying a choice of mine which i thought might be of general interest...everybody likes looking at new and unusual gear, don't they?

i never claimed that laying down money on a sigma 300-800mm lens is a good idea for everybody (or anybody, for that matter), only for myself and for my purposes, which include the longest-possible still photo reach.

as expensive as it is, a brand-new sigma cost me over $2,000 less than the cheapest used 600mm prime, with all the advantages of the zoom with no visible loss of sharpness....so i'm willing to trade some portability to gain in price and reach.

okay, so this silly photo of my XL2 mounted to a sigma 300-800mm lens is the third most-downloaded thing on my silly multimedia website. i can pour my heart into my DVC challenge videos, and nothing! but one quick snapshot of a big scary-looking lens, and it's an immediate hit....

it's like video porn or something....

i'm using the sigma lens for the current DV challenge.....

It's easy to miss the point that it doesn't stress the XL-2 mount any more to attach it to a monster of a lens. The tripod supports the lens and the camera just rides on the end of it. No problem at all unless you try to manuever the rig by gripping the camera body. The camera is not endangered any more than with a smaller lens with the exception that it more difficult to manuever and is easier to lose control of the entire rig and smash it into something. The stability issue is the main problem and many have used supports to minimize vibration. Bottom line is a lens like this may be unwieldy, but it will not damage your camera if used properly. I base this statement on having used a 500mmF4 Canon with an XL1-s quite extensively.