Dale Guthormsen posted this on GL2 Son of Watchdog > Century 2x Teleconverter ....

<<<<I just recently purchased a 2x from a member on the classifieds on this list, a fellow canadian, Francois. I had the lens in a couple days, impressed.

I took it out in the field and having had a tiffen on my sony and tossing the tiffen in the garbage 150 dollars wasted), I was still leary as to expectations.

If you are considering one of these converters you will not likly be dissappointed!!

With the gl2 telephoto out all the way and then with the 2x on it I could fill the bulk of the Frame with a hungarian partridge (about 6 inches tall) at 75 to 100 yards out. A 1000 mm lens or better on a 35 mm slr. the detail was much better than i expected as duplexes have a reputation of destroying the image!! >>>>

We will never have enough reports of wildlife field tests like this.

This is a copy of my response to Brendan's post in the GL2 forum.

I have an abundance of footage taken with an XM1 and the Sony 1.7X convertor, plus some new footage with an XM2. I have just begun acquisition with a Century 2x on the XM2.

There is a gallery available on this site, but I am unable to post on it, and requests for information as to what is required have not been answered.

I too have looked at ourmedia, but have not yet taken the plunge.

As a result I have been emailing stills to people.

If one could post on the gallery here, life would be a lot simpler.

Note: the above comments reference the following thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=63642

I was hoping somebody would tidy me up. A new thread was the way to go; my post-primary education continues apace. Thank you Boyd.

I hope Dale comes in with more insight from outdoors on his GL2 (XM2) ?

Alan, I would be glad to study your stills or footage, outdoor especially. Please keep tapping at Ourmedia ... they go quietly in the end. If I could inspire you the way Meryem inspired me I would, but there are, well, some basic, you know what I mean, sort of fundamental, well it's obvious isn't it, I mean to say.... in a nutshell, I may be more prone to feminine influence than you, but please give it another try and share your loot with the rest of us.

You wouldn't be trying the blarney on me, now would you, Brendan?

Seriously, to me, getting involved with my own web page is just that bit too daunting. It's one thing batting jpeg stills around, but video is a different league.

Interestingly the first thing I used my new Century convertor on was a colony of rooks nesting in a Sycamore at the end of the garden. I expected to see the chromatic aberration that Meryem showed us a while ago, in http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52035&highlight=Century
as it was a very similar shot, but blessedly my example of the lens seems to be much better in that respect.

Incidentally, I think that the asymmetric vigetting is due to faulty alignment in the camera rather than the convertor lens as my old Sony convertor displays different asymmetry with my XM2 to that with the XM1.

We keep meeting up on different forum boards, Alan.

alan, just for the record...i think the Century Optics 2x is a great product and a great addition to the GL2 arsenal. the CA footage i posted was more in the spirit of "here's what it looks like when it crops up." there's been several occasions--not just with the century optics teleconverter--when CA which is not visible in the viewfinder as i shoot, is visible in the footage. (or, perhaps, it is there, but i'm not attending....). i didn't post that footage to discourage anyone from purchasing what is undoubtedly the best converter out there for the GL2, but, rather, to offer an example of what can happen.

same goes for the vignetting example i posted. it wasn't intended to discourage anyone from purchasing a CO 2x--it was just something which had been extensively discussed but no one had posted any actual footage, and it's always helpful to see an example instead of trying to visualize based on someone's text-based descriptions in these discussion threads.

You certainly didn't put me off, Meryem, I bought the Century after seeing your posts.

The vignetting, as I say, is inevitable with this type of convertor. To reduce it, so that you can zoom out further before it starts, the lens diameter would have to be considerably larger. To maintain the quality of the lens, it would become prohibitively expensive, and very heavy.

My one regret is that the 2.0X is now 58mm screw mount, rather than fitting to the lens hood bayonet, which older brochures describe. I asume this is a question of economics.

i have the bayonet mount, and a big disadvantage is that it can't be used with a step ring, which requires the screw-in mount. i'll tradeja! if i had the screw-in variety instead of the bayonet mount, then i could use it with my FX-1 for more reach, which the FX-1 sorely needs.

Trading is an interesting idea. The nearest I ever get to Boulder is LA twice a year as a break to my annual commute to New Zealand. This 12000 mile commute gives me two each of Northern hemisphere May, June, July! Wonderful!

I suppose we probably overfly Colorado?

Having had a further look at both the Century site and the UK suppliers, I think that the 58mm thread pattern is the only one that is imported to the UK now. Presumably because it fits both Canon and Sony (and I think some JVC models).

meryem,

Yesterday the gl2 went on the fritz, remove cassette and it could not even get the cassette out!! It is off today

I am considering getting an fx1 for a second camera. How do you find yours for wildlife shooting???

Has anyone tried using a wide angle infront of a converter to reduce the degree of vinetting???

I shoot a lot of flight of raptors from slow stuff to 200mile per hour dives/stoops.

The greatest problem with the gl2 is focusing while using the zoom!!

The auto focus is out and change the zooom and the whole things is over and you have no image.
With the zoom+ a concerter I always focus on a distant object first with the zoom max where I want it, then draw back until I lose focus then nudge it forward. When you are searching blue sky it is just plain hard to find and manual focus. Once you got them it is much easier to keep them enlarged and when the start to come down I draw back on the zoom trying to keep the size relatively the same coming down, if you let them get to big you will lose them due to the excessive speed. I shoot a lot of footage for some usable footage!!
When I either get another camera or my gl2 back I could post some still shots at different distances to show the detail.


dale guthormsen

Allan,

this is an interesting point!! I found with 2 and 3 plexes on cameras (nikon, canon, and pentax) that the same one would effect each camera different. I have seen them where the actual lens is made incorrectly and the actual point of focus of the camera and the lens is different. when this occurs the 2x can never actually focus properly. I think this is one of the biggest problems with cheap converters. think of the compexity of getting the glass perfect, mounting it is a threaded housing so it is 100% 90 degrees to the housing, the threads are cut perfectly enough to not throw the lens into a cant of .002 of a an inch. No wonder good lenses are so expensive!!!

I bought the century because I looked at a sight where the gl2 shows a mountai and then zooms in closer to notice some clifts, then from there they zoom in on the cliff and there is a climber on one of the rock faces. I was impressed enough to get the one I now have.

bad stuff about your camera, dale, sorry to hear it. i have an FX-1 and think it is a fantastic camera for the price. if you're considering replacing a GL2, it's the way to go. best bang for the buck. the one disappointment you'll likely have is the lack of zoom. when you're accustomed to the GL2's 20x, the 12x on the FX-1 will seem measly by comparison. and century optic's 1.6x teleconverter is a whopping $849 new. so the price comparison between a GL2 and FX-1 sinks under the weight of the price of the TC, at least if you're shooting wildlife, where more reach is essential:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=361301&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

as i mentioned, if you have a screw-on 58mm CO 2x mount, you can get away with using the 2x on the FX-1 using a step ring. it resolves well enough.

FX-1 will shoot breathtaking landscapes and fabulous detail on animals, if you're close enough. it's terrific for small subjects, bugs, flowers, that sort of thing. macro work. for $80, you can add this set of diopters and get super-close. i have a 58mm set for my GL2 as well as the 72mm set, and it simply can't resolve close-up images like the FX-1 can.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=122142&is=REG&addedTroughType=search


hope this helps....

I'm with Meryem. The GL2 has all its 20x zoom in the telephoto range, whereas the FX1 has a 12x that goes from a pretty good wide-angle to a so-so telephoto. Any wildlife photographer (even comong from a VX2100, say), will be crying out for more reach. Then they'll flinch at the cost of a decent 2x TC with a 72 mm attachment thread or a Sony bayonet.

The GL2 is spectatular value for money when viewed alongside the VX2100, but I'm just hearing too often of faults like Dale reports, and I now wobble about recommending it. OK, its days must surely be numbered anyway in the light of the HDV opposition, but that Canon fluorite lens has always been its trump card. For wildlife photographers like you guys Canon has faced little opposition.

tom.

Hello again, Tom. Yes, you have hit the nail on the head! I have just, with some reluctance, replaced an ailing XM1 with an XM2, the reluctance being due to the apparent fragility of the design. Basically I bought the lens, and I hope the rest holds together. As a wildlife shooter, pure and simple, once I had decided that the XL2 was simply too large and heavy for a lot of what I do, I really had no choice.

Oh for a PD170 with the Canon lens!

It was brave of you to stick with Canon after illness struck the first one Alan, but as you say, the 20x zoom exerts quite a pull to a wildlife man such as yourself.

But that 20x zoom feeds tiny 1/4" chips in the Canon, and if the 1/3" chipped VX/PD range had a 20x zoom (especially of the same speed) it'd be huge, heavy and expensive. If you fit a 1.7x TC to the VX2k1 you end up with the same telephoto reach as the XM2 but it's also half a stop faster at f/2.4. When you came to replace your XM1, didn't this thought make you reconsider Sony?

I've had many people say to me that the XM2 must be better than the VX2k1, simply because the cameras look so similar, perform so equally well yet the Canon's miles cheaper and comes with a noticeably longer zoom. I always have a simple reply. Market forces define the situation well; if two cameras are the same price and one has a much longer zoom, which one do you thing would have the better lens? If one of the cameras is a lot cheaper as well as having a longer zoom, ask the question yet again.

tom.

Ah, yes, Tom, but then I was using the XM1 with a Sony 1.7X convertor most of the time, and I have bought a Century 2x convertor for the XM2.

I would happily pay the price, and lug the mass of the PD170/Canon hybrid, if only!

Another slant on the price differential: Perhaps Sony have put the money into the CCD, chassis and transport, whereas Canon have put so much into the lens that there is nothing left for the rest. Maybe what I want is a £2000+ XM3, but I doubt this will happen. It would tread on the toes of the XL2, which is available for around £2800 now I think.

steve macdonald, who is a smart, articulate guy, and i had a back n forth exchange about this very issue here, the sony vx series mounted with teleconverters v. canon options, if anyone wants a look:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=407115#post407115

it's towards the end of a very long thread, so would have been hard to find.

he makes a good case for using the sony plus TCs--though i still think for wildlife there's no substitute for the eyeball-to-eyeball long reach which only canon cameras currently provide. just my opinion, don't anyone take it beyond that. no matter how much reach i have, it's never enough:

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

but again, that's my own issue.as i told dale in an email, it's best to hear what everyone says to make your own informed purchase.

after all, kevin railsback took this video with the HVX2000 of these wolves, but given what i know of the 12x zoom on my FX-1, he was either in a protected environment, somehow, or otherwise too close for my comfort. i don't know the details. but to get this kind of detail with a 12x, you're not far from your subject. i think this footage tipped many folks towards the panny camera, but not many of us would be willing to get this close to this subject without some degree of protection. unless you're the next tim treadwell.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=60621&highlight=wolves

oh, and raynox makes a teleconverter for the FX-1. i know nothing of its price or performance (maybe someone else can weigh in?), but here's the link:

http://raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx1/index.htm

"no matter how much reach i have, it's never enough" - I am with you on that, Meryem! Though there is one well respected professional still photographer here in the UK who says the reverse : "No matter how wide ....."! But she is a still photographer, and was talking about landscapes

Raynox makes a teleconverter for the FX-1. I know nothing of its price or performance (maybe someone else can weigh in?), but here's the link:

http://raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx1/index.htm

Raynox seems to have put together a nice collection of fisheye, macro and telex lenses for high-performance camcorders. I have the DCR-2020PRO, with 2.2X and a 62mm mounting ring. I use it on a VX2100 and also on a large digital still camera. They rate it at having an optical resolution of 260 lines per millimeter at lens center. You'll note that they describe it as a high-definition lens and show an example shot with an FX1. I regard it as having exceptional quality, especially for the price. With my still camera, the images come out as sharp as they do without it. However, it vignettes on the VX2100 at any point below about 85% full zoom, so it's limited for use only on extra-long shots, where the subjects aren't going to come zooming in on you. They supply step-up rings for use on 52mm and 58mm lenses, but for an FX1, you'd need to get your own adaptor ring. I can't say at what point it would vignette on an FX1, but with that model's larger lens, it could be at a higher point. I'd check out this factor, before I bought it for a camera with that large of a lens diameter.

It makes a nice item in my camera bag and once in awhile, I pull it out for some shots of sitting ducks on a large pond. Its length actually helps stabilize the camera. I'm currently trying to ambush a herd of elk in a deep valley, while I lurk up on the rim and have the 2020PRO on all the time.

Meryem, you might be surprised to know that in the last several years, two herds of elk have moved their ranges into Eugene's city limits, on the SW and SE corners of town. One bunch are Roosevelt and the other, of the Rocky Mountain subspecies. Cougars are also regularly spotted in these areas.

Raynox also makes the DCR-1540PRO, with 1.54X, that is rated sharper at
340 lines per mm. It probably would be better than the 2020 for an HD camcorder, when used for normal shooting distances, except for the vignetting problem. I can't speculate at what zoom point it would vignette, as its smaller, 52mm mounting-thread diameter, complicates the matter.

The high-definition fish-eye lens on their page is rated even sharper and is an interesting possibility. It has a larger, 72mm mounting thread. I'm waiting for someone else to buy it and give us a report. There are some super-macro lenses on this page, of which I know nothing and can make no comment, except that their mounting threads are very small. Perhaps for zoomed-back macro use, that size wouldn't matter. Raynox's lenses are fairly lightweight for their size, but seem sturdy. I wonder if they will ever produce some telex lenses with 72mm threads, to better serve cameras such as the FX1?

Gentlemen,

What a wealth of interesting information.

with my lovely gl2 out for repairs I broke the bank and bought a new xl2. I must say i am most impressed with the lens. My 1.6 canon teleconverter should be here soon. We leave on saturday so I hope it is here by then.

I had a couple thoughts: is there a duplex that can go on the end of the 72 mm lens as well as the base mount? I wonder if the resolution would be to degraded if you tried that?
I have the 58 century 2x and wonder if you used a step down ring if you could still get usable frames/ hAS ANYONE TRIED THAT??

What I have noticed is that not all 20x zooms are equal. tonight we were videoing migrating cranes passing by in large flocks probaby a couple thousand feet up or so. My wife was shooting a sony 20x and I the xl2 20x. there was visual difference with the canon being a larger image. the sony's bottom is a 2.5 to 50mm and the canons is 5.4 to 108. you think while the proportion is the same the image might be too, but apparantly not. In my slr past we never used couplers, just seperate lenses, so this is kind of new to me.
We will be filming sage grouse and antelope this month and I will try to get some comparisons done for interest sake.


Thank you everyone for writing on this thread!!


Dale

There is this, which is designed for the Canon 16x, but may well fit the 20x:

CENTURY OPTICS VS-16TC-XL 1.6 TELE CONVERTER

It would certainly be better than trying to fit a 58mm thread convertor onto a 72mm (?) thread lens front. The vignetting would be dreadful with the 58mm and a step down ring. I do not know what it would do to the resolution - Meryem would doubtless know.

I think you are confusing the 20X zoom range with actual focal lengths. 20x simply means that the ratio of the longest focal length to the shortest is 20:1. The factors that control image size are the actual focal length of the lens and the format - in this case the CCD chip size. There is a complicated formula which enables one to compute the 35mm equivalent focal length of a digital camera lens with its small chip, but most people use a conversion factor, eg 9.4x for 1/4" chip, 7.2x for 1/3" chip.

The Canon XM2 has a 1/4" chip and a 20X, 42-84mm range lens, which leads to a 35mm equivalent of 39.5-800mm.

The Sony VX2100 has a 1/3" chip and a 12x, 6-72mm lens, giving a 43-516mm 35mm equivalent.

This way of computing is independent of format, eg 3:3, 4:3, 16:9, as it is based on angle of view. Some camera makers confuse the issue by using horizontal field of view for comparison purposes. As the lens produces a circular image field and the format has to be fitted into that, a widescreen format has a wider horizontal field of view than the comparable 4:3 format, BUT with a given lens and chip the actual size of the image of a given object is the same for all three formats.

Alan nails it, Dale. It all comes down to focal lengths and chip sizes. 20x is a nominal figure anyway, and just like in your still camera days there's a healthy production tolerance on this figure anyway.

tom.

someone did this experiment of adding the canon 1.6x to the base of the lens and the 72mm CO adapter to the front, but i'm not recalling the outcome. a search might yield it up. i think it worked out for the user. but undoubtedly image quality suffers from softness.

at this point, you are better off getting the EF adapter and a 35mm lens to use on an XL2, for a little more than the price of two teleconverters. used adapters crop up here periodically, and used 35mm lenses can be found fairly inexpensively on the still photo websites' classifieds. the canon 100-400mm zoom is quite popular for extending reach. or the nikon adapter which puts no additional glass between the lens and the camera and a nikon 35mm lens.

it's all too easy to get addicted to long reach....

I bought a Raynox 2.2. We tried it on a friend's Z1. Resolution looked good.
Throw was terrfic. But there was no place in the zoom to get rid of the
vignetting.

Might be OK for a SD broadcast. But wide screen- if you see edge to edge-
it probably is a problem.

Still looking. Any suggestions? Really want 2x and not the 1.6x which isn't long enough for our wild animals.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Wayne

Well I looked but couldn't find anything bigger than 1.6x except that Raynox which I also considered. I was concerned that it wouldn't really do what I wanted on the Z1, and it sounds like you've confirmed this. I ended up getting the 1.6x and am happy with it. Don't know that you'll do a whole lot better on the Z1 without some tradeoffs. Have you seen this thread?

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58525

Thanks Boyd. Looks like it's the Century Optics 1.6X and move closer.

Did you like the sunshade? Is it easily packed? Filter tray?


Again- thanks for your help.

Wayne

Yes, I like the sunshade a lot. It goes on and off very quickly, and fits in my camera bag without problem although it isn't small. The bayonet mount on the lens is very clever and also works quickly. One thing when using with the .6x lens.... I need to use the Z1's allscan mode to be sure it isn't clipping the edges of the image, which it will do if not properly aligned. But of course with the 1.6x lens that shouldn't be an issue.

I haven't used the lens shade with filters yet myself. They're pretty expensive, and even the tray itself ain't cheap!

"it's all too easy to get addicted to long reach...."


What a true statement !!!!!!! I have been there in the past.

To be honest, having grown up in an Archery hunting tradition (my father was a bowyer), as youngsters we learned stalking skills and practiced them like pocessed demons!!! When i started shooting (35 mm and 16mm film)wildlife I started getting lazy and going for reach. it was not that ling that I realized that all my best pictures had been with my Highest quality lens it was a 100 to 200 and had about a 4 inch diameter low f stop.

To be honest, a 20x with a 1.6 should be all you need. My biggest problem is shooting birds at high altitude, for some reason I just can't stalk them!!

I bought a Raynox 2.2. We tried it on a friend's Z1. Resolution looked good. Throw was terrific. But there was no place in the zoom to get rid of the vignetting.

Wayne

I was afraid that the Raynox 2.2X might have this absolute vignetting problem when used on a basic lens with a 72mm barrel. On my 58mm VX2100, the top 15% of the zoom range is vignette-free, so it's useful on very long shots. As I said before, they should consider making a larger 2.2X telex, that has a wide enough barrel to provide at least a small zone without vignetting, at the highest magnification point. Their current 2.2X model does have a 62mm mounting thread, but apparently not even that is enough for the 72mm cameras. Raynox seems to breeze by this issue on its website and I think they should not list their lenses as suitable for cameras, with which they vignette at all points of the zoom.

I think they should not list their lenses as suitable for cameras, with which they vignette at all points of the zoom.

I haven't looked at their website recently, but when I was shopping I don't believe Raynox made any claims that this lens was suitable for the Z1 or other 72mm camcorders. In fact, IIRC they were mostly positioning it as a product for digital still cameras. Has this changed?

''Raynox seems to breeze by this issue on its website and I think they should not list their lenses as suitable for cameras, with which they vignette at all points of the zoom.''

This is bad news. So Raynox are selling a 2.2x tele converter with a 62 mm attachment thread as suitable for the 72 mm filter thread of the Z1?!?

''Raynox seems to breeze by this issue on its website and I think they should not list their lenses as suitable for cameras, with which they vignette at all points of the zoom.''

This is bad news. So Raynox are selling a 2.2x tele converter with a 62 mm attachment thread as suitable for the 72 mm filter thread of the Z1?!?

On the Raynox website, they show an example of a picture that was shot using their DCR-2020PRO lens, with a Sony FX1. This is the 2.2X telex, with 62mm mounting threads. Am I incorrect that the FX1 has the same 72mm filter threads as the Z1U? Has anyone else used this telex with either the Z1U or the FX1 and experienced the vignetting all through the zoom range, that was described in a previous message?

Has anyone had a different experience with this adapter? As I said previously, our quick test could not get rid of the vignetting anywhere in the Z1 zoom.
We're picking up another Z1 this week- which we'll keep. And do another
test. I'll report back on this test also.

Wayne

Yes, the Z1 has the same 72mm filter thread. If the front element of the lens is any where near this diameter, I should have thought that serious vignetting was inevitable if you put what amounts to a 62mm mask in front of the lens - the extra spacing generated by the step down ring will simply make matters worse.

After all, as has been noted above, putting a teleconvertor which is designed specifically for the lens in question on the the front leads to vignetting at all but the longer end of the zoom.

The Sony 1.7x is better from the vignetting point of view than the Century 2x on the VX2100 for which they were designed, but the diameter of the glass is far greater in the Sony.

After all, as has been noted above, putting a teleconvertor which is designed specifically for the lens in question on the the front leads to vinetting at all but the longer end of the zoom.

Actually, I'm able to zoom out about halfway with the Century 1.6x on the Z1 before encountering any vignetting.

Amazing! Is there not even any darkening at the corners of the frame?

It is a pity that Century cannot provide that kind of performance with convertors which are used on the intended camera.

I suppose there might be slight darkening at some point, but I really haven't noticed it in any footage I've edited (FWIW, I shot HDV but captured as SD using in-camera firewire downconversion). I used the Z1's allscan mode and pointed at a bright area to determine the maximum zoom point. Of course you need to remember that this lens costs around $,1000...

Presumably it works because the diameter of the lens elements is large?

The rear element of the Century 2X is 39mm diameter - a lot less than the 58mm thread - while the front element diameter is 75mm.

The comparable figures for the Sony 1.7X are 37mm and 88mm, and this allows you to zoom out a lot further than the Century

Well,

While waiting for my gl2 to return I have been using my xl2 with the canon base lens mount 1.7 teleconverter.

I believe that the canon converter when at the distance is not as clean of an image as the Century 2x when on my gl2.

The standard lens on both is an interesting comparison when zoomed. The xl2 does seem to hve finer lines on the objects in focus than the gl2 when at the distance.

the more I dabble with these the more I realize how important it is to just get closer!!!

I guess the real test is to put a century 2x on the xl2 for a final test.


Dale Guthormsen

Dale, did you post any Xm2/XL2 Century 2x footage? Just invoiced a client . .I'm feeling frisky!!

Grazie

Grazie,

No I never did post some footage with the century 2x.

I am on holidays for the next two months and I will see if I can post some images.

Of interest is that I have my xl2 with the 1.6 plex and the gl2 with the 2plex from century.

I will see if I can post some comparisons.

I kind of like the century better as it softens less at the further distances.

I have not printed stills for comparison, so it is only a feeling. I will try to do something more constructive with them this week.

Dale

Thanks Dale.

Graham,

Yesterday I got out and did some comparison footage. I got some footage of an upland plover that shows the level of detail through each lens. I put the footage on the time line and could post a still of the same bird through each camera, the xl with the 1.6 and the gl with the 2x century.

Is there a place on this forum you can post a still??

I coluld make a wmv file of both to email anyone that wanted to see the difference in video.

Graham,

Oh yea,

today I will run a test on a manual canon 300mm lens attached with a non lens converter.

Is there a place on this forum you can post a still??

I coluld make a wmv file of both to email anyone that wanted to see the difference in video.

Sure! A whole range of "stills" options

PLUS!! Tiny-Shorties . .
Mpegs = 4.67 MB

wmv = 3.72 MB

Can;t wait to see.

You Star-Man!

I'd love to see your comparisons too, Dale.

Attached to email please, would suit me fine if you've time or any other way you have to offer.

I'm easily confused so please spell out the details of which is which, thank you.

anyone want to see the test footage you can drop me your email adress to dale.g@sasktel.net and I will forward the clip to you.

Not as good as I would have liked, but you can decide if there is a difference.

I think the century is better for detail. all the footage was shot at full zoom. If you are not at full zoom both give better detail.

I tested out the cheap system today. a 120 dollar 300 mm canon fd lens attached with a 120 dollar plastic fd converter for the xl. I shot some off the deck of the house and I must say it is far crisper than either lens with the converters. I also have to say that with the wind we have here keeping the thing steady was a whale of an issue. I am going to build an aluminum rail for the xl but that will take a while. the gl with the duplex is about a 1600mm and the xl is 1250. you might notice on the upland plover both were shot at the same distance and there is not much difference in size!!


I must say that down the road getting an ef lens with OS will be high on my list.

That falcon was something else Dale. Was it a young one practising wing-beats or were you really holding it in one gloved hand 'n shootin' with the other!?
You captured the plover's anxiety too, with both systems, but xl2 combo seemed slightly sharper ... all interesting footage, much enjoyed.

Brendan,

The peregrine is a 7 year old just vigorously exercising on a perch in the yard.