Hello all,

I am a birder, and just got my xl1s and I'm looking forward to using it.

My former experience involved only digiscoping and videoscoping, so
I realy have alot of questions.

First one, what lens to choose? What focal lengths are mostly used ?

It seems like a tele zooms like the bigma (50-500) or the tamron (200-500)
would be perfect. But then, those zooms are restricted to f/6.3 at 500mm,
and primes are shurper and work well with a tele converter.

Would a canon 300mm f/4 L + 1.4 tele converter would be a beter choise? or maybe a 300 f/2.8 + tele converter ? Does the smaller f number worth the extra bulk and another 1.5 kg?

What about the focus? one can assume, that the mf lensses will have some advantage over the af zooms regarding ease and accuracy of manual focus.

I should add, that I don't have any lens at the moment, but I have decided
to opt for a canon FD mount or a nikon one with a non optical adapter.

Next question. How do you carry your rig in the field?
Any sugestions for a cary case (for in the field use)...

I will leave some questions for the next time, meanwhile I'm looking to here some experience and suggestions.

Sassi

Sassi,

In my experience, and if I remember well this is also mentioned in the XL1 manual, you loose sharpness with teleconventers. Second, I recommend Canon lenses instead of Tamron, for their image is better.

The Canon EF 300mm/f4 creates less sharp image than the 300mm/f2.8, but instead these two, I preferred the EF series lens 70-200mm/f2.8 with the XL1s. I you are after same sort of magnification you get with digiscoping, then you need something like a 600mm lens.

Sassi,
You will love your XL-1s. Here are my (hopefully useful) answers to your questions.

1. For birds, chose the 70-300 zoom. Canon's lens is better quality than Tamron's, Sigma's, etc, and not that expensive. If you have more money to spend, the 100-400 is a better quality still, but is much heavier, and needs to be mounted separately.
2. Don't worry about the f stop. The 70-300 goes as low as f/5.6 at 300. In sunny Israel, that's all you will need. Don't bother with a prime lens. You will often be so close that you will want to back off to a lower power. You can't with a prime. The difference in resolution for video is trivial.
3. You can only use a Canon teleconverter with "white" lenses (like the 100-400 zoom). The second market ones are poor quality, and give a noticably soft image. They are not useful to "extend" your lens. I only use one for
head-shot close-ups of sitting birds that aren't far away.
4. Once you put a 35 mm lens on the XL-1s with the adapter, there is no such thing as autofocus, or auto exposure, no matter what lens it is. The adapter does not support auto functions. Everything is manual, sorry. Only
image stabilization works.
5. You need a tripod, but for transport, a soft camera bag is fine.
If you want to see the kind of results I get with this system, check out this link.

http://ibc.hbw.com/ibc/phtml/contributor.phtml?idContributor=24

hi steve: that's a very nice range of bird video. i have been after some owl footage, unsuccessfully, for awhile. i liked your eyeball to eyeball view with the burrowing owl.

the two ongoing hard-to-solve problems of shooting with long lenses are 1) stabilization and 2) transporting all the weight for field shooting.

as you can see from some of steve's footage (i'm thinking spoonbill), even a light wind will cause some camera shake in your images when you zoom in 200-300mm x magnification factor of an XL camera. you will want the biggest, beefiest tripod head you can carry. i have a bogen 519 for long lens work, which is pretty bomber, but then i'm not mobile and have to drive my gear wherever i plan to work. or, on the lightest side, i have a 701rc2, which i can carry in a backpack and use with a 70-200mm f2.8 lens but only locked down. and generally only at low altitudes because at high altitudes, the wind picks up the lens. no point in lugging all that stuff 5 or 6 miles uphill to some big peak and then not being able to use it!

it's good to have a couple of different set-ups, to solve the stability/mobility trade-offs you may encounter. it's worth it, though, to get those eyeball close-ups!

it's also good to have friends willing to help carry all that gear!

i am liking this lens more and more, my sigma 300-800mm bazooka, it's very sharp for a 3rd-party lens:

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

i usually use it in the 300-500mm range, and it's dreamy. for most long lens applications, the 70-200 works just fine. i also have a canon 400mm prime, and i think it is not as sharp as the big sigma zoom. you have to be picky about third party lenses. i think some of them are as good as canon, but you have to read the reviews and only get the best.

good luck!

The Canon EF 28-300 mm lens on the XL1s works pretty good for birds. That's the specific reason why I got it. For a while, I only had the EF 100-400 mm lens, which worked relatively well for swimming and standing birds, but I still had a hard time locking onto flying birds with this lens because I was already zoomed pretty far out at 100 mm and birds would be almost out of sight by the time they showed up in my viewfinder. Anyway, it helps to have a wide zoom range with birds because they can fly over the place and make things difficult. This spring, I got pretty good footage of a Canada goose fight on the water with the 28-300 mm lens, which I couldn't have gotten as well with the 100-400 mm lens. Here's a link that describes some of Canon's zoom lenses: http://opd.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lineup/telephotozoom/index.html

hi sassi,

I use xl2 with canon 100-400 L lens.but as a wildlife photographer I ve tried nearly every lens in teh market. so for short functional answers you need :

1. canon 300 f/4 L (non IS) is superior lens, discontinued for 6 years, if you find it buy it. with ef 1.4X convertor it is still pro 420 f/5.6, better than 100-400 at 400. at 300mm you can not differentiate it from canon 300/2.8. with XL1s it will be around 4000mm and start to be enough for song birds. but with ef 2x quality drops too much to an unexpectable level so I don't recommend it with 2x.

2. canon 400mm f/5.6 is a superir lens too. it better than 100-400 at 400, equal 300/4 L (non IS) wirh 1.4x. with 1.4x it is 560/8, still decent but sunny days, small F stop may be problem.

3. canon 70-200 f/4 L is superior-equal to 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens. and it is lighter than XL2's 20x lens. with xl1s it will be around 800-1900 mm. and you may want it for the bird individuals with their habitats. with this lens your equpment will be light and not need to buy trpod collar for the lens. xl1s bayonet would be strong enought to carry and work with it.

4. 70-200 f/2.8 is also option but it is twice-three times price of 70-200 f/4 and wont give you neither magnification nor quality plus as you pay.

5. second hand canon 300 2.8 (non IS) with 1.4 or 2x convertor. at 300, 420 and 600 it keeps optics at professional level but beware that only practical adventage of it is capable of pro 600 f/5.6 with 2x over 300 f/4 L (non IS) so think twice to pay much and carry 2.5 times heavier than 300 f/4 L. if in your country, getting closer is not a problem-I know in Israel that not a problem-you may find 300/2.8 and 2x is toooo much magnification. with 400mm means 3110mm with XL2 is really noy practic, i.e nearly impossible to pan the flying birds.

in Israel, you need 70-200/4 L lens for migrating raptors with ability to cahnge the magnification. above is not practic for panning ;) , in turkey I mainly use 100-200 (means 900-1600 in XL2 world).

6. however if you still need extreme magnification, I recommend discontinued canon 500 f/4,5 L over any 300/2.8 lenses. at 500 and 700/6.3 with 1.4x this lens is awesome, and with 2x you get decent 1000 f/9 in extreme conditions.

so you may think 70-200 f/4 L with 300 f/4 L or 400 f/5.6 with 1.4 x teleconvertor. so you get system that capable of 700 to 5600 mm at pro quality. If we consider the Israel's rich-easy migration conditions, this system will be far beyond your needs,

by the way dont think f stops in video too much cause the gain and emulsion of video is much more enough to work at f8-f11 range in sunny days, unlike photography.

just as some ideas,
thanks,
alkim.

has anybody tried sigma 120-300 2.8 zoom lens. I ve heard that it is sharper than sigma 300/2.8 prime lens. this lans may be complete -one lens- solution for couple of applications, if it is good with sigma teleconvertors ?

I currently am using an XL1, and planning to purchase an XL H1 in the fall. Most all of my shooting is birds, and I use a variety of Nikon and Sigma lenses with a straight, no glass, adapter. My primary working lens is a Nikon 80-400mm f5.6, though not the absolute sharpest lens I have, still produces a great play back. Among the sharpest I have is a Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO Macro and an older Tokina 80-200 f2.8. All have an external aperture ring. I migrated from bird still photography, where even with a big lens, you still have to get somewhat close in most cases to get anything worth saving. I find that a 400mm lens (400mm x 7.2 = 2880mm video) is more than enough. I find that most people who have to use anything more than a 400mm as their working lens, generally lacks the knowledge and skill of bird photography, and the understanding of a bird's circle of fear, which varies greatly among species. My feeling is that you want to be as portable as you can, unless you are sitting in a blind. There are exceptions where much larger lenses might be required to get the shot, but heat shimmer and distortion might also be a larger problem. Also, anyone using a big lens on their XL, should tie that lens and camera together as one unit on a common plate, and in turn mount that plate to your tripod head at the center of balance. I made my own common plate with different shim blocks for different lense configurations for around $100. If anyone is interested in seeing what I did, you can go to http://birdsdesjardin.com and click on the "Videography" tab. I hope to have a good selection of video clips and video grabs by this summer after I purchase some more space from my provider. Also excuse the Bogan 501 head. It was what I could afford at the time, but it's going to be replaced very soon. I hope any of this helps, but of course anyone is free to do what they are comfortable with.

Sassi, I second much of what the other contributors say. I have been using a Canon XL2 since november 2004, mostly for wildlife filming.

Last year I bought myself the ef-adapter, a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and a Sigma 300mm f2.8. This improved very much my ability to shoot better wildlife-video. My experience is that the 300mm is almost the limit what I am capable to succeed regarding to frame the objects without to much juddering. I still have to practise a lot, particular with pan and tilts.

I am also pleased with the quality the Sigma lenses give. You should give them a try. They are a lot cheaper than original Canon lenses.

Regarding my rig, I use a very sturdy tripod, a Miller Arrow HD. I also got the Ronsrail and Ronssight, look at his website: http://ronsrail.com. As Don mentioned it is very important to lock the lense and camcorder togthether, especially with the largest lenses. You may take a look at my rig at my website: http://www.video-film.no/galleri.html Sorry, text in Norwegian only!

The Ronssight allow me to target the object in a much faster and easily way than searching through the narrow sight of the 300mm lense equivalent 2340mm in 16:9 mode and even more: 2880 in 4:3 mode, for further information, look at Chris Hurds article: http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04.php

Sassi, you also asking how we carry our rig out in the fields. Well, I not sure if you got any winter conditions in Israel, but in winter-time i carry my rig in a pulk or sleigh, I put some picture online later this evening. In summer time I use a bicycle cargo wagon in areas where you can't go by car. In unnavigable terrain you have to carry your gear in a backpack, limiting of course how much equipment you can take with you.

If you like you can take a look at some footage I have put toghether,showing my Sigma 300mm f2.8 lense in action: http://www.video-film.no/snutter/birds.html

Enjoy!

- Per Johan

per johan,

how is miller arrow hd tripod. can you pan easily with sigma 300 especially when you stop panning can you stbilize the move and keep shooting without vibration. because I m about the buy new heavy tripod and yours is in my list,

currently I manfrotto 501 fluid head but it is not enough for the magnifications above 1500 mm.

thanks,
alkim.

how is miller arrow hd tripod. can you pan easily with sigma 300 especially when you stop panning can you stbilize the move and keep shooting without vibration. because I m about the buy new heavy tripod and yours is in my list,
Alkim, everything need som kind of practise, but I am very pleased with the sturdyness of the Miller Arrow HD tripod. You can variate the tension for both pan and tilt giving you much control of the movements. If you calibrate your rig right you almost panning without any force, managing you to stop the pan without any noticable vibration.

So I will advise you to give it a try!

Don,
I tried to e-mail you, but the letter was returned. Can you provide some details about your "glass-free" adapter for the XL-series. Is it only for Nikon?
Who makes it? How much?

Thanks

Steve Siegel
Miami

To answer Steve's question about my "glass free" XL Nikon lens adapter, I purchased mine from SRB Film in the UK. Sorry to say that they no longer carry that specific adapter, nor any for Canon. I ran across this company, Affordable Adapters http://www.adapterplace.com/ that makes straight "glass free" adapters for both Canon FD and Nikon AI mount lenses. I know nothing about these adapters, but I would probably try one, since they are only $125 plus shipping. They don't have a locking pin, but they advertise that they are tight enough to where you don't need it for light weight lenses. I know it wouldn't be an issue for heavy telephoto lenses if you are on a common plate with the lens collar and camera. Also keep in mind that you will have to shoot in manual mode (focus and f stop) for any Canon or Nikon lenses that you use with these adapters. If anyone has had experience with these adapters, please give us a heads up.....

These are my feelings about other equipment issues. When selecting cameras, tripods, fluid heads, lens accessories, ect, they are most likely going to be the cheapest part of your shoot. To spend money and time travelling, whether it's to your local patch or half way around the world, and after you arrive back home to only find that most of what you worked so hard for is junk, then you will realize the importance of acquiring the very best equipment that is available. If you can't afford everything you need right away, set priorities. Assuming you already own a camera that fits your shooting needs, then a top of the line video head with a fairly decent tripod would be first on my list. Do the research, work the forums, and select equipment that's going to work for you and your camera. It's going to pay for its self in the long term....

Don,
I tried to e-mail you, but the letter was returned. Can you provide some details about your "glass-free" adapter for the XL-series. Is it only for Nikon?
Who makes it? How much?

Thanks

Steve Siegel
Miami

Steve, I use the Nikkor to Canon XL adapter made by Les Bosher in UK:

http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/default.htm

Sassi, I'm another birder but using an XM2 I've nothing to offer except that a member of this Forum, Paul Doherty shot much of his "Raptors of Britain & Europe" video guide in Israel. Might be worth a look if you have not seen it already.

Steve Siegel, I like your website very much. If I could steal it and run away with it I would. Instead I'll study it a bit more, thrush and bluebird is all I've seen. Apart from the high quality, the layout and accessibility of your footage is to me marvellous. Any tips please on how it was designed?

Thanks for the input about lens adapters, Don. I think I'll try one of the "Affordable Adapters", but the idea of no lock is really scary.
Curious, with your glass-free adapter do you have any trouble focusing at either infinity or close by? I can't imagine why Canon put glass in their adapter (and not just one, but two lenses) unless they discovered some problem getting the 35mm lenses to focus on the plane of the CCD at all focal lengths.
Brendan Marnell, thanks for the compliment, but the website I linked you to is not mine, but that of the Internet Bird Collection in Barcelona (editors of Handbook of Birds of the World). I am a contributor to their efforts, and also use the site as a convenient repository for video footage. My website, if you are interested, is www.seiurusvideo.com.

Just to mention one thing about these "glass free" lens adapters is, that they are in effect an extension tube. These tubes are used by mostly bird photographers to obtain close focus with the extreme telephoto lenses they use. Downside is that you loose the ability to focus at intinfity with many lenses. This is the case with my Tokina 80-200mm lens, although I don't have any problem with my 80-400mm, 400mm, or the 28-80mm. I'm assuming that is the reason the Canon adapter has extra lens elements to correct that problem. I don't think this would be a problem with just about any lens used with these type of adapters, since most subject matter is well inside intifity anyway. A side benifit of using these adapters/extension tubes, is that you can get really close, approaching macro, shots of butterflies and other small creatures with your telephoto lenses.

Unlike the 'loss of ability to focus at intinfity with an extension tube-type affect' found when using a similar glassless tube on a 35mm SLR body, the Les Bosher Nikkor to XL adapter does not seem to affect the focus range of most of the Nikkor lenses that I use on my XL1s or XL2 - for example, a full turn of the manual focal ring to focus on a small bird and then the distant moon using a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 ED-IF N bayoneted onto the XL2, would provide very sharp footage throughout the range.

I would have to second what Tony said. All my Nikon and Sigma (Nikon mount) lenses focus from near to infinity with no problems. The adapter I use is exactly like the one Les Bosher makes, but was made by a company that is no longer in business. My 80-200mm Tokina is the only lens of that manufacturer that I have, and I only use it for close in and macro work, so infinity is not an issue.

With any of these adapters you have to be able to reach the flange focal distance for the lens/camera maker (Nikon, Canon FD, Canon EF). From reading elsewhere on this forum there is posted an estimate that the flange focal distance of the XL series is 28mm (it may not be but lets use that distance). The Nikon lenses and cameras use a distance of 46.5 mm. (This is the distance from where the lens mates the body - the flange - to the focal plane of their 35mm cameras. So you have to make an adapter that is 18.5 mm long. The Canon FD has a flange focal distance of 42mm. Canon EF is 44mm. But all Canon EF lenses need power to set the aperture, auto focus, and with some of Canon's lenses, to manual focus. So Canon had to insert an adapter with power and all the contacts to run their lenses. I suppose if you wanted to only shoot at the maximum aperture of the lense a simple mount adapter could be used with many of their lenses. So they are not actually extension tubes but flange focal distance corrections.

Interestingly, after Canon's EF series was out they made an adapter that allowed the use of FD mount lenses on their EF cameras, it required optical elements in order to focus to infinity.

This site has a list of flange focal distances: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

And Don, if your 80-200 is a Nikon mount, I don't understand why it does not focus to infinity like your other Nikon mount lenses, it certainly should.

Duane

To answer Duane's question is very simple, I don't know and I don't care. Perhaps it's has something to do with the way different manufacturers group the different elements. I know that the rear element in the Tokina is set deeper inside in relation to the mounting flange than on my 80-400mm Nikon. All I know is what I'm using works, and that's all I care about. I also worked with an XL H1 this past March using the Nikon 80-400mm with no problems. There was a very minor problem, but a mechanical one. The dimension from the centerline of the lens to the bottom mounting surface on the H1 is about 0.10" greater than on my XL1, and I had to put a shim between the lens collar and my common plate.

To answer a question that I'm sure will be asked, I don't know how the Nikon lens held up for HD. I had no way of viewing the tapes, and they were sent away along with the camera. I hope to get that answer in a few weeks. When I do, I'll be sure to post something about it. From what I was able to see through the viewfinder, it looked good, but one never knows for sure until viewed on a good HD reference monitor.

Duane,
You are helping me understand a littlebetter what precisely an adapter does .. I used to think it was mainly to do with matching up thread sizes .. your well-chosen words have sorted that out ... tell us more anytime .. some of the technical language between pros on this Forum tells me nothing (which is understandable given that they're at it a long time and in a hurry to do their job) .. still, you're probably up to your eyes in work too but you found the words .. thank you

Thanks all.... I mean a lot.
It is just great to be here.

Steve your footage is great, I would very mach like to have that kind of footage.
Per Johan, beautiful footage you have there, my children watched it over and over again.

I can see some good points on each of the previous threads.

The first advice I will take is to ask myself what kind of birding do I like,
What locations do I like to visit, what kind of birds I'd like to whatch and shoot. Would I opt for planned shooting or occasional, while birding?
Well, for me it would be a 'birder with an xl camera', meaning one lens solution and mobility.

All of us think that the most used range is 700-2000 (speaking mm and SLR language),Tristan had a very good point and chose the 28-300 canon (very nice lens).
The next range, say 2000-3000 rises some problems mainly with the ability to pan properly stabilize the rig and aim, but is still used by most, for close up of
birds or smaller birds.
I will add acomment for Laury, that the range for good digiscoping is
2000-2500 (beyond that, you start to lose quality).
Above that range atmospheric conditions becomes the major obstacle,
shooting is probabely an option only at good conditions and with a 'locked' head. In that case I agree with Don , though, birders use the term 'record shot' , meaning, when you see an interesting or rare bird you start shooting
even if you are not in optimal position (long distance), striving for the best shot .
A good video head is impotant for those magnifications, so I'll take Don's advise and get me an adequate head from the beginning.

Meryem, your simple advice to have a couple of different set-ups, to solve the stability/mobility trade-offs is a 'revelation' for me ,so I will make myself
a more lighter/mobile set up that will include a good tripod, a gitzo head (equiv. to manfrotto 501) and a good light 75-300 lens (thinking Steve footage) that the camera can take without a common plate.

For the other set up I will take a manfrotto 516 video head and a all in one lens, like the 80-400 or 100-400, that so many use.
I now realy think I will go for the nikon mount option (glass free adapter) and a one lens solution,I think the sigma 50-500 apo lens (opticaly, reviews put it in the same league as 80-400 and 100-400 of nikon/canon) will do the job, of course I will add common plate to hold the lens and camera together.
This lens may not be the sharpest at every focal length but will help me 'not lose' any shooting opportunity.

As I know myself I'll soon add a good 300/400 lens like those offerd by Alkim (thanks Alkim).

Brendan, I have Paul Doherty's DVDs ,I like them a lot and they made me think xl.

Don, I think I will try one of those plasic adapters (set up will be on a common plate), I realy would like to think that the weakest part is the adapter.

Duane, thanks for your explanations, very helpfull.

Sassi

Hi Sassi

I think you are on the right track wanting to keep the equipment light. I would suggest starting with either a 75-300mm or an 80-400mm lens. I think others have mentioned that you should try and avoid the cheap 75-300mm lenses; some of them are not very good.

If you can afford it then an 80-200/2.8 would be a big help when the light is poor.

You can see that I like zoom lenses. A straight 300 or 400mm might be nice, but with a zoom you can stay in the same spot and frame the subject in different ways. And finding the subject in the viewfinder is much easier with a zoom than with a prime.

Enjoy your filming - Israel has some great birdlife in particular; it's one of my favourite places.

Paul

I am using a Les Bosher adaptor with a Optex modified Canon 300mm T2.8 FD lens and I have no focus problems. I am also able to use, with suitable adaptors, the Canon lens on a Sony Betacam B4 mount cameras and Arriflex cameras

An old thread I know, but just noticed Don's comment about the glassless adapters acting like extension tubes - not true at all. They only extend to get the flange back distance correct (ie Nikon to XL etc) and leave you with the same focus range as before.
Something not talked about much with long lenses is the focussing rings, they need to be very light and smooth for focussing pulling as at these extreme magnifications the slightest touch will induce shake. Manual focus lenses tend to be better in this respect, and I would only use those that have inernal focus as the focus is so much lighter due to the fact that only small internal lens element are moving.
I only rarely use XLs and put my normal film/broadcast teles on it (Canon 300, 150-600, 800) but if I were to buy a lens specifically for it I think I'd get a Sigma 100-300 f4 or 120-300 f2.8, both handle well.