Hey all,

This is my first post on this fourm. It looks like a great support community and I'm glad to be here! I don't own an XL1 series camcorder yet but I am planning on purchasing one in the next few months.

How would you guys rate the 3X wide angle Canon lens? Is it difficult to get/hold focus? Are there limitations built in that are similar to the standard 16X II auto-zoom?

I know I want the 16X manual servo lens (tedious adjustments and all) for its greater user control over the standard lens. Are there any wide angle full-manual capable lenses available for the XL1?

screw-on lens adapters seem like the only 2nd option. Can you use an additional wide-angle converter on the 3X lens for an even more aggressive view?

Using my Canon EOS lenses for anything other than long-distance shots is out of the question with the x7.2 focal length conversion.

Much appreciated!

Craig Weinstein

Welcome aboard, Craig! Have you seen this XL Wide Angle Lens review (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article38.php)?

No, I haven't seen that article. I'll go check it out now. Thanks!

Well, I love the 3x lens, despite has the same servo zoom that the stock 16x lens does. I consider it one of the most valuable tools in my camera kit. The article Chris posted covers it fairly well.

Zoom through converters are a viable alternative to the 3x lens, especialy since they are about half the price. However, if you can find a used 3x lens, it's easily worth the extra difference.

As far as I know, there are no manual wide angle lenses for the XL1.

There could be a full manual wide angle lens, if someone was willing to buy this Fuji 12x and modify it as described (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article58.php#f12x).

I looked up that Watchdog article on lens options the other day but I didn't think the Fujinon 12x wide lens went anything beyond a non-useable possibility.

If Optex, Century Optics or Fujinon itself were to release an XL1 adapter (and servo remount) I'd put this lens on my list. I do not have the knowledge or experience necessary, however, to mess with optical mounts.

So I guess at this point my best lens choices upon purchase of my XL1S will be:

*Canon 16X Manual Servo Zoom
*Canon 3X Wide Angle auto-zoom
*EOS lens adapter for my 35mm lenses
*Step-down screw-on lens adapters? (to adapt wide, fisheye, macro, or zoom converters?

Thanks guys!

Craig

Century Optics offers some bayonet-on wide angle converters/adapters for standad XL1 lenses. Not cheap, but good. They offer different degrees of zoom-through.

I'm currently opting for (but have not purchased yet) the 16x Manual, and using that as my base for lense application. So, instead of buying a 3x wide as well, I'm looking at the Century Optics wide angle attachments. I thought I'd take advantage of the 16x Manual's stationary head for various applications.

Unless anyone has some better advice... :)

Andrew,
I have the 3x lens and really believe it's an excellent value and very useful. It's worth saving up for if your budget is tight.

Failing that, although I've not used the Century .7x adapter I assume it's of good quality. Century has a very good reputation for optical manufacturing.

Off hand, the caveat that comes to mind is one of weight. The adapter will add 720g of additional weight to the already-hefty 920g 16x manual servo lens, giving the assembly a total weight of just over 3.6 lbs. What's more, that additional weight will be at the end of the 16x lens, the point of greatest moment-arm on an already nose-heavy camera. That configuration will make the camera even more uncomfortable and unsteady for handheld shooting, a consideration that may be particularly acute since the 16x offers no image stabilization.

The other issue that comes to mind is the adapter's apparent lack of a hood or even a fitting for a hood. (I say "apparent" based on the photgraph of the product on Century's site.) Wide-angle shots are especially susceptible to off-angle lens flare.

I'm not too concerned about the weight. Being an avid weight lifter has it's advantages in this field :)

The .7 adapter does come at a price however, but still cheaper than the Canon 3x. I want the manual in any case, but I do see the shading problem you mentioned. More to ponder over!

The 3x wide-angle has always seemed a bit expensive to me, loosing the Steadyshot feature and not going particually wide either. Optex make two add-on single elements, but they're spherical and add lots of barrel distortion (bad). Same goes for all of the common zoom-through converters - a cheap way of doing it, but too much distortion for my liking.

Best to aim for an aspheric like the Bolex Aspheron (made for 16mm film). This can be used on the 3x and will dramatically shorten the focal length.

tom.

can someone give some links on manufacturors of wide conversion lens and wide attach lenses for xl1?

Century Optics (http://www.centuryoptics.com/), Optex (http://www.xl1s.com/).

Please see the notice linked at the bottom of this message.

Cavision (http://www.cavision.com) also makes some wide angle goodness for the XL1.

my $.02, save for the 3x. I use my 3x more than I do the 16.

Why do you use the 3x more than the 16x?

If you shoot normally indoor or dramatic films, any wideangle is handier because of its aspect. You can get more in. You can frame more dramatically. Also handy for events.

Dylan....Any idea what price those adapters are going for at Canvision?

I used to know, but I've since drank those brain cells away.

Does the Canon 3x have focus hunting problems when it's on manual?

John -- I've used one quite a bit and have never known it to have this problem.

The only thing I have noticed with the 3x is that it is considerably softer than the manual 16x I have. I would like to ask if anyone else has noticed this, because if they haven't I will take my 3x to be serviced...
Thanks lots,


Kai.

I use and like the Century 0.6x adapter. I think I've posted on it here before.

Is it possible to use the .7x with the 3x lens? If so, what would be the focal length?

Most certainly you can. The focal length on its own is 3.4 to 10.2 so a 0.7x wide-angle converter takes that down to 2.38 to 7.14mm. Very nice indeed.

tom.

What is the equiviance in 35mm?

About 17mm. The conversion factor for 1/3 inch chips is 7.2X.

I'll second on the .6x century. I have it for use with my manual 16x lens. It's around $300, and it's supposedly 40% wider than the stock lens.

Cons that I've noticed are:

Have to buy a matte box if you want to hood it

No zoom (except with ISII lens and auto focus

Some fisheye-ing around the edges

Ive noticed with my .7x century optics, considerable distortion. It seems to squish things horizontally. Im a bit disturbed by this. Has anyone else had similar problems?

I don't notice a squish so much as a bending of vertical edges, near the edge of the frame. Depending on the shot, sometimes less noticeable than others.

we have different lenses i believe.

What you are both noticing is Barrel Distortion (http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/optics/lensdefects.php). It is quite common in wide angle lenses. WA adapters seem to exaggerate the effect because the optical design is generic and can't take the original lens design into consideration.

The effect can be reduced by designing rectilinear WA lenses. Rectilinear WA use aspherical lenses elements and floating optical groups to reduce barrel distortion. Straight lines (even at the edges of the image) appear straight in a rectilinear WA.

Yes, but how does that help US? I almost bought the canon WA lens, but decided I wanted the 16x more.

In my opinion the best corrected wide angle is the Canon 3X. Century Optical makes a special WA adapter just for that lens. While I've not used it, others I know are extremely pleased with the results and shots I've seen exhibit very little barrel distortion.

Barrel distortion is reduced by zooming in slightly. But the more you zoom in, the narrower the angle of view. So, it's all a big trade, reduced angle of view or barrel distortion. Your choice, or new lens and adapter.

Im experiencing a squashed image, its not just the corners. Is that normal?

Are you accidentally in anamorphic mode?

Nope. If it would help, I could upload a comparison.

Originally posted by Jeff Donald : In my opinion the best corrected wide angle is the Canon 3X. Century Optical makes a special WA adapter just for that lens.I'm probably being unnecessarily thick here, but does this mean that the Canon 3x needs an adaptor to correct distortion, or that you can add an adaptor without distortion? Jim MacAllister's article suggested it was pretty much distortion-free.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The 3X is virtually free of distortion. Some users have put a more generic WA adapter on the 3X and the distortion is fairly noticeable. However, using the Century adapter made for the 3X, the images show only slight barrel distortion.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. You can notice the first is a bit squashed horizontally. The first is with the canon 14x manual + .7x century optics, the second is the 14x alone, both at widest focal length.

http://pcp03932387pcs.sthind01.mo.comcast.net/~panik/lense%20distortion.html

I realize the picture is not focused properly and the white balance is not set, but i just had to capture something, and i didnt put a whole lot of thought into it.

Stephen

I suspect it might be the low camera angle, but I certainly see the distortion in the "normal image." Try to shoot a more controlled test. Shot the cover of a magazine or something similar. Line the camera up so the optical axis is perpendicular to the subject. Shoot it both ways and post the results.

I tried to do that originally, but I wanted to keep the focal length the same. Ill do that as well.

stephen

By doing that test, I found no distortion. intersting enough.

I suspected as much. The change is a result of the change in perspective (low camera angle vs. normal camera angle). When the camera is low and the subject (your head) is high, this effect becomes noticeable to the eye. If you place your subject near the corners you'll also get an odd perspective that the eye will find unusual.