Does anyone know of any new HD 1/2 inch lens for NAB 07?

Thanks

Yes, Canon released another wide angle lens. It's the KH13x4.5 KRS (http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/kh13x4.5_krs.html).

thanks Ivan.... that looks like a nice lens!

according to Canon's new pricelist, it's going to cost 12.800 US Dollar.

Too bad it hasn't a 2x extender.

according to Canon's new pricelist, it's going to cost 12.800 US Dollar.

Too bad it hasn't a 2x extender.

I own the KJ16ex7.7B IRSE. Not sure if you know about that one. It has 2x extender and the "e" drive functions. Paid about $12,500 for it.
Also a link to an Article. http://acquisition.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=130781

thanks richard,
Have you had that lens for a while? Is it a 2/3 lens and you use the adaptor?
Any other user reports on it would be great.
I like Ivan's lens suggestion because I'd like a wider angle.

brian

Brian,

The lens that Richard is mentioning is a 2/3" lens. This lens also exisist as 1/2" version: KH16ex5.7 IRSE (http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/kh16ex5.7_irse.html) List price is 13.900 US dollar.

The KH13x4.5 KRS is indeed wider, but it has no 2x extender and E-drive functions.
The KH16ex5.7 IRSE is also a high-end lens in the HDgc serie like the KH10ex3.6 IRSE and KH21ex5.7 IRSE. So I guess that the quality will be better then the new 13x.

Here is Canon's new pricelist from NAB 2007: Price List NAB 2007 (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/pdf/NAB%202007%20Price%20List%20General%20Final.pdfl)

I'm sorry, the lens that I own is kh16ex5.7_irse.
It is 1/2" and I paid around $12,500 for it. I like
the lighter weight than the 21 times version and
it has all the options.

I'm close to a purchase of a 350L camera and I'm leaning toward the Canon KH16ex5.7 IRSE myself. We'll be using it for an Outdoor Channel show and this looks to be a great utility lens. Anyone have comments or know of Fuji equivalents?

We are currently using the canon KH21ex21x5.7 on 330's for shooting hunting and fishing shows. We are about to get 6 more camera's (2 350's and 4 330's) and this time we are going to opt for the fujinon lenses. Comparing a canon 5.7 with the fujionon 5.7 the fujinon is actually a bit wider which is very useful when in boats, tree stands, ground blinds, etc. I also like that the fujinon's have a direct connect so I don't have to run an additional cable from the lens to the camera. Price is also a little cheaper. I think the canon is a little better glass, but not enough that it would out weigh the advantages of the fujinon lens.

Of course this is all just personal opinion. It would be good if you can demo the lenses you are considering.

Jeremy Doyle

I once had a hot-shoe lens fall off a camera and smash. If you have a cabled lens that won't happen. Of course, the lens should never of been so loose as to have fallen off in the first place.....:)

I once had a hot-shoe lens fall off a camera and smash. If you have a cabled lens that won't happen. Of course, the lens should never of been so loose as to have fallen off in the first place.....:)

Did that camera have the movable rubber friction lock as does the XDCAM HD?

Just curious,

-gb-

I've wondered if it's worth getting a 2/3 inch version of any of these and using the adapter. Would that build some future proofing or only more expense?

I have a 2/3 SD Canon Zoom Lens J21ax7.8B, I can't complaint about this glass
it sells when I need it......

http://footage.shutterstock.com/video.html?id=35266

Greg.. No rubber fiction lock, that came on the next model and would probably prevented the loss of the lens.

William.. Have you tried an 1/2" HD lens on your camera? The difference may surprise you. While you can get away with SD lenses it's not until you start using dedicated 1/2" HD glass that these cameras really shine.

Using 2/3" lenses on 1/2" cameras is a compromise. The optical path lengths are different which can lead to increased CA and the photo sites on 1/2" cameras are much smaller than on 2/3" cameras so the lens may appear soft. It will depend on the individual lens, but if it was really as simple as sticking in an adapter why would the lens manufacturers make separate lenses for 2/3 and 1/2. My experience has been that 2/3" HD lenses are no better than 1/2 SD lenses on XDCAM HD camcorders.

Alister, I haven't been able to use HD glass on my cam, in my case I had this canon for few years so that was no need to buy an HD, just the adaptor and presto.
I know picture will be sharper with the 1/2 and CA, quick note, no matter what we used now, SD or HD we still in good shape, NTSC TV signals will be around for other few years until we go HD, so let's use what we have and have the tecnology do the homework.

cheers!

Using 2/3" lenses on 1/2" cameras is a compromise. The optical path lengths are different which can lead to increased CA and the photo sites on 1/2" cameras are much smaller than on 2/3" cameras so the lens may appear soft. It will depend on the individual lens, but if it was really as simple as sticking in an adapter why would the lens manufacturers make separate lenses for 2/3 and 1/2. My experience has been that 2/3" HD lenses are no better than 1/2 SD lenses on XDCAM HD camcorders.

You know Alister, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. But think about this for a second. For the last year, folks have been marveling at how the F330/F350 have been giving better results than one would expect from a true 1/2 camera in terms of latitude and shallow DOF. Then just before NAB, Sony says they're sticking with 1/2 because they use the full face of the sensor (rather than having the blanked out area around the active pixel area), which provides comparable performance to other's 2/3 sensors. And, I notice that Fujinon has a set of lenses that are for XDCAM HD.

In my head, when I put all these little stray bits of information together, it seems like our XDCAM HD cameras are perhaps more than 1/2, but less than 2/3. Of course they can't say it's a 2/3 camera, because it's not. But it performs very admirably for a 1/2 HD camera.

I'll admit, I may not be 100 percent on target, but I think the 'wow' reactions of several camera operators who are used to the larger chips speaks volumes about this "1/2 camera".

I'm saying all this because if true, it makes the prospect of 2/3 lenses via the adapter more practical from an image quality standpoint than one might believe.

I'm just saying...(wink)

-gb-