14x versus 16x at DVinfo.net

Marco Leavitt · October 10th, 2007, 08:50 AM

Which is better? I'm leaning towards the 14x, as it's a bit cheaper and the aperture ring is on the lens itself. I don't think I'll ever need the servo capabilities of the 16x. However, I've read on these boards that the 16x will hold its widest aperture at full telephoto. Is that also true of the 14x? If not, that could be a deal killer. Also, which one is sharper? Whichever one I buy, I'd like to keep it when I upgrade to an XL-H1 some day (long time off).

Also, do they both breathe when you focus? Is one better than the other in this regard?

Mark Bournes · October 10th, 2007, 09:14 AM

Yes they breathe when you focus, I use the 16x manual, I have used the 14x, and like the apeture ring on the lens, not sure why they didn't inlcude it on the 16x? I shoot a lot of sports with it so I need the zoom feature. Honestly it's not that big of a savings between the 2. Especially if you buy them both used.

Marco Leavitt · October 10th, 2007, 09:43 AM

Yeah, there's maybe a $200 difference, if even that, but having that aperature ring on the lens is pretty attractive to me for some reason. I don't really need the extra zoom range. I did read that the front of the 16x works with a clip on matte box because it doesn't rotate of something. Is that also true of the 14x? Biggest thing though is performance. Will I have to stop down when I zoom with the 14x, and is one lens faster than the other. The built in neutral density filters on the 16x are really attractive too. Also, I see on an eBay photo that the 14x has a macro setting. Does the 16x have that?

Mark Bournes · October 10th, 2007, 10:03 AM

Yes the 16x does have a macro, The 16x fdoes hold it's widest apeture at telephoto. Personally I think the 16x is sharper. But both are way sharper than the standard lens.

I have used my 16x on an XL-H1 and the quality is stunning.

Now Canon needs to come out with a 16 or 20x manual HD lens for the XL-H1
with an apeture ring on the lens.

If JVC can do why can't they?

Marco Leavitt · October 10th, 2007, 12:12 PM

One more thing -- do I need an external motor or controller to use the motorized zoom, or is it as easy as throwing some kind of switch on the lens and then you can zoom in and out with the rocker arm on the camera? That would make the 16x the clear winner.

Oh, "one more," one more thing. I have read in a previous post on these forums that the 16x has a darker image. In other words, at the same aperature as the stock 20x lens, the manual lens loses more than a stop of light. Is this true? Hard to believe. What about the 14x lens? Is it brighter?

Mark Bournes · October 10th, 2007, 12:22 PM

There's a switch on the lens, to go from Servo to manual zoom. Yes it is a little darker than the standard lens. I can't recommend the 16x enough. The only real difference between the 2 is the manual aperature on the 14. That and the servo zoom of course.

Richard Alvarez · October 10th, 2007, 01:10 PM

My partner at Nu-Classic, has both lenses. We've used the 16x with the XLH-1 and its a keeper. Here are his comments about the two lenses.

"The 14X is 5.7 – 80 and the 16X is 5.4 – 86 so the 14X is not quite as wide and not quite as long. The 14X, as you point out is completely manual, with the preferable iris ring on the lens. The front element of the 14X rotates and the lens grows about 1/2” as it focuses from far to close. Mechanically it’s much like and old-style film zoom.

As far as breathing compared to the 16X, I’m not sure. I know that the 16X does breath rather substantially. I’ve not tested the two lenses side-by-side for sharpness, but a guy from Canon told me not to get rid of the 14X because it is a really good lens that was derived from a much more expensive lens. Truth or myth, I don’t know. But it would be interesting to see what it looks like on the H-1. "

Needless to say, Gary is keeping both lenses.

Markus Nord · October 11th, 2007, 12:59 AM

Am I totally stupid or have I just missed something? Isn’t the manual lens a 16X lens and the other XL lenses are 3X wide, 16X (the one from XL 1) and stock (20X) or?
And to the XL H1 it’s one 6X wide and stock (20X) or?

What is the 14X lens? Link?

Markus Nord

Mat Thompson · October 11th, 2007, 04:06 AM

Markus - Canon made a Manual x14 before moving to the x16 manual as far as I'm aware.

There is also the x14 manual (Fujinon) lens which is what I have. I really like this lens, sharp,good macro, Iris ring on lens.

Markus Nord · October 11th, 2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mat Thompson

Markus - Canon made a Manual x14 before moving to the x16 manual as far as I'm aware.

There is also the x14 manual (Fujinon) lens which is what I have. I really like this lens, sharp,good macro, Iris ring on lens.

ok... cool, didn't know about that one. Thanks Mat!

Charles Papert · October 11th, 2007, 02:46 PM

If you ever have need to adjust iris during a shot, the 14x is the way to go. I had one for years and loved it. For the few times that I needed a motorized zoom, I was lucky enough to own an outboard system that I could attach to the camera but for many this is not an option.

I don't remember ever needing more telephoto than the 14x could deliver. Certainly I would have liked more wide angle out of it but I don't believe the .3mm difference between that and the 16x would have made enough of a difference. I had a Century Optic wide angle zoom thru and was happy as a clam.

Marco Leavitt · October 11th, 2007, 03:25 PM

Excellent Charles, I was hoping we'd hear from you, as I recally you mentioning some time back that you had the 14x. What about the other issues mentioned? How bad is the breathing (better or worse than the 16x?) Most importantly, is the image darker than the stock 20x automatic lens (for a comparable aperature)?

October 10th, 2007, 08:50 AM	#1
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	14x versus 16x Which is better? I'm leaning towards the 14x, as it's a bit cheaper and the aperture ring is on the lens itself. I don't think I'll ever need the servo capabilities of the 16x. However, I've read on these boards that the 16x will hold its widest aperture at full telephoto. Is that also true of the 14x? If not, that could be a deal killer. Also, which one is sharper? Whichever one I buy, I'd like to keep it when I upgrade to an XL-H1 some day (long time off). Also, do they both breathe when you focus? Is one better than the other in this regard?

October 10th, 2007, 09:14 AM	#2
Mark Bournes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jupiter, FL Posts: 565	Yes they breathe when you focus, I use the 16x manual, I have used the 14x, and like the apeture ring on the lens, not sure why they didn't inlcude it on the 16x? I shoot a lot of sports with it so I need the zoom feature. Honestly it's not that big of a savings between the 2. Especially if you buy them both used. __________________ Mark www.sharkvp.com

October 10th, 2007, 10:03 AM	#4
Mark Bournes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jupiter, FL Posts: 565	Yes the 16x does have a macro, The 16x fdoes hold it's widest apeture at telephoto. Personally I think the 16x is sharper. But both are way sharper than the standard lens. I have used my 16x on an XL-H1 and the quality is stunning. Now Canon needs to come out with a 16 or 20x manual HD lens for the XL-H1 with an apeture ring on the lens. If JVC can do why can't they? __________________ Mark www.sharkvp.com

October 10th, 2007, 12:22 PM	#6
Mark Bournes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jupiter, FL Posts: 565	There's a switch on the lens, to go from Servo to manual zoom. Yes it is a little darker than the standard lens. I can't recommend the 16x enough. The only real difference between the 2 is the manual aperature on the 14. That and the servo zoom of course. __________________ Mark www.sharkvp.com

October 11th, 2007, 12:59 AM	#8
Markus Nord Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Vastervik ,Sweden Posts: 639	14x? Am I totally stupid or have I just missed something? Isn’t the manual lens a 16X lens and the other XL lenses are 3X wide, 16X (the one from XL 1) and stock (20X) or? And to the XL H1 it’s one 6X wide and stock (20X) or? What is the 14X lens? Link? Markus Nord __________________ www.nordproduktion.se https://vimeo.com/nordproduktion

October 10th, 2007, 09:43 AM	#3
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	Yeah, there's maybe a $200 difference, if even that, but having that aperature ring on the lens is pretty attractive to me for some reason. I don't really need the extra zoom range. I did read that the front of the 16x works with a clip on matte box because it doesn't rotate of something. Is that also true of the 14x? Biggest thing though is performance. Will I have to stop down when I zoom with the 14x, and is one lens faster than the other. The built in neutral density filters on the 16x are really attractive too. Also, I see on an eBay photo that the 14x has a macro setting. Does the 16x have that?

October 10th, 2007, 12:12 PM	#5
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	One more thing -- do I need an external motor or controller to use the motorized zoom, or is it as easy as throwing some kind of switch on the lens and then you can zoom in and out with the rocker arm on the camera? That would make the 16x the clear winner. Oh, "one more," one more thing. I have read in a previous post on these forums that the 16x has a darker image. In other words, at the same aperature as the stock 20x lens, the manual lens loses more than a stop of light. Is this true? Hard to believe. What about the 14x lens? Is it brighter?

October 10th, 2007, 01:10 PM	#7
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	My partner at Nu-Classic, has both lenses. We've used the 16x with the XLH-1 and its a keeper. Here are his comments about the two lenses. "The 14X is 5.7 – 80 and the 16X is 5.4 – 86 so the 14X is not quite as wide and not quite as long. The 14X, as you point out is completely manual, with the preferable iris ring on the lens. The front element of the 14X rotates and the lens grows about 1/2” as it focuses from far to close. Mechanically it’s much like and old-style film zoom. As far as breathing compared to the 16X, I’m not sure. I know that the 16X does breath rather substantially. I’ve not tested the two lenses side-by-side for sharpness, but a guy from Canon told me not to get rid of the 14X because it is a really good lens that was derived from a much more expensive lens. Truth or myth, I don’t know. But it would be interesting to see what it looks like on the H-1. " Needless to say, Gary is keeping both lenses.

October 11th, 2007, 04:06 AM	#9
Mat Thompson Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kent UK Posts: 1,397	Markus - Canon made a Manual x14 before moving to the x16 manual as far as I'm aware. There is also the x14 manual (Fujinon) lens which is what I have. I really like this lens, sharp,good macro, Iris ring on lens.

October 11th, 2007, 02:46 PM	#11
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	If you ever have need to adjust iris during a shot, the 14x is the way to go. I had one for years and loved it. For the few times that I needed a motorized zoom, I was lucky enough to own an outboard system that I could attach to the camera but for many this is not an option. I don't remember ever needing more telephoto than the 14x could deliver. Certainly I would have liked more wide angle out of it but I don't believe the .3mm difference between that and the 16x would have made enough of a difference. I had a Century Optic wide angle zoom thru and was happy as a clam. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

October 11th, 2007, 03:25 PM	#12
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	Excellent Charles, I was hoping we'd hear from you, as I recally you mentioning some time back that you had the 14x. What about the other issues mentioned? How bad is the breathing (better or worse than the 16x?) Most importantly, is the image darker than the stock 20x automatic lens (for a comparable aperature)?