|
|
|
|
|
October 31st, 2004, 02:17 PM
|
#46 |
|
Tourist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2
|
Canon 3x Wide
Can anyone tell me the weigth of the Canon 3x Wide. Canon does not give that information on the company's website.
|
|
|
|
October 31st, 2004, 04:16 PM
|
#47 |
|
Retired DV Info Net Almunus
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,943
|
See the 16x manual lens review page for comparative specs, Anders.
__________________
Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com |
|
|
|
|
November 1st, 2004, 06:19 AM
|
#48 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: North Bergen
Posts: 170
|
I don't lnow the excact weight, but it feels the same as the 16x.
__________________
Alain |
|
|
|
|
November 1st, 2004, 07:04 AM
|
#49 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 429
|
The Canon 3X lens weighs 670 grams or almost 1.5 lbs. The weight is listed in Ken's excellent lens comparison article.
|
|
|
|
|
November 6th, 2004, 11:39 PM
|
#50 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 33
|
I agree with Jay. It is a fantastic lens.
__________________
Nico |
|
|
|
|
November 7th, 2004, 08:35 AM
|
#51 |
|
RED Code Chef
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
|
The following has been said numerous times on the boards in one
way or another. The issue with the 3x lens being soft on the XL1(S) was probably due to the relative low resolution on the camera. The XL2 has a much higher resolution and can resolve much more detail (which a wide angle view usually seems to have). I've never heard anyone describe the 3x lens being soft on the XL2.
__________________
Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge | Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors |
|
|
|
|
November 8th, 2004, 09:16 AM
|
#52 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 156
|
Can I get by with just 3X Wide Angle?
Doing mostly dramatic shorts with the XL2...Do you think I can get away with just using the 3X WA. Trying to keep the XL2 as small as possible. Besides DOF issues, do you think the zoom range can cover a majority of my shots or will I be wishing I had that 16X? Again, this is for dramatic work.
|
|
|
|
|
November 8th, 2004, 09:38 AM
|
#53 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
There's not a lot of difference in *size* between an XL2 equipped with any of the XL-series lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
November 8th, 2004, 09:40 AM
|
#54 |
|
I'm using the 3x on my XL2. There is little difference between this lens and the 20x, in terms of optical quality. I like the auto-stabilization on the 20x that I don't get with the 3x. The 3x is approximately 1/2 inch shorter. Not much difference. In fact, with an eyepiece extender on the viewfinder, it sticks out further than the 3x lens. BTW, the eyepiece extender REALLY helps balance tha camera much better on my shoulder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 8th, 2004, 10:07 AM
|
#55 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 145
|
what eyepiece extender are you refering to?
__________________
www.digitalfx.tv |
|
|
|
|
November 8th, 2004, 10:32 AM
|
#57 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 429
|
Also, check out this article for more info, Greg.
Bill, do you think you could post a photo of this item with the XL2? |
|
|
|
|
November 22nd, 2004, 04:05 PM
|
#58 |
|
Tourist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2
|
STILL WONDERING
Trying to discern an answer to the original question, would it be feasible to go with just the wide-angle lens? I'm going to be buying an XL2 for shooting dramatic narratives, many times using small interiors for my locations. As I would like to get close to my actors in these situations, I'm wondering about getting the body-only package with the wide-angle lens (as I can't afford the standard package and an additional lens). But, like Ed, I'm wondering if this a bad idea. Will I be missing the auto-stabilization of the 20x in hand-held situations? Obviously, at some point when I could afford it, I'd buy another lens (though, I'd probably consider the manual one).
Unlike Ed, I'm not concerned about how any of this affects the size of the camera. Any input is greatly appreciated! |
|
|
|
|
November 23rd, 2004, 07:57 PM
|
#59 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vulcan
Posts: 1,564
|
hi brandon,
check this article out: http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php i think chris has done a tremendously awesome job in displaying the differences between each lens's zoom capabilities. from that i think you can decide. if you really don't need any long-shots for dramatic shorts then 3x will do fine.
__________________
bow wow wow |
|
|
|
|
November 25th, 2004, 08:01 PM
|
#60 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pembroke Pines, Fl.
Posts: 1,842
|
3x wide angle lens confusion
I bought the 3x wide angle a couple of days ago, and am confused...( just recently learning how to shoot in manual).
1. I was taught to focus (with the 20x lens) by first zooming all the way in, focusing, then pulling back to where I want. Then my subject would be in correct focus. 2. I tried this with the 3x.First zoom in and focus, But when I zoom out, the focus is not the same on the same object. Is this the way the lens is supposed to work, or is it faulty? 3. Another thing I noticed was that outside in daylight, I couldn't even get the focus to change, but once I went inside the house and had to open up the iris, then focus worked. I did a search on th 3x and read lots of posts, but I'm still confused. Any feedack would be appreciated. Bruce Yarock |
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
