Not a good wide standard XL2 Factory lens!!!

Ash Greyson · September 22nd, 2005, 01:43 PM

Check this out Mike:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/artic...icle10.php#xl3

ash =o)

Marty Hudzik · September 22nd, 2005, 01:56 PM

I agree with Ash that the 3x wide lens is awsome and delivers a better image than all of the adapters. I wouldn't call the concerns over back focus a "farce" as I witnessed it personally on my XL2 with 2 different 3x lenses. But I do think it is greatly exaggerated. This lens delivers an amazing image. The glass is top notch. I don't think you can wrong with it.

Harry Broker · September 29th, 2005, 01:38 PM

Its now for 7 years I`ve used the XL1 with his 16x lens, the use of wide with
this lens was not good but just enough, I made a lot of shots on music partys
so the range from the 16x lens was accepteble.
Now I`ve the XL2 with the 20x lens and I must say I was a little bit `shocked` when I use this lens in wide, it is almost not possible to get
the people totally on the picture, mostly it isn`t possible to go more backwards, this is a real problem.
The 3x lens isn`t a solution, I need a zoom option to 12X, changing a lens
in those situations is not done, than I must change every 5 minutes the lens.

I realy don`t understand why Canons standard lens isn`t standard.

A lens with the good range isn`t avaible, a 0.7 adaptor maybe but cost
quality, money(lot) and more heavy.
So ?!

Jimmy McKenzie · September 29th, 2005, 04:15 PM

The 20x is a superb device. I wouldn't want a 2 in one solution for this fantastic peice of optics. As for the 3X with the XL2, the image is softer at most all apertures. The form factor does make it worth the money as opposed to thread on bulk at the front of the 20x.

Ash Greyson · September 29th, 2005, 04:43 PM

Unless you zoom in and close the aperture you will not notice much softeness on the 3X. If you are outdoors, use ND filters to control the light....

ash =o)

Richard W. Morris · September 29th, 2005, 08:11 PM

A Canon rep told me the 3X wide does suffer from chromatic abberation and recommended an add on wide angle adaptor. This occured at the Videomaker Expo in New Jersey last week. Any thoughts or experiences appreciated.

Matthew Nayman · September 29th, 2005, 11:01 PM

I have a 3x lens (2nd one, my first one died due to me blowing a fuse, idiot, and the store replaced it for me rather than a costly repair).... anyhoo, I love the lens. Wish it had 2 steps of ND, but other than that, awsome.

Jimmy McKenzie · September 30th, 2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard W. Morris

A Canon rep told me the 3X wide does suffer from chromatic abberation and recommended an add on wide angle adaptor. This occured at the Videomaker Expo in New Jersey last week. Any thoughts or experiences appreciated.

Hmmmm....
The rep must have special knowledge that we were not aware of... Seems like the Sony optics are the worst offender for C/A.
I find it odd that a Canon rep would contradict the very reason for being with regard to the only lens switchable cam in it's class.

Chris Hurd · September 30th, 2005, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard W. Morris

A Canon rep told me the 3X wide does suffer from chromatic abberation and recommended an add on wide angle adaptor. This occured at the Videomaker Expo in New Jersey last week.

Welcome to DV Info Net, Richard, and I must say that this is a pretty bold statement for your very first post. Canon's USA video division relies on a substantial amount of outside help at trade shows such as VideoMaker. Most likely you were not talking to a "rep" at all but one of the independant consultants (who are not Canon employees) that work those shows. I've done many such Expos for Canon and other manufacturers myself. Quite possibly you either misheard this person, or they made a misinformed remark, because the 3x wide angle lens does not suffer from chromatic abberation. It doesn't have the long focal length required to see chromatic abberation. The "softness" of the 3x lens is simply the Pixel Averaging phenomenon which has been discussed here before, and is common in standard definition DV at very wide angles. Hope this helps,

Chris Hurd · September 30th, 2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy McKenzie

The rep must have special knowledge that we were not aware of...

That "rep" was most likely not a "rep" at all but an outside trade show consultant, see my post above.

September 29th, 2005, 08:11 PM	#21
Richard W. Morris Tourist Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hinckley, Ohio Posts: 3	3X wide vs 0.7 Century A Canon rep told me the 3X wide does suffer from chromatic abberation and recommended an add on wide angle adaptor. This occured at the Videomaker Expo in New Jersey last week. Any thoughts or experiences appreciated. __________________ Rich

September 22nd, 2005, 01:43 PM	#16
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Check this out Mike: http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/artic...icle10.php#xl3 ash =o)

September 22nd, 2005, 01:56 PM	#17
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	I agree with Ash that the 3x wide lens is awsome and delivers a better image than all of the adapters. I wouldn't call the concerns over back focus a "farce" as I witnessed it personally on my XL2 with 2 different 3x lenses. But I do think it is greatly exaggerated. This lens delivers an amazing image. The glass is top notch. I don't think you can wrong with it.

September 29th, 2005, 01:38 PM	#18
Harry Broker New Boot Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Netherlands Europe Posts: 7	Its now for 7 years I`ve used the XL1 with his 16x lens, the use of wide with this lens was not good but just enough, I made a lot of shots on music partys so the range from the 16x lens was accepteble. Now I`ve the XL2 with the 20x lens and I must say I was a little bit `shocked` when I use this lens in wide, it is almost not possible to get the people totally on the picture, mostly it isn`t possible to go more backwards, this is a real problem. The 3x lens isn`t a solution, I need a zoom option to 12X, changing a lens in those situations is not done, than I must change every 5 minutes the lens. I realy don`t understand why Canons standard lens isn`t standard. A lens with the good range isn`t avaible, a 0.7 adaptor maybe but cost quality, money(lot) and more heavy. So ?!

September 29th, 2005, 04:15 PM	#19
Jimmy McKenzie Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Waterloo Ontario Posts: 721	The 20x is a superb device. I wouldn't want a 2 in one solution for this fantastic peice of optics. As for the 3X with the XL2, the image is softer at most all apertures. The form factor does make it worth the money as opposed to thread on bulk at the front of the 20x.

September 29th, 2005, 04:43 PM	#20
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Unless you zoom in and close the aperture you will not notice much softeness on the 3X. If you are outdoors, use ND filters to control the light.... ash =o)

September 29th, 2005, 11:01 PM	#22
Matthew Nayman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 917	I have a 3x lens (2nd one, my first one died due to me blowing a fuse, idiot, and the store replaced it for me rather than a costly repair).... anyhoo, I love the lens. Wish it had 2 steps of ND, but other than that, awsome.