Adding Lens to my XL2 at DVinfo.net

Chris Fritsche · January 30th, 2006, 10:29 PM

I was thinking of buying the the canon EF 100-400 lens along with the Ef adapter and 1.6 extender?

Is the 100-400 worth it? I mean what is the equivant of a 20X optical against a 400mm?
Will the 1.6 work with the Adapter and an EF lens, ( can I have the 100-400 mounted on the Ef adapter and the 1.6 mounted to the lens for 160mm-640mm?

Meryem Ersoz · January 31st, 2006, 09:39 AM

you can't use the 1.6x and EF adapter at the same time. canon's 1.6x attaches to the rear of the lens (same as the adapter). they don't work together. the 100-400 is a popular lens for the XL2, but personally i am preferring the 400mm prime. it is sharper, and i don't find i use the 100-200 range much anyway, if i'm going to bother with a long lens.

Chris Fritsche · January 31st, 2006, 09:56 AM

which 400mm are you looking at, because the ones I saw were $4,000+ and the 100-4000 is only $1,400?
Am I looking in the wrong place?

Is 20X optical close to already being 400mm?

I know I am buying the 1.6 adapter, but woulf you get an extra EF lens or the 3X wide if you had the choice?

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php

first paragraph, Chris says it is mounted with both the EF adapter and 1.6 extender? Am I reading this right?

also what is the magnifacation of the Ef adapter?

Andrew Khalil · January 31st, 2006, 11:42 AM

According to the article, you can use the 1.6x XL extender with the EF adapter. Another route you can go is use 1.4x or 2.0x extenders which will fit on the EF lens itself.

Don't confuse the X rating with the mm rating. They mean different things and imo, the X rating is useless most of the time. Once the crop factor is taken into consideration, the 20X lens is equivalent to 846mm which is achieved by mulitplying 108 x 7.8. The 400mm will give you an equivalent of 3120mm - a lot further, yet in the end, it's only a 4x lens. So if you need the reach, definitly go with the 100-400.
Note that the above equivalents increase when in 4:3 mode - the values given apply to 16:9 because of the way the XL2 uses its sensor.
Hope this helps

Chris Fritsche · January 31st, 2006, 12:21 PM

ok so just to clarify, if I am looking to grab some footage from a very far distance, the EF adapter and 100-400mm would be the way to go?

I plan on getting the EF and extender, and your saying that I can use both together. Since I got my XL2 I haven't even moved the ration knob from 16X9, who wants 4:3?

would you recommend that 100-400 lens, and is the 3X wide worth the money, if I have the money to get one?

Andrew Khalil · January 31st, 2006, 12:28 PM

Yes, the EF adapter and the 100-400 (or any other EF telephoto) is the way to go if you need to zoom in really close.

In terms of the 1.6x teleconverter, I've personally never used it, but according to the site it should work. However, I would take a look at the EF teleconverters that are available since they may be a little cheaper than the XL teleconverter. Also, you may just want to buy a longer lens instead of using a teleconverter since they may cause the image to become slightly softer due to the extra glass inside them.

I have used the 3x lens on an XL1 and it is great for the angle it gives.

Meryem Ersoz · January 31st, 2006, 01:09 PM

well, you learn something new every day. my bad. sorry if i confused you, or anyone else. yes, you can use the 1.6x extender with the EF adapter. i was under the impression they were not compatible, but i was wrong (it's only the 3x that the 1.6x is not compatible with, evidently, according to canon's own product guide). i just hooked mine up to a 100mm for a quick look.

one thing to consider is that now your image is being processed through three layers of lenses, and the image is considerably softer than it is without the 1.6x., which is one thing that chris' article doesn't address. if you pay attention to the appearances of the images themselves, there is still a lot of detail but it is very soft-looking, almost like a filter is being applied. it's not a sharp image. there are shooters who use long lenses who won't even use the EF adapter because of image softness and now you're talking about adding yet another layer, (which you may find that you don't even need, once you do a few tests at the 400mm range...it's nice!).

here's the prime lense i was describing:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

the one you were seeing is the much faster and more expensive f2.8 version. the lens i'm describing is the same speed as the 100-400mm, but zooms tend to be softer, and if you're going to add more lenses, that's something to consider. the 20x with the 1.6x is probably better than the low end of the 35mm zoom anyway.

you can get really nice 35mm lenses used at fredmiranda.com--100-400mm lenses come up pretty frequently. i bought my pristine 400mm prime there, and it cost me $925, shipping included, a great deal.

Chris Fritsche · January 31st, 2006, 01:31 PM

so just starting out withthe "zoom" factor, would you recommend me just getting the 1.6 adaptor, and not the 100-400 or 400 prime. Idon't need to shoot from 2 miles away just yet, but I do need further than what the 20X provides. I was not planning on using the EF adaptor/1.6 Extender/lens altogether, I was just wondering. I noticed the softening just from looking at the pic's on that page, (thanks for the heads-up though)

I think after listening to you guys, I will just look at getting the 1.6 extender for now, doeas anyones make a 2-3 extender?

But that 400mm prime at less than the 100-400 at $1,100 is a great price, but I would have to put $600 on the back end for the EF Adaptor, that's a bummer, canon needs to include that with the camera

Meryem Ersoz · January 31st, 2006, 02:00 PM

i bought my EF adapter used here for under $400, and it was very clean, too. keep an eye out, and you can get just about everything in like-new condition. this is a great place to buy used gear, too.

century optics makes a 1.6x extender for the front, so you could use 2 of those, but at that point, you're probably better off with the long lens option, since that's also 3 different layers of glass.

longer extenders usually result in their own problems (image softness, chromatic aberration-purple fringing), which is why you rarely see them built over 2x. i'm sure canon did what they could to extend the reach of the 20x with the 1.6x, without introducing those sorts of problems.

Meryem Ersoz · January 31st, 2006, 02:03 PM

oh, look, as we speak.....

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=57904

Chris Fritsche · January 31st, 2006, 04:10 PM

Thanks, I just e-mailed him about that EF!

January 30th, 2006, 10:29 PM	#1
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	Adding Lens to my XL2 I was thinking of buying the the canon EF 100-400 lens along with the Ef adapter and 1.6 extender? Is the 100-400 worth it? I mean what is the equivant of a 20X optical against a 400mm? Will the 1.6 work with the Adapter and an EF lens, ( can I have the 100-400 mounted on the Ef adapter and the 1.6 mounted to the lens for 160mm-640mm?

January 31st, 2006, 09:56 AM	#3
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	which 400mm are you looking at, because the ones I saw were $4,000+ and the 100-4000 is only $1,400? Am I looking in the wrong place? Is 20X optical close to already being 400mm? I know I am buying the 1.6 adapter, but woulf you get an extra EF lens or the 3X wide if you had the choice? http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php first paragraph, Chris says it is mounted with both the EF adapter and 1.6 extender? Am I reading this right? also what is the magnifacation of the Ef adapter? Last edited by Chris Fritsche; January 31st, 2006 at 11:05 AM.

January 31st, 2006, 09:39 AM	#2
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	you can't use the 1.6x and EF adapter at the same time. canon's 1.6x attaches to the rear of the lens (same as the adapter). they don't work together. the 100-400 is a popular lens for the XL2, but personally i am preferring the 400mm prime. it is sharper, and i don't find i use the 100-200 range much anyway, if i'm going to bother with a long lens.

January 31st, 2006, 11:42 AM	#4
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	According to the article, you can use the 1.6x XL extender with the EF adapter. Another route you can go is use 1.4x or 2.0x extenders which will fit on the EF lens itself. Don't confuse the X rating with the mm rating. They mean different things and imo, the X rating is useless most of the time. Once the crop factor is taken into consideration, the 20X lens is equivalent to 846mm which is achieved by mulitplying 108 x 7.8. The 400mm will give you an equivalent of 3120mm - a lot further, yet in the end, it's only a 4x lens. So if you need the reach, definitly go with the 100-400. Note that the above equivalents increase when in 4:3 mode - the values given apply to 16:9 because of the way the XL2 uses its sensor. Hope this helps

January 31st, 2006, 12:21 PM	#5
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	ok so just to clarify, if I am looking to grab some footage from a very far distance, the EF adapter and 100-400mm would be the way to go? I plan on getting the EF and extender, and your saying that I can use both together. Since I got my XL2 I haven't even moved the ration knob from 16X9, who wants 4:3? would you recommend that 100-400 lens, and is the 3X wide worth the money, if I have the money to get one?

January 31st, 2006, 12:28 PM	#6
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	Yes, the EF adapter and the 100-400 (or any other EF telephoto) is the way to go if you need to zoom in really close. In terms of the 1.6x teleconverter, I've personally never used it, but according to the site it should work. However, I would take a look at the EF teleconverters that are available since they may be a little cheaper than the XL teleconverter. Also, you may just want to buy a longer lens instead of using a teleconverter since they may cause the image to become slightly softer due to the extra glass inside them. I have used the 3x lens on an XL1 and it is great for the angle it gives.

January 31st, 2006, 01:09 PM	#7
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	well, you learn something new every day. my bad. sorry if i confused you, or anyone else. yes, you can use the 1.6x extender with the EF adapter. i was under the impression they were not compatible, but i was wrong (it's only the 3x that the 1.6x is not compatible with, evidently, according to canon's own product guide). i just hooked mine up to a 100mm for a quick look. one thing to consider is that now your image is being processed through three layers of lenses, and the image is considerably softer than it is without the 1.6x., which is one thing that chris' article doesn't address. if you pay attention to the appearances of the images themselves, there is still a lot of detail but it is very soft-looking, almost like a filter is being applied. it's not a sharp image. there are shooters who use long lenses who won't even use the EF adapter because of image softness and now you're talking about adding yet another layer, (which you may find that you don't even need, once you do a few tests at the 400mm range...it's nice!). here's the prime lense i was describing: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search the one you were seeing is the much faster and more expensive f2.8 version. the lens i'm describing is the same speed as the 100-400mm, but zooms tend to be softer, and if you're going to add more lenses, that's something to consider. the 20x with the 1.6x is probably better than the low end of the 35mm zoom anyway. you can get really nice 35mm lenses used at fredmiranda.com--100-400mm lenses come up pretty frequently. i bought my pristine 400mm prime there, and it cost me $925, shipping included, a great deal.

January 31st, 2006, 01:31 PM	#8
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	so just starting out withthe "zoom" factor, would you recommend me just getting the 1.6 adaptor, and not the 100-400 or 400 prime. Idon't need to shoot from 2 miles away just yet, but I do need further than what the 20X provides. I was not planning on using the EF adaptor/1.6 Extender/lens altogether, I was just wondering. I noticed the softening just from looking at the pic's on that page, (thanks for the heads-up though) I think after listening to you guys, I will just look at getting the 1.6 extender for now, doeas anyones make a 2-3 extender? But that 400mm prime at less than the 100-400 at $1,100 is a great price, but I would have to put $600 on the back end for the EF Adaptor, that's a bummer, canon needs to include that with the camera

January 31st, 2006, 02:00 PM	#9
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i bought my EF adapter used here for under $400, and it was very clean, too. keep an eye out, and you can get just about everything in like-new condition. this is a great place to buy used gear, too. century optics makes a 1.6x extender for the front, so you could use 2 of those, but at that point, you're probably better off with the long lens option, since that's also 3 different layers of glass. longer extenders usually result in their own problems (image softness, chromatic aberration-purple fringing), which is why you rarely see them built over 2x. i'm sure canon did what they could to extend the reach of the 20x with the 1.6x, without introducing those sorts of problems.

January 31st, 2006, 02:03 PM	#10
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	oh, look, as we speak..... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=57904

January 31st, 2006, 04:10 PM	#11
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	Thanks, I just e-mailed him about that EF!