XL2 and EF Lens Adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

Meryem Ersoz · January 15th, 2006, 10:39 AM

the 20x stock lens is quite good for most applications. i have six EOS lenses and view them as supplemental to, rather than replacements for, the 20x lens. the EOS lenses are only operational as fully manual--manual zoom, no AF, no OIS. i would not buy the XL2 without having access to some sort of video-specific lens, the 3x, the 16x, the 14x, etc. even if i had EOS lenses, unless the only thing i was interested in was wildlife or surveillance, the two most common applications for EOS lenses. you're probably better off with one of the video lenses and doing lensing effects in post or else purchasing effects-specific adapters (fisheye or whatever) for your stock lens, than trying to create effects with EOS lenses--not saying it can't be done, just saying that those are expensive experiments, unless you already own the lenses. i would say that i have not found an EOS lens which replaces the 20x.

on the other hand, while i would not buy a body-only XL2, i would buy the H1 body-only because i *have* the 3x, the 20x and a bunch of EOS lenses which could be sufficient, to mitigate the cost, but that's a different story and a different price point entirely.

Andrew Khalil · January 15th, 2006, 10:47 AM

EOS lenses aren't really cheap as well - good ones are 500.00 and up, some of which do have image stabilizers.
As mentioned previously, you won't be able to get wideangle coverage using them, but they are awesome for wildlife and other applications where you need to get really close.

Ash Greyson · January 15th, 2006, 12:05 PM

EOS lenses are not very useful for anything but sports, wildlife, etc. As mentioned the multiplication factor is HUGE. All lense are unuseable at less than 20 feet away, and that will be a headshot with the lens at its widest. The 20X is fabulous, take some getting used to but great glass.

ash =o)

Jeff McElroy · January 16th, 2006, 09:15 AM

on the other hand, while i would not buy a body-only XL2, i would buy the H1 body-only because i *have* the 3x, the 20x and a bunch of EOS lenses which could be sufficient
Is Canon selling an XLH1 body kit, like they are with the XL2?

Common knowledge seems to be that the older XL lenses are performing unexpectedly well on the H1 ?… which makes me wonder.

Likewise, has anyone strapped the H1’s lens on the XL2?

Meryem Ersoz · January 16th, 2006, 10:42 AM

no, there is no body-only H1 option--that was merely wishful thinking on my part. and thus rumors are born!!

Jeff McElroy · January 16th, 2006, 10:54 AM

and thus rumors are born!!

Exactly... and now that I think about it, they have no reason to market a body-only kit, as they only have one lens designed for the camera. So, silly me.

I assume that if they make a new 3x, etc... we may see this wish granted.

This begs an interesting question, though. How much would this lessen the H1's price?

Benjamin Heneberry · January 16th, 2006, 04:13 PM

ok, so if i've got this straight then, there's no real reason to buy EOS lenses at all? shouldn't i do fine with the XL2 zoom lens? and what's the difference between mechanical and manual zoom?

thanks!

Benjamin Heneberry · January 16th, 2006, 04:16 PM

sorry, one other thing. is there an EOS or third-party fisheye i can get? 'cause i'm thinking that even with the multiplication factored in, a fisheye should still give me a super wide angle.

Richard Alvarez · January 16th, 2006, 04:28 PM

Benjamin

NO a fisheye would NOT give you a super wide angle. There simply isn't an EOS lens that won't be a telephoto when mounted on the xl2.
(The multiplication factor is 7.2 I believe. Thus, an 11mm Fisheye would become a 79.2 mm equivellant)

A "mechanical' zoom is a zoom with a motor/servo attached. The 20x and 16x both have variable speed servo's attached. You can turn them off to go 'manual'.

A manual zoom means you have to zoom in or out, manually - by hand. By twisting a zoom ring or pulling on a zoom barrell.

See Chris' rundown on lenses http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article58.php#f12x

Tony Davies-Patrick · January 16th, 2006, 04:35 PM

With around 7.2 X magnification factor of all SLR lenses via an adapter (except of course with mini35 or P+S) - Canon, Nikkor, Sigma etc, even the widest lenses will still become medium telephoto lenses...even an 8mm ultra-wide full format Nikkor, or fish Eye Canon will be transformed into a 50mm lens...not a wide angle. So a wide-angle converter, such as the Red Eye, Optex, Century etc., would need to be added to any lens to provide a wider view.

Meryem Ersoz · January 16th, 2006, 05:36 PM

the real reason to buy EOS lenses, as several people have pointed out, is because you do a lot of close-up work--sports, wildlife, surveillance are the common applications. i use mine primarily for wildlife and outdoors. it is a revelation, actually, the amount of detail you can capture with these lenses, far superior to the 20x or even 20x with 1.6x teleconverter.

for wide angle, the 3x is pretty dang wide.

i think what folks are saying here is, you can go ahead and experiment away with a range of lenses, but unless you already own them, it'll cost you to do so. but to say there is "no reason," seems to kind of ignore the reasons you've already been given.

tell you what--within the next coupla days, i'll stick my 15mm EOS fisheye on my XL2 (usually keep it on my Rebel XT) and post the results. i've been wanting to try this anyway, out of sheer curiosity, just haven't got around to it. i don't think it'll be pretty, but i'd be happy to be proven wrong.....

Richard Alvarez · January 16th, 2006, 06:47 PM

Meryem

Thats a good idea. Take a shot of a subject with the lens on the Rebel, then capture a frame grab from the same spot with the lens on the Xl2. Might help some people BELIEVE in the arithmetic.

Benjamin Heneberry · January 17th, 2006, 05:37 AM

thanks guys. this has been very helpful. what i know about lenses could fit on the head of a pin. looking forward to the fisheye pics...

Meryem Ersoz · January 17th, 2006, 05:43 PM

ok, so i popped the 15mm on the XL2 and guess what? there is no fisheye effect. it's eliminated by the magnification factor. just a somewhat narrow field of view in a plain rectangular image. also, even though the lens is a prime, the image looks very soft to me. i would probably not use it. i have not taken any footage, since the weather here is bad (70mph chinook winds here in the foothills means i'm not going outside today, a good day to edit). but that's my preliminary report. if you really want to see images, i'll post images another day, but there's not much to see. 15mm on digital rebel still cam = sharp, sweet fisheye and wide angle. 15mm on the XL2 video cam = soft, bland rectangle and narrow angle field of view.

if you're looking for lens effects, benjamin, you're better off looking into the vast array of post-production tools or else adapting the 20x with WA or fisheye converters or filters, rather than EOS lenses.

Meryem Ersoz · January 17th, 2006, 06:00 PM

okay, if you want a really cool lens, get the 100mm f2.8 macro! just popped that on and it can do intense close-up work! it's pretty cool.

i have a set of close-up achromats, and the 100mm macro works way better than adapting the 20x with achromats. i'm very surprised by this result, actually...it's exciting, really.

once again, this works great in the wildlife and outdoor category, but i can imagine some wicked cool applications. i'm off to shoot my dog's eyeball, if she'll let me....

(should be editing, dang it....)

January 16th, 2006, 04:35 PM	#175
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	With around 7.2 X magnification factor of all SLR lenses via an adapter (except of course with mini35 or P+S) - Canon, Nikkor, Sigma etc, even the widest lenses will still become medium telephoto lenses...even an 8mm ultra-wide full format Nikkor, or fish Eye Canon will be transformed into a 50mm lens...not a wide angle. So a wide-angle converter, such as the Red Eye, Optex, Century etc., would need to be added to any lens to provide a wider view. __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk

January 16th, 2006, 05:36 PM	#176
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	the real reason to buy EOS lenses, as several people have pointed out, is because you do a lot of close-up work--sports, wildlife, surveillance are the common applications. i use mine primarily for wildlife and outdoors. it is a revelation, actually, the amount of detail you can capture with these lenses, far superior to the 20x or even 20x with 1.6x teleconverter. for wide angle, the 3x is pretty dang wide. i think what folks are saying here is, you can go ahead and experiment away with a range of lenses, but unless you already own them, it'll cost you to do so. but to say there is "no reason," seems to kind of ignore the reasons you've already been given. tell you what--within the next coupla days, i'll stick my 15mm EOS fisheye on my XL2 (usually keep it on my Rebel XT) and post the results. i've been wanting to try this anyway, out of sheer curiosity, just haven't got around to it. i don't think it'll be pretty, but i'd be happy to be proven wrong..... Last edited by Meryem Ersoz; January 16th, 2006 at 08:19 PM.

January 15th, 2006, 10:39 AM	#166
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	the 20x stock lens is quite good for most applications. i have six EOS lenses and view them as supplemental to, rather than replacements for, the 20x lens. the EOS lenses are only operational as fully manual--manual zoom, no AF, no OIS. i would not buy the XL2 without having access to some sort of video-specific lens, the 3x, the 16x, the 14x, etc. even if i had EOS lenses, unless the only thing i was interested in was wildlife or surveillance, the two most common applications for EOS lenses. you're probably better off with one of the video lenses and doing lensing effects in post or else purchasing effects-specific adapters (fisheye or whatever) for your stock lens, than trying to create effects with EOS lenses--not saying it can't be done, just saying that those are expensive experiments, unless you already own the lenses. i would say that i have not found an EOS lens which replaces the 20x. on the other hand, while i would not buy a body-only XL2, i would buy the H1 body-only because i have the 3x, the 20x and a bunch of EOS lenses which could be sufficient, to mitigate the cost, but that's a different story and a different price point entirely.

January 15th, 2006, 10:47 AM	#167
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	EOS lenses aren't really cheap as well - good ones are 500.00 and up, some of which do have image stabilizers. As mentioned previously, you won't be able to get wideangle coverage using them, but they are awesome for wildlife and other applications where you need to get really close.

January 15th, 2006, 12:05 PM	#168
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	EOS lenses are not very useful for anything but sports, wildlife, etc. As mentioned the multiplication factor is HUGE. All lense are unuseable at less than 20 feet away, and that will be a headshot with the lens at its widest. The 20X is fabulous, take some getting used to but great glass. ash =o)

January 16th, 2006, 09:15 AM	#169
Jeff McElroy Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 91	on the other hand, while i would not buy a body-only XL2, i would buy the H1 body-only because i have the 3x, the 20x and a bunch of EOS lenses which could be sufficient Is Canon selling an XLH1 body kit, like they are with the XL2? Common knowledge seems to be that the older XL lenses are performing unexpectedly well on the H1 ?… which makes me wonder. Likewise, has anyone strapped the H1’s lens on the XL2?

January 16th, 2006, 10:42 AM	#170
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	no, there is no body-only H1 option--that was merely wishful thinking on my part. and thus rumors are born!!

January 16th, 2006, 10:54 AM	#171
Jeff McElroy Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 91	and thus rumors are born!! Exactly... and now that I think about it, they have no reason to market a body-only kit, as they only have one lens designed for the camera. So, silly me. I assume that if they make a new 3x, etc... we may see this wish granted. This begs an interesting question, though. How much would this lessen the H1's price?

January 16th, 2006, 04:13 PM	#172
Benjamin Heneberry New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 13	ok, so if i've got this straight then, there's no real reason to buy EOS lenses at all? shouldn't i do fine with the XL2 zoom lens? and what's the difference between mechanical and manual zoom? thanks!

January 16th, 2006, 04:16 PM	#173
Benjamin Heneberry New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 13	sorry, one other thing. is there an EOS or third-party fisheye i can get? 'cause i'm thinking that even with the multiplication factored in, a fisheye should still give me a super wide angle.

January 16th, 2006, 04:28 PM	#174
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Benjamin NO a fisheye would NOT give you a super wide angle. There simply isn't an EOS lens that won't be a telephoto when mounted on the xl2. (The multiplication factor is 7.2 I believe. Thus, an 11mm Fisheye would become a 79.2 mm equivellant) A "mechanical' zoom is a zoom with a motor/servo attached. The 20x and 16x both have variable speed servo's attached. You can turn them off to go 'manual'. A manual zoom means you have to zoom in or out, manually - by hand. By twisting a zoom ring or pulling on a zoom barrell. See Chris' rundown on lenses http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article58.php#f12x

January 16th, 2006, 06:47 PM	#177
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Meryem Thats a good idea. Take a shot of a subject with the lens on the Rebel, then capture a frame grab from the same spot with the lens on the Xl2. Might help some people BELIEVE in the arithmetic.

January 17th, 2006, 05:37 AM	#178
Benjamin Heneberry New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 13	thanks guys. this has been very helpful. what i know about lenses could fit on the head of a pin. looking forward to the fisheye pics...

January 17th, 2006, 05:43 PM	#179
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	ok, so i popped the 15mm on the XL2 and guess what? there is no fisheye effect. it's eliminated by the magnification factor. just a somewhat narrow field of view in a plain rectangular image. also, even though the lens is a prime, the image looks very soft to me. i would probably not use it. i have not taken any footage, since the weather here is bad (70mph chinook winds here in the foothills means i'm not going outside today, a good day to edit). but that's my preliminary report. if you really want to see images, i'll post images another day, but there's not much to see. 15mm on digital rebel still cam = sharp, sweet fisheye and wide angle. 15mm on the XL2 video cam = soft, bland rectangle and narrow angle field of view. if you're looking for lens effects, benjamin, you're better off looking into the vast array of post-production tools or else adapting the 20x with WA or fisheye converters or filters, rather than EOS lenses.

January 17th, 2006, 06:00 PM	#180
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	okay, if you want a really cool lens, get the 100mm f2.8 macro! just popped that on and it can do intense close-up work! it's pretty cool. i have a set of close-up achromats, and the 100mm macro works way better than adapting the 20x with achromats. i'm very surprised by this result, actually...it's exciting, really. once again, this works great in the wildlife and outdoor category, but i can imagine some wicked cool applications. i'm off to shoot my dog's eyeball, if she'll let me.... (should be editing, dang it....)