XL2 and EF Lens Adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

Andrew Khalil · January 17th, 2006, 06:28 PM

Hi Meryem, out of curiosity,
why is the 15 mm soft on the XL2? I've never tried it, but since the Rebel is much higher resolution than the XL2, shouldn't it be just as sharp on the XL2?
thanks

Meryem Ersoz · January 18th, 2006, 01:07 AM

most 3rd-party lenses are softer than the canon, and my fisheye is a sigma. it seems plenty sharp on the rebel. but even among canon lenses, there is a range of sharpness. lauri kettuinen did a sharpness test on the canon 70-200mm on the H1 and it was considerably softer than the 400mm prime, for instance. there's a lot of sharpness/softness variability among lenses and there seems to also be variability among how they function on specific cameras. beyond that, i can't explain it, only reporting what i see. the 15mm seems softer and a bit noisy (at least in the VF, i didn't output footage because if it's noisy in the VF, it's a pretty good bet it'll be worse in the footage....). also, the EF adapter adds more glass, so a soft lens gets softer, which is why you want to begin with the sharpest possible canon lenses to use with it.

hope this helps....

Benjamin Heneberry · January 19th, 2006, 12:20 PM

wow, i'm surprised about the fisheye lens. dang. so i guess there's no way to get the fisheye effect on the XL2? well, i could screw a fisheye adapter onto the stock lens, but wouldn't that cause vignetting? (i currently have an old sony TRV900, and pretty much everything i add to the front causes vitgnetting) (i guess this is a question for a different forum?)

Stan Nugent · January 22nd, 2006, 06:58 PM

I'll all for widlife video forum.
Stan

Bill Porter · January 22nd, 2006, 07:33 PM

Is autofocus retained, with Canon's EF adapter? If not, why are there apparently electronics in it?

Ash Greyson · January 23rd, 2006, 12:39 AM

The electronics are there to tell the camera that a lens is connected.... none of the EOS lense I have used were controllable with the camera controls.

ash =o)

Ron Armstrong · January 23rd, 2006, 11:55 AM

Bill;
The electronics and battery in the adapter are used to provide power to the motors in the EF lenses to control aperture. The aperture is changed by using the aperture control on the camera. There is also info transfered to the camera viewfinder from the lens.
But, as Ash say's, autofocus is not retained and the lenses are manually controled.

Benjamin Heneberry · January 23rd, 2006, 02:52 PM

ok (if anyone's still reading), what about macro? will that work, or will the adapter multiply it too much? anyone?

Meryem Ersoz · January 23rd, 2006, 04:20 PM

a good macro will cost you $500-600. or you can get these for 80 bucks:

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

my 100mm macro lens seems to work pretty nicely as a macro with my XL2, as i already stated. the +4 diopter is too close to resolve with the XL2, and you can't actually stack the diopters for close-in work, as they claim. +1 and +2 work fine, though. up to the +4 works with the FX-1, but again, once you start stacking, i guess you need a higher resolution lens, at least for very close work. i find a +4 is so close that the object itself is generally unrecognizable. very cool textures, however.

TingSern Wong · March 8th, 2006, 02:41 AM

Hi,

Was wondering if anybody ever tried using Canon XL2 with EF adaptor in conjunction with Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens (for Canon)? I recalled very vaguely that when I mount the mirror lens on the XL1 (not XL2), something was flashing in the viewfinder - I thought at that time that the rig was faulty and did not experiment it further on.

Of course, no AF, and no auto exposure as well. Have to set XL2 to either manual mode or Aperature priority (using f/8) - if it works.

Needing all the reach I can grab to do birds video ....

Thanks,
TS

Tom Hardwick · March 8th, 2006, 04:29 AM

You'll need a tripod made out of reinforced concrete to stop the wobbles. You're shooting at something like 4500 mm focal length with an f/8 maximum aperture - it sure will make things slightly difficult.

tom.

Tony Davies-Patrick · March 8th, 2006, 04:55 AM

The Sigma should work OK, although you'll need to control light via the shutter speed and ND filters etc (The aperture is fixed on the Sigma mirror lens). I'm not sure how bad the doughnut rings will look on your clips, especially on background leaves or water reflections.

The 600mm length on an XL body tends to be too extreme for most fast moving subjects, especially small birds, but is OK for static subjects or when the birds remain in frame (don't try to pan with it!). You'll achieve far better footage if you frame the bird and then lock-up the tripod, or allow the birds to move in and out of a fixed frame.

I've found that you'll achieve better footage by getting as close as possible with a 16X lens and then waiting, or using a 300mm lens (still more than 2,100mm on an XL body).

I sometimes use my 600mm f/5.6 ED-IF, but as Tom explained, you'll need a good tripod head and sturdy tripod legs to prevent any shakes - my tripod system is very heavy.

Per Johan Naesje · March 8th, 2006, 09:18 AM

I tried to attach the Sigma 300mm f2.8 + 2.0 extender together with my XL-2. The results was nice when, as Tony says, framing the object. You can see my rig at:
http://www.video-film.no/galleri.html (sorry but text is in norwegian).

I also put a divX-file online showing the moon passing with the extreme telephoto (appr. 4680 mm on a 35mm system!)
http://www.video-film.no/snutter/maane.avi (please right-click and save as... the file is 11.0 MB in size)

I found that the smallest shake will put the target out of the frame, so I think this is something you can't do any pan or tilt with?

- Per Johan

Meryem Ersoz · March 8th, 2006, 09:28 AM

here's a parallel discussion on this issue, going on in the wildlife forum...might be worth a look.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=62242

TingSern Wong · March 8th, 2006, 11:25 AM

Well, thank you for all the nice replies. I come to realise that a 600mm is way too long for tracking birds in flight. Now considering a Canon EF 100-400 IS USM zoom. I have to push the 20X standard lens by using 1.6X teleconvertor (about 1700mm in terms of 35mm). The 100-400 would work out to be about 1000mm to 4000mm, which is very good for my purpose. Will borrow one from the shop and test it out over the weekend.

(I am talking of 4:3, not, 16:9 - hence, the multiplication ratio is about 10X).

Tripod is a Vinten with Manfrotto Video head. It is probably heavy enough to nail the XL2 down provided the ground is of rock or something solid. I have found that 20X with 1.6 teleconvertor can induce shakes if the tripod is placed on soft ground ... prevalent in mangroves or shoreline regions. I hope the Canon IS is up to scratch to prevent shakes. Of course, I have to turn off IS if I am tracking flying birds - so far, with little success.

March 8th, 2006, 02:41 AM	#190
TingSern Wong Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Singapore, Rep of SINGAPORE Posts: 749	XL2 with EF Adaptor and Sigma 600mm mirror? Hi, Was wondering if anybody ever tried using Canon XL2 with EF adaptor in conjunction with Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens (for Canon)? I recalled very vaguely that when I mount the mirror lens on the XL1 (not XL2), something was flashing in the viewfinder - I thought at that time that the rig was faulty and did not experiment it further on. Of course, no AF, and no auto exposure as well. Have to set XL2 to either manual mode or Aperature priority (using f/8) - if it works. Needing all the reach I can grab to do birds video .... Thanks, TS

March 8th, 2006, 04:55 AM	#192
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	The Sigma should work OK, although you'll need to control light via the shutter speed and ND filters etc (The aperture is fixed on the Sigma mirror lens). I'm not sure how bad the doughnut rings will look on your clips, especially on background leaves or water reflections. The 600mm length on an XL body tends to be too extreme for most fast moving subjects, especially small birds, but is OK for static subjects or when the birds remain in frame (don't try to pan with it!). You'll achieve far better footage if you frame the bird and then lock-up the tripod, or allow the birds to move in and out of a fixed frame. I've found that you'll achieve better footage by getting as close as possible with a 16X lens and then waiting, or using a 300mm lens (still more than 2,100mm on an XL body). I sometimes use my 600mm f/5.6 ED-IF, but as Tom explained, you'll need a good tripod head and sturdy tripod legs to prevent any shakes - my tripod system is very heavy. __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk

March 8th, 2006, 09:18 AM	#193
Per Johan Naesje Trustee Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Akershus, Norway Posts: 1,413	Sigma 300mm f2.8 + 2.0 extender I tried to attach the Sigma 300mm f2.8 + 2.0 extender together with my XL-2. The results was nice when, as Tony says, framing the object. You can see my rig at: http://www.video-film.no/galleri.html (sorry but text is in norwegian). I also put a divX-file online showing the moon passing with the extreme telephoto (appr. 4680 mm on a 35mm system!) http://www.video-film.no/snutter/maane.avi (please right-click and save as... the file is 11.0 MB in size) I found that the smallest shake will put the target out of the frame, so I think this is something you can't do any pan or tilt with? - Per Johan Last edited by Per Johan Naesje; March 9th, 2006 at 01:16 AM.

January 17th, 2006, 06:28 PM	#181
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	Hi Meryem, out of curiosity, why is the 15 mm soft on the XL2? I've never tried it, but since the Rebel is much higher resolution than the XL2, shouldn't it be just as sharp on the XL2? thanks

January 18th, 2006, 01:07 AM	#182
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	most 3rd-party lenses are softer than the canon, and my fisheye is a sigma. it seems plenty sharp on the rebel. but even among canon lenses, there is a range of sharpness. lauri kettuinen did a sharpness test on the canon 70-200mm on the H1 and it was considerably softer than the 400mm prime, for instance. there's a lot of sharpness/softness variability among lenses and there seems to also be variability among how they function on specific cameras. beyond that, i can't explain it, only reporting what i see. the 15mm seems softer and a bit noisy (at least in the VF, i didn't output footage because if it's noisy in the VF, it's a pretty good bet it'll be worse in the footage....). also, the EF adapter adds more glass, so a soft lens gets softer, which is why you want to begin with the sharpest possible canon lenses to use with it. hope this helps....

January 19th, 2006, 12:20 PM	#183
Benjamin Heneberry New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 13	wow, i'm surprised about the fisheye lens. dang. so i guess there's no way to get the fisheye effect on the XL2? well, i could screw a fisheye adapter onto the stock lens, but wouldn't that cause vignetting? (i currently have an old sony TRV900, and pretty much everything i add to the front causes vitgnetting) (i guess this is a question for a different forum?)

January 22nd, 2006, 06:58 PM	#184
Stan Nugent New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 13	I'll all for widlife video forum. Stan

January 22nd, 2006, 07:33 PM	#185
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Is autofocus retained, with Canon's EF adapter? If not, why are there apparently electronics in it?

January 23rd, 2006, 12:39 AM	#186
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	The electronics are there to tell the camera that a lens is connected.... none of the EOS lense I have used were controllable with the camera controls. ash =o)

January 23rd, 2006, 11:55 AM	#187
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	Bill; The electronics and battery in the adapter are used to provide power to the motors in the EF lenses to control aperture. The aperture is changed by using the aperture control on the camera. There is also info transfered to the camera viewfinder from the lens. But, as Ash say's, autofocus is not retained and the lenses are manually controled.

January 23rd, 2006, 02:52 PM	#188
Benjamin Heneberry New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 13	ok (if anyone's still reading), what about macro? will that work, or will the adapter multiply it too much? anyone?

January 23rd, 2006, 04:20 PM	#189
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	a good macro will cost you $500-600. or you can get these for 80 bucks: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search my 100mm macro lens seems to work pretty nicely as a macro with my XL2, as i already stated. the +4 diopter is too close to resolve with the XL2, and you can't actually stack the diopters for close-in work, as they claim. +1 and +2 work fine, though. up to the +4 works with the FX-1, but again, once you start stacking, i guess you need a higher resolution lens, at least for very close work. i find a +4 is so close that the object itself is generally unrecognizable. very cool textures, however.

March 8th, 2006, 04:29 AM	#191
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You'll need a tripod made out of reinforced concrete to stop the wobbles. You're shooting at something like 4500 mm focal length with an f/8 maximum aperture - it sure will make things slightly difficult. tom.

March 8th, 2006, 09:28 AM	#194
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	here's a parallel discussion on this issue, going on in the wildlife forum...might be worth a look. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=62242

March 8th, 2006, 11:25 AM	#195
TingSern Wong Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Singapore, Rep of SINGAPORE Posts: 749	Well, thank you for all the nice replies. I come to realise that a 600mm is way too long for tracking birds in flight. Now considering a Canon EF 100-400 IS USM zoom. I have to push the 20X standard lens by using 1.6X teleconvertor (about 1700mm in terms of 35mm). The 100-400 would work out to be about 1000mm to 4000mm, which is very good for my purpose. Will borrow one from the shop and test it out over the weekend. (I am talking of 4:3, not, 16:9 - hence, the multiplication ratio is about 10X). Tripod is a Vinten with Manfrotto Video head. It is probably heavy enough to nail the XL2 down provided the ground is of rock or something solid. I have found that 20X with 1.6 teleconvertor can induce shakes if the tripod is placed on soft ground ... prevalent in mangroves or shoreline regions. I hope the Canon IS is up to scratch to prevent shakes. Of course, I have to turn off IS if I am tracking flying birds - so far, with little success.