XL2 and EF Lens Adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

[Russell Newquist]

Lauri, now that I've finally had a chance to view the footage on a decent monitor (rather than my laptop), I think I have to agree with you that the EF lenses look better than the XL lenses. It's a subtle difference, but I think it's real. I'm betting it would be even more noticeable on the XL2 with its higher resolution, so I'm very interested in seeing your test results when you get them.

Thanks again for your help. It's really helped me nail down what I think I need as far as gear.

[Greg Milneck]

<<<-- Originally posted by David Mintzer : Yes and EF series lenses aren't necessairly pro lenses---They would have to have the "L" affixed to them. L series Ef lenses are the best. -->>>

FYI-
The 20X lens that comes with the XL2 is an "L" designated lens. I find it to be extremley sharp.

[David Mintzer]

Oh---the L's for the most part are very expensive but very good----I use a 70-200mm 2.8 L series that is about as sharp as you can get with a telephoto-----

[Lauri Kettunen]

<<<-- Originally posted by David Mintzer : Yes and EF series lenses aren't necessairly pro lenses---They would have to have the "L" affixed to them. L series Ef lenses are the best. -->>>

Yes, and thanks for raising the point.

<<<--the L's for the most part are very expensive but very good----I use a 70-200mm 2.8 L series that is about as sharp as you can get with a telephoto-->>

Agree on this point as well. At some point by making experiments I discovered that not all L series EF lenses are of equal quality. Then after looking Canon specifications it became obvious why e.g. the 70-200mm 2.8 L series lens (with or without OIS) creates sharp images. This happens to be a very good zoom lens. Those L series lenses which have maximum aperture -small f value- tend to create the best and sharpest images with XL1. Presumably the same holds with XL2 . Again, this is also what the Canon specs. suggest; The 300mm f/2.8 L is supposed have better lens elements than the 300mm f/4.0L lens.

Things which in my experience do not work well with XL1 are the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, and also the EF series lenses together with the XL1 16:9 mode yields rather poor image quality -much worse than the standard XL1 16x lens in 16:9 mode. I've never bothered to find an explanation for this.

I've not found much use for the image stabilizer of the L series lenses when attached to the XL1. I suspect, in fact, that the image stabilizer built for still cameras is different compared to a one designed for a camcorder. Not sure of this, but this is a kind of hypothesis I've made from testing the L series lenses image stabilizers with XL1.

Finally, will post some samples with the XL2 and EF lenses in the near future, as soon as I get my hands on the camcorder.

[Tony Hall]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Diagonal for 35mm film is about 43mm. -->>>Yeah, I think it's called 35mm because the entire width of the film, not just the image area, is 35mm.

[Bill Ravens]

In my visual tests with the XL2, I couldn't discern much difference between the performance of the new 20x lens and my older 16x manual lens.

[David Mintzer]

<<<-- Originally posted by David Mintzer : Oh---the L's for the most part are very expensive but very good----I use a 70-200mm 2.8 L series that is about as sharp as you can get with a telephoto----- -->>>

Since I dont own an XL1 or XL2 I cant comment on Image Stablization. All I can say is that on my 10D DSLR the 70-200mm is remarkable. I recently did a theater shoot with minimal lighting, hand held the camera and got great results. Would love to know how and if it works on the XL2. I am very tempted to buy one.

[Jeff Donald]

The 70-200mm L is is about as sharp as EF zoom lenses get. Prime lenses generally better MTF than zooms. The specs for 35mm film are 24mm by 36mm, with a 43mm diagonal. These dimensions are for 35mm still film, not motion picture film.

[Tony Hall]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if this has been covered or not, BUT the 7.8 multiplication factor seems flawed. I know this is the factor initially released by Canon based on the diagonal of the 16:9 area. Since then, Canon has removed the 35mm equivilent focal lenth from their website.

The sensor is the same width as the sensor in the XL1s right? When I think of angle of view, I usually think "width" not "diagonal". If you think width, the XL2 will give you the same angle of view with your lenses in 16:9 mode as it did on the XL1s. The only difference is that the image is cropped.

I don't know why people calculate angle of view using diagonals, because people don't look at things diagonal, they look them leveled and I believe that the holizontal angle is what gives us a sense of perspective.

Anyway, the horizonal plane of your field of view should be the same on both cameras, but the vertical plane cropped.

Also, there is a Sigma 8mm eos lens, that would probably give a somewhat "normal" angle of view on the XL2. My only question is how can a lens that's designed for a 35mm camera look very good on the XL2? The reason why I ask is that one of the reasons that teleconverters are rarely recommended is because they not only magnify the image, but also magnify all of the lens's imperfections. You would think that the effect would be the same when mounting a eos lens on an XL2.

[Tony Hall]

Personally, I can't see any difference, mainly because each lens' footage is with a different focal length and different subject. How could you possibly know how both lenses will preform under identical circumstances by looking at that footage?

[Tony Hall]

Jeez, this thread was hopping until I came along... doesn't anyone have anything to say about my first post above?

[Russell Newquist]

Er... no. ;)

The short answer is that you're right, you can't really know.

To *MY EYE* there appears to be a very subtle difference between the footage shot with the EF lenses and the footage shot with the XL lenses. It's very subtle, though, and I couldn't see it on the LCD screen on my laptop, only on the higher quality CRT monitor I've got at home. I don't know how to describe it, either. It's just a very, very subtle difference.

I can see this "improvement" across all of the EF lenses, and on none of the XL lenses, which is why I think it's somewhat valid to make a statement. I do agree with you, though, that you can't make any definitive case until Lauri gives us a true apples to apples comparison on the XL2, as has been promised.

[Russell Newquist]

Lauri - I do have another question. When you use the EOS adapter, do all the auto functions of the EF lenses still work (autofocus, setting f-stops, etc)? Or do you have to manually do this? The threads I've read about this seem to have conflicting answers.

[Lauri Kettunen]

<<<-- Originally posted by Russell Newquist : Lauri - I do have another question. When you use the EOS adapter, do all the auto functions of the EF lenses still work (autofocus, setting f-stops, etc)? Or do you have to manually do this? The threads I've read about this seem to have conflicting answers. -->>>

The f-stops could be set to automatically, but I never use that myself, for getting from one value to another is a real step -not a(n almost) nonvisible transition as in case of the XL lenses.

Autofocus -no it does not work with the adapter. The other switches such as focus range, speed etc. do work.

Personally, with the EF series lenses I've never felt focusing is a problem although with the standard XL1 16x lens it's indeed bit tricky.

Still waiting for my XL2 (or for a definite answer when it will arrive) -perhaps tomorrow. You guys in Northern America are lucky in the sense that in Europe serving customers is generally not taken as seriously as there.

[Russell Newquist]

Thanks again! Sorry you're having delays getting your camera.