XL2 and EF Lens Adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

[Terence Reis]

I had a little problem finding the moon... ha ha...
zoomed out that far into the dark space... Lined up the
setup and finally found the moon. It wasn't too hard
focusing the moon since it was fairly large and not
moving as fast as some surfers I shoot. I had my
600mm mounted on my Wimberly Gimbal mount which
is attached to my GITZO tripod. I then attached
XL2 with EF adapter to my 600mm lens. Pretty much
turned it into some sort of telescope. I just had a wild
hair and wanted to see what it will do. I've read
someone attaching 1200mm lens to the XL1s awhile
back ago. I did remember playing around with
my 100-400mm lens with the XL2. I zoomed in
on a table lamp in the house. It zoomed in pretty good.
When I have the time, I have to try out other lenses.
So far, I am happy with the stock 20X lens shooting
surf. I have yet to find any of my EF lenses that
will do better at this time.

-Terry

[Miguel Lopez]

Is there any reason to have this tool if you are not thinkg in shooting wild nature documentaries?

[Rob Lohman]

Usually you ask this the other way around. You have an imaging
problem and need a solution. Sports / wildlife shooting seem to
be the prime candidates indeed.

[Chris Hurd]

The applications best suited for the EF adapter are situations reguiring extreme telephoto fields of view, such as wildlife videography and surveillance. Those are the two big uses for the EF adapter.

[Miguel Lopez]

Well, i was wondering if it could be used in short films or things like that, because any lense attached at would be a telephoto. Even a 24 mm canon lense will convert to a 160 mm, wich is not a very angular lense. ;-P

[Lauri Kettunen]

<<<-- Originally posted by Miguel Lopez : Is there any reason to have this tool if you are not thinkg in shooting wild nature documentaries? -->>>

I use the EF-adapter for wildlife filming, but another special use comes in mind: Take Xl2, EF-adapter, and Canon EF macro lens such as the 100 or 200mm one. The result is like having a microscope. I once tested that it is possible to enlarge one half of the Times Roman 12pt "l" character to the whole screen from bottom to top. Using a "tube" (what do you call that thing which is like a conventer, but there are no lenses, just the tube/frame) between the lens and adapter, one can go even beyond that.

[Chris Jothi]

Just out of curiosity how do the EF lenses function with the XL body?

Can you change their aperture or are they left wide open, and how about focusing (manual I suppose)?

As the camera magnifies the focal length by 7.8 times (or whatever) is there any type of wide angle lens that would not be transformed into a massive 200mm size?

What does a fish eye lens look like when magnified to this degree?

Thank you, Chris

[Chris Hurd]

Have you seen my fields of view comparison at http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php?

Focus is always manual. Exposure can be auto. Image stabilization is preserved.

For more info, see an older article from the XL1 Watchdog:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article21.php.

See also http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/artic...cle04.php#ceos.

[Chris Jothi]

Thanks for the info.

Are there any downloadable clips to show what the picture quality is like?

Just how do the prime lenses (Canon brand) compare to the 20X lens?

There is also an FD lens convertor. This seems to me an even more sensible purchase because without the AF function on the EF lenses you are essentially paying more for a function on a lens you cannot take advantage of (unless using it for stills).

FD lenses are better built (well, in my opinion any way) and have a really smooth focusing action. Because they are getting on in their age you can snip up some real bargains all over the placel. Has anyone tried the FD convertor?

[Chris Hurd]

Chris:

<< Are there any downloadable clips to show what the picture quality is like? >>

What will video clips show you, that still images won't? The quality will be as good as the lens. If you're using inexpensive Sigma lenses like I did for my field-of-view comparison, then the quality is not so great. If you are using high-end Canon "L" series lenses, then the quality is superb. As a general rule, the more expensive the lens is, the higher the image quality.

<< Just how do the prime lenses (Canon brand) compare to the 20X lens? >>

The 20x lens uses fluorite elements, just like any "L" series Canon lens. There really is no point in making such a comparison though, since I can't imagine why you would want to use a photo lens instead of a video lens. There is no motorized zoom on a photo lens, so you will not be able to smoothly change focal length during a shot. The photo lenses are best suited only for situations where you need extreme telephoto, beyond what the 20x can provide.

<< There is also an FD lens convertor. >>

It is not a Canon product, it's a third-party solution. Therefore it will not communicate with the camera and you lose all electrical compatibility. In addition to not having auto focus, you'll lose auto exposure as well. FD lenses were discontinued nearly twenty years ago, so you are right, there are some bargains to be found on Ebay and similar sites.

[Lloyd Coleman]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but have a questions about the EF adapter and it sounds like Chris Hurd has experience with it.

I have several EF lenses that I use with a Canon digital camera. I am looking at the XL2 and the possibility of using these lenses with the XL2 and the EF adapter. Here are the questions:

1. The EF lenses have a focus motor built into them. Why don't they keep their auto focus ability when used with the EF adapter?

2. Does the EF adapter have a lens inside or is it just a tranfers of the different mounts?

3. Do you loose any light (f stop) when you use the EF adapter?

4. If there is no lens inside and it doesn't transfer the focus information, why is the cost over $600? You can buy an extender (teleconverter) for the EF lenses for about $350.

Thanks for any help you can give.

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Lloyd,

1. I don't know. That's a question for Canon.

2. Yes, there are optical elements within the EF adapter.

3. The maximum aperture for an XL lens is f/1.6. With the EF adapter, you're limited to the max. ap. of the EF lens. Only the most expensive lenses are anywhere near that fast... f/2.8 or so if I recall correctly... and the majority of EF lenses in general have a max. ap. of f/4.0 or so. In other words, yes, you'll need more light depending on the lens you're using.

4. If it wasn't expensive, it wouldn't be Canon. Hope this helps,

[Georg Herbet]

I'm a pro photographer (still) and am looking at the XL2. I'm attracted in large part because it accepts my EOS lenses with an adapter. I have some questions for anyone who has used the XL2 with EOS lenses. I'd really appreciate respones:

1. Is autofocus retained?

2. What's the crop factor?

3. Most important, what's your impression of the camera with EOS lenses? Good? Bad? Not worth it?

4. Which EOS lenses do you prefer using and why?

An unrelated question: As a photographer, I was alarmed to read that Canon's lower-end DVs have selectable focus points, as I'm used to with still cams, but the XL2 apparently does not. Why is this and what am I missing?

Answers to any or all questions much appreciated.

[Ron Armstrong]

Hi George;
I use an XL1, but the characteristics you aSk about are basiCally the same for both cameras.

1: The EOS lenses are all going to be manual everything. No autofocus, no auto aperture, no auto zoom.

2: The 35mm camera lenses are magnified over 7 times. 300mm = 2200mm (approx.) on the XL2. Reduction in picture size will be relative.

3: I switched from still photography to video and havn't looked back! I have a full Canon 35mm outfit I continue to take for a backup and have never used it as such. My impression of the camera with the 35mm lenses is excellent. I can shoot later and earlier in the day than my friends with 35's , much to their dismay.
The picture quality is excellent.

4: You will be surprised to know that I primarily use FD lenses, with great success. A 50 - 300L and a 600, both 4.5.
I also use an older 300mm 2.8L EOS lens, and a 70 - 200 2.8L. all lenses produce superior results. Don't worry about the focus points!

[Ron Armstrong]

Hi George;
Sorry, left for lunch. Focus points are of no value IMHO. More concern would be the change in mental attitude toward the DV. Where we are concerned about lack of movement in 35, we are totally concerned about it in DV. Smooth pans and tilts. Picture quality will be dissapointing compared to 35. But the 72 DPI video will not be hung on a wall or printed as a 300 DPI print will. It looks great on TV. The technical aspects of 35 are valuable in DV, but the mechanical requirements are going to be new.
I found my notes on magnification for the XL2 and EOS lenses:
in 16:9, magnification will be 7.8 times and the 4:3 format will be 9.7 times.
My website shows various lenses used on the XL series cameras, and in addition to those shown, I have customers and aquantenances who use Canon and Nikon 400mm 2.8, 100 - 400, 600 EOS, 50 - 350 and others. I have pro 35 shooter friends that also use XL* cameras. People you would know.
You won't be sorry to add DV to your experience.
Check my website.

Best of luck;

Ron