XL2 and EF Lens Adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

[Kevin Chao]

sigma is about to release this lens that's compatible with the ef mount... i know that canon has a 10-22mm ef-s lens, but that does not fit on the ef adaptor (i tried with the 17-85 ef-s)...

sigma's however, would fit the adaptor... with the multiplication factor, it should get a fov of roughly 70-150mm, which is usable... when using my 50mm ef lens on my xl2... i see that the DOF is way more shallow than the 20x lens... and the focus ring is much more manueverable... anyone plan on using the combo of the ef adaptor w/ the sigma 10-20mm?

[Ido Levy]

I would like to get the Canon Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM as my second zoom with the X20 which comes with the camera.
Does the IS version justify the extra 500-600 $ or can I do without? Keep in mind I need it for wildlife and it will always be on a tripod.
Thanks!!
Ido (-;

[Lauri Kettunen]

Originally Posted by Ido Levy

... Does the IS version justify the extra 500-600 $ or can I do without? (-;

The image stabilizer in the EF series lenses does not function the same way as in the XL series lenses for the very reason that the EF series lenses are designed to still photography. It is a rather different thing to adjust the floating lens to get a sharp still photo compared to taking a long footage with minimal vibration.

In my experience the image stabilizer is not much of use with the XL2. In fact, I always turn the IS off and instead make sure the tripod is set steadily on ground. So, my best advice is, you don't need the IS, but of course, somebody may disagree. If you ever plan to sell the lens, the version with the IS may retain better its value, for the IS is such an advantage in still photography.

[Mike Sutherland]

Hallo

I would buy the 2.8 is, I have it and it is a fantastic lense. I have other L series and it is by far the best. There is also the fringe benefit of being able to use it with an SLR ( I cut still pictures into my editing a lot ), also it will hold its value better.

[Pete Bauer]

I'll pretty much second all the previous motions. Image stabilization (IS) in the XL2 + 20x lens is superb and of great value for handheld shooting. On the other hand, Lauri rightly pointed out that IS is not really important for tripod shooting with the XL2. Since I don't use 35mm lenses with my XL2, I can't personally say with certainty but I'd doubt that the IS on an EF lens would work with the IS system on the XL2 body -- although for the extreme telephoto, I can see how even on a tripod one might like to have it. Lauri, can you clarify, does the IS function at all using EF lenses, or totally unavailable?

On the digital still photo side of life, I can say that the IS on EF lenses does truly allow you to get away with 1-2 stops slower shutter speed using my wife's Canon 20D. Has definitely been very handy.

[Lauri Kettunen]

Originally Posted by Pete Bauer

Lauri, can you clarify, does the IS function at all using EF lenses, or totally unavailable?

The image stabilizer of EF-series lense do function with the XL2, but my point was that the IS of EF-series lenses is not the same IS you find on the standard 20x lense of XL2.

The reason of this is intuitively easy to understand; If one takes still photos the very idea of the IS is to compensate the motional effect in order to create a sharp still image. So, it's design such that at the very moment one takes the photo, the floating lense counterbalances the unwanted motion yielding a sharp still image. What ever happens the very next moment after taking the photo is less important. (This is an oversimplification, for the IS of EF-series lenses have different options depending what kind of still photos one is taking.)

Now, when it comes to a video camera the question is not of taking sharp frames, but instead the IS is designed to remove (especially high frequent components of) vibration from the footage as they result in a shaky and akward image. And this time, it really matters how the IS operates from one frame to another. Summing up, the two image stabilizers do not function the same way.

[Pete Bauer]

Thanks, Lauri. So it sounds like the only reason for Ido to spend the big premium for an IS lens would be it is also going to be used on a still camera? (I wouldn't recommend spending THAT much more strictly for resale value alone).

[Kelly Wilbur]

OK, here's the deal:

I have a micro35 on order that I plan to use exclusively with a yet-to-be-purchased XL2. I'm doing independent film and that cinematic shallow depth of field is what I'm looking for.

In the micro35 setup, the lens that attaches between the camera and the micro35 has only one use: to focus on the ground glass.

Originally, I was going to get the XL2 package with the 20x lens. However, it looks like I won't be using any of the capabilities of this lens, so I'm wondering if it might be better to get an XL2 body-only, the EF adapter and an EF lens. I'm wondering if there might be deals out there like this instead of the XL2/20x package deal.

Well, I guess first I'll get feedback on that plan.

Assuming it is a good plan, any suggestions on a no frills lens? I need a fast lens (low f) since the micro35 will definitely make me lose some light.

Thanks,

Kelly

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Kelly,

Just so you're aware, the Canon EF adapter runs about $450. Fast lenses command a premium price, so your requirements for "cheap" and "fast" are mutually exclusive terms. The lower the f/ number (that is, the larger the aperture), the more expensive the lens is. You can save some money by getting a Sigma EF substitute instead of a Canon, but remember, you get what you pay for.

If you can get by with a prime lens instead of a zoom, then it becomes a little more affordable. The Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Autofocus lens costs about $240. A better lens is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens for about $310. If a prime lens will suit your needs, then it's just a question of what focal length... common primes in this series are 20mm, 28mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm, all below the $450 price point. Whatever you do, avoid the bargain-basement $75 lenses as those things are only going to impede your image quality.

[Kelly Wilbur]

Chris,

Thanks for your reply.

Since this lens will essentially just be used to focus on the ground glass and then forgotten about, I won't need a zoom lens and I won't need autofocus, so that might bring the price down.

However, I just did a search on BHphoto for Canon film lenses and they ALL seem to be autofocus. I saw a 50 mm f/1.4 for around $300 which with the EF adapter and the XL2 body would be cheaper than the XL2/20x kit (but it wouldn't include the accessories, so it might not be worth it).

The one problem that was pointed out was that the EF adapter will multiply the focal lenght by 7, giving me a 350 mm lens.

With that kind of focal length, I wonder if it will even be possible to focus on the ground glass (even through the micro35 achromat).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Kelly

[Chris Hurd]

Oops, I forgot about the magnification factor (in the XL2 it's 9.6 times in 4:3 mode and 7.8 times in 16:9 mode). You'll have to take that up with the Micro35 guys over on their forum at the redrock site.

And yes, all EF lenses these days are autofocus. They're switchable to manual though.

[Jon Wong]

how about the 50mm f/1.8? it's got a plastic (erm i meant polycarbonate) mount, but it's exceptionally sharp and clear, and the price of $60us can't be beat. the lens is very light too, so this may help out with the XL2's front-heavy problem too.

does anyone have any screen caps or footage from an XL1 with an EF adaptor and an EF lens?

[Chris Hurd]

Browse through my XL1 Watchdog and XL2 Watchdog sites located at www.dvinfo.net for various articles and image galleries featuring XL/EF lens frame grabs.

[Tonnie van der Heijden]

Dear sears,

I use a Canon XL2 camcorder for my film recording and I am very satisfied.

Next year I will make a 6 weeks trip through New Zealand to make a wildlife film.

To be able to recording animals it might be necessary to use a telephoto lens, for that matter a lot of Canon EF lenses are available. An other possibility is to use the extender XL16.

According my opinion the best solution will be an EF lens with the XL adapter,
For example the EF 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8
Considering the magnification factor of at least 7.8 applied to the focal length the effective focal length will be 2340 or 3120.

My question is, what do you recommend?


Thank you in advance

[Pete Bauer]

Hi Tonnie and welcome to DVinfo! I've moved your post to the XL2 forum from the XL1/XL1s forum because there are a number of people here who use either the EF adaptor or the extender with the XL2 exactly as you intend to do -- they'll be more likely to see this and respond.

I've not personally used either the extender or the EF adaptor, but either way of course you'll need a rock steady tripod!