XLH-1 Lens on XL2

[Louis Maddalena]

I have read that people are putting the XLH-1 Lens on the Xl2. They say its better then the XL2 lens. Has anybody here tried this. I would like to discuss this so I know if buying the XLH-1 Lens for my XL2 would be worth it, if there is a performance increase that is. I do know that it wont' be hd, or better resolution, but will it look better?

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Seeing how optics never affect the amount quality of CCD's or the internal workings of a camera, I doubt there will be any performance/better definition gain.

I'm not too sure if the XL-H1 lens is all that different from the stock 16x Fluorite lens of the XL-2 besides it being capable of HD footage.

[Kelly Harmsworth]

Originally Posted by Shervin Mandgaryan

Seeing how optics never affect the amount quality of CCD's or the internal workings of a camera, I doubt there will be any performance/better definition gain.

I'm not too sure if the XL-H1 lens is all that different from the stock 16x Fluorite lens of the XL-2 besides it being capable of HD footage.

Am I reading you right that you don't feel optics make a difference??? Also the XL2 comes with a 20X lens not a 16X lens.

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

They do but it doesnt do anything to the inner workings of the camera, the XL-2 will always be SD no matter how many HD lenses you put on it.

Sorry my mistake I meant the 20x lens.

[Louis Maddalena]

I am not saying in any way that it would give me hd content, but wanting to know if it would make a difference in image quality. Does this lens have anything to offer that the xl2 lens does not. better dof, better abilities, maybe better color.

[Craig Chartier]

probably better resolution under the same circumstances. What I mean by that is the HD lens can probably resolve greater detail than the focal range of
sd Lens. We see this happen with HD glass on SD camera all the time. Customers will often upgrade to HD lenes when renting DIGIBETA - a SD format- and you can easily see it when looking at a good monitor when shooting at a res chart. Also less CA at the wide end of the lens. I believe the blacks are not as milky - when comparing zooms- also less light bouncing around in the barrel.

[Louis Maddalena]

Thanks for the info! Right now it seams like buying the hd version the canon 20x lens is the thing to do next.

[Richard Hunter]

Originally Posted by Louis Maddalena

Thanks for the info! Right now it seams like buying the hd version the canon 20x lens is the thing to do next.

Hi Louis. I would suggest you wait a bit longer to get input from those who have already tried this. The existing XL2 lens already produces a lot of artifacts due to its high resolution which is not filtered very well by the camera at sampling time. Putting an ever higher res lens could make this worse.

Richard

[Ash Greyson]

Actually, the 16X manual lens is better than both of the OIS lenses. There is really no point at all in using the XLH lens on the XL2...


ash =o)

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

I haven't actually noticed a big improvement in picture quality between the 16X Manual Servo and the 20X AF-IS lens when used within similar ranges (the 20X lens brings more colour fringing etc at the extreme telephoto end, but this is beyond the 16X maximum range anyway so cannot be compared).
Handling is a different matter, and the 16X Manual Servo lens is really nice to use and beats the 20X hands down in manual focus, although I must admit that I am glad of the autofocus and image stabiliser for some subjects when shooting off the shoulder.

There is one case where there may be a visible improvement in image quality using a HD lens on the XL2 and that is if using the new 6X lens compared to the old 3X lens. I think that it will provide an option for the many that have wanted an improvement over the 3x lens. Whether we will see any improvement when the 6 X lens is tested remains to be seen and hopefully there will not be any of the dreaded back-focus problems.

[Mark Bournes]

Ash is correct, the 16x manual lens is by far the best choice on the xl-2. The image quality is great, plus it allows for more manual control, and no "searching" for the correct focus.

[Ash Greyson]

I also find the 16x manual produces color a little better and creates more contrast. There IS some CA on the long end though but, unlike the 20X it maintains F stop thru the entire zoom range.



ash =o)

[Greg Boston]

I'll chime in and say that I too, felt like the 16x manual lens gave me somewhat better images than the 20x auto. But it was nice to have the 20x for handheld work with that awesome image stabilizer.

-gb-

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

I wish that the IS and zooming of the 20X were whisper quiet, as I find that a short onboard mic picks up lens noise far more than when the 16X Manual Servo lens is used. A longer mic such as the AT 815a can improve matters as it is pushed more forward combined with a Light Waves System and has a narrower cone so tends to pick up less motor noise. This however can introduce added problems trying to make sure the microphone tip remains out of shot on 16:9 when a fur wind muffler is used.

Both the 16X Manual and 20X AF-IS provided very good results when the tables were turned and they were bayoneted onto the Canon XL-H1 (view some tests with these combinations in archive posts).

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by Tony Davies-Patrick

...problems trying to make sure the microphone tip remains out of shot on 16:9 when a fur wind muffler is used.

Why in 16:9 specifically? Am I missing something? Isn't the vertical field of view identical in 4:3 and 16:9?