New Canon EF 70-300 F4.5-5.6L USM Lens

[Ronald Jackson]

Has anyone had a chance to test one of these on an XLH1?

I sold my 100-400 as "soft when long" (and I hated the "push-pull"zoom mechanics) ; my 70-200 F4 is nice but a bit too short; the extra 100mm would come in very useful provided the quality is there at max zoom.

Ron

[Andy Wilkinson]

Not tried that lens. I can tell you that my 70-200 F4 IS Canon lens is still very sharp with a Canon 1.4x Converter on with my 7D (for stills) so that is another route to consider. You loose 1 stop of light. There is a new III version of this converter. Mine is the II. I am sure it would be plenty sharp enough on your video cam.

[Ronald Jackson]

I actually have the Mk ii teleconverter, and it is not too bad on my 70-200 F4 (but horrible on my 400 F5.6).

I just wondered whether the new lens would be a better replacement for the 70-200 plus TC.

Noting your comments about use with a 7D I have two friends both with 7Ds and both with 100-400s which are sharp on their cams at 400 but soft on my XLH1 at 400.

Hard work getting decent gen on "35mm" lenses on video cameras other than via forums like this one. Retailers in this country can only talk stills and even Canon UK seem to have some sort of invisible demarcation line between video and still.

Ron

[Andy Wilkinson]

Interesting comment Ronald:- "....sharp on their cams at 400 but soft on my XLH1 at 400".

I wonder why this would be?

[Steve Siegel]

I used that lens for a couple of years before replacing it with Canon's 100-400 (I wanted the increased reach). Although the 100-400 is a bit sharper, it's really marginal. You will be happy with the 70-300.

[Ronald Jackson]

Steve, thanks but the lens I'm writing about is more or less brand new and "L". I've already tried and "discarded" the 100-400 (as plenty of others have, see posts on DVInfo) because of softness at longer zooms. This was even an issue in my days with an XL1.

I've read opinions that the 100-400 suffered from variable build quality, if you got a good one you were lucky if not well !!

The 70-200 F4 "L"is excellent at all focal lengths, internal zoom mechanism is big plus as well. I'm hoping that the new 70-300 "L" is of similar quality, but really would like some expert opinion before parting with my cash.

It seems that what is good for a stills camera, which after all is what these lenses are designed for, is not necessarily so with video. Maybe the fact that these lenses on video work best at or near maximum aperture may have something to do with it.

Ron

[Willard Hill]

I have read about the new 70-300mm L lens and like others I am anxious to see how it performs on the XL-H1, etc.. I would imagine there will be significant differences between it and the older 70-300mm EF IS lens. I had one of the earlier vintage examples of this lens and while it gave decent results on still cameras, and on the XL-1s, it did not make the grade with the XL-H1. I am not putting Steve's opinion down here as I realize quality can vary, between individual lenses of the same model, but my particular 70-300mm did not come close to having the same optical or build quality as my 100-400mm.

Like others I found the 100-400mm to be soft at 400mm, but I did find it to be usable in the 350-375mm range. I still use the 100-400mm lens a modest amount with the XL-H1, and find that it gives good results with the 7D with both stills and video. I am more likely to use the 500mm f4 if the range is extremely long and I can get it in action. I use the 300mmf 4 and the 70-200mm f2.8 IS the most of the EOS telephotos, but prefer to use the stock lens if I can get close enough. I will be trying a 300mm f2.8 within the next few days, but so far I find that the 500mmf 4 seems to give the best sharpness of the EOS lenses that I have tried on the XL-H1. Hopefully the new optics and design will make the 70-300mm L an excellent choice for use on these cameras.

[Ronald Jackson]

I sometimes wonder about fast still camera lenses on video cameras, given the recommendations to use such lenses fairly wide open, near max. aperture. I have a Sigma 500 F4.5 which is a v nice lens on my XLH1, much "handier" if a 1/3 stop slower than the much more expensive Canon equivalent. I nearly always use this with a ND filter, 4x or 8x and that's in the frequently murky light over here in the UK.

In fact I use ND filters on all my still lenses, even the relatively slow Canon 400 F5.6. Does this then mean that the (expensive) advantages of very fast lenses are cancelled out use of ND filters, when one might as well stick to the slower equivalents like Willard's 300 F4 which I understand to be a v good lens for video?
Not to mention the need for rails with these big heavy lenses.

Getting back to the new Canon, the fact that it's a zoom with possibly the performance of a prime is the attraction, plus lightweight as well. Carting a mound of gear around is no fun whatsoever.

Ron
ps now if Canon were to produce a "mini broadcast" lens, with built in teleconverter a la their big video lenses, say up to 40x zoom, in time for the release of the "XL" version of their XF cams retaining the XL mount then a lot less need to use still camera lenses.

[Steve Siegel]

With the apparent trend in camcorders seeming to be toward larger chips and lower crop factors, the days of 300 and 400 mm zooms for wildlife video may be coming to a close. We may be forced to use unwieldy
and expensive 500mm and up primes to get any sort of closeups of small subjects.

[Ronald Jackson]

Given that the BBC have "approved" the new XF300/5 cameras, with their 1/3 chips (and they do not similarly approve EX 1s/3s unless they have a nanoFlash attached) then there does seem to be a future for small chip cams, albeit we are waiting, still, for Canon to introduce an interchangeable lens version as surely they must.

A bit more info. re the new lens, it does apparently have a pull-push zoom mechanism albeit one with very short travel. I guess we'll have to wait until the stills people have had a chance to review this lens before any video people get a chance.

Ron

[Simon Wood]

What about the XLH1 with a Nanoflash?

Surely there cant be much of a difference between the footage of a 1/3 XLH1 with Nanoflash at 50mbs long GOP (and higher) to that of the 1/3 XF with its 50mbs codec?

I just bought a 6x wide angle XL lens (very good deal on ebay) - and the image from that with the nanoflash is as good as anything I have seen on my large flat screen tv. It certainly looks as sharp as most HD tv content - it compares with ENG style work on newscasts or documentaries.

[Ronald Jackson]

I don't know whether or not the BBC have "accepted" the XLH1 with a nano. I do know that the criteria for the XF included the lens as well as the codec.

Ron

ps aren't EX1s and 3s 1/2 inch chips cameras?

[Ronald Jackson]

Well I got one of these lenses after a bit of thought and find it's very good on my XLH1 with or without its nanoFlash.

Nice and sharp i.m.h.o. at the all important 300 mm end, and similar lower down. Quite a lump, short and fat despite only taking 67 mm filters (like the 70-200 F4 and unlike the 100-400 F4-5.6 which is 77 mm)

Disconcerting though that the zoom ring is at the front end of the lens with the focussing ring at the near end. I find myself continually trying to zoom with the focussing ring and vice versa but doubtless will get used.

Built like a tank, maybe O.T.T. for video use. Those e.g. ladies with smaller hands and shorter fingers might find using the rings a tad difficult due to the diameter of the lens at those points.

Zooming causes the front barrel to project and retract a couple or three inches. Front element doesn't revolve though.

Well pleased until and if Canon bring out a similar quality 100-400 replacement!

Ron

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

The new L version of the 70-300mm is very sharp...well, not biting sharp compared to some primes, but far better than previous versions of this zoom and more than a match for the old 100-400 L at equal apertures.
I almost kept one for video, but prefer using the 35-350L for video as it is very good at mid-apertures considering it has such a wide range.
If you haven't got one, try the Canon XL-6X HD zoom lens. It is the very best and sharpest AF video lens I've ever used on the XL camcorder series.

[Ronald Jackson]

None of the Canon EF teleconvertors will attach to the EF 70-300 L lens. However I've just tried the lens with my (old) Extender XL 1.6x convertor and the results were very pleasing even off a nanoFlash.

Sharp enough, IMHO, subject as always to getting focus spot on which not easy with this cam, though better via my Swit monitor.

Lose lots of light though, so off with the (usual) ND filter and on, unusually for me, with Automatic Gain.

This showed, not unexpectedly,particularly in the duller clips as the light faded, and much more so when viewing the nanoFlash footage compared with same footage off tape. Where the under exposure was a stop or so "off" the results with gain "added" were not so bad.

Ron