Bottom line on lenses for XL1/s at DVinfo.net

C.J. Cookson · August 29th, 2003, 01:48 PM

Out of all the XL1 lenses within a reasonable price range, which is the best lens for obtaining a slightly better film look than the standard 16X IS II that comes with the camera?

I've found with good lighting and camerawork the standard lens is very good, but lacks that 35mm look. Any suggestions from personal experience?

Mike Doyle · August 29th, 2003, 02:20 PM

CJ,
I have permanently retired the 16XIS II lens that came with my XL1 and replaced it with the 16X Manual lens. When I bought my XL1S I ordered it with the 16X Manual lens. I also have a Canon 3X wide zoom for each camera but they will be replaced as soon as a 3X manual lens is available. I find that the finer control over focus and zoom afforded by the manual lenses more than makes up for the added cost.

Ken Tanaka · August 29th, 2003, 02:21 PM

No such thing.

If you want the look of film lenses then you'll have to use 35mm film lenses. That is, you would need to get a Mini35 adapter and a set of prime lenses. This would likely cost (much) more than twice what your camera cost, but it can produce some good results.

Do a Search on the Mini35, as there has been quite a bit written on it here.

C.J. Cookson · August 30th, 2003, 10:01 AM

As the 16X lens is within the price range, can I just ask if it produces a better look than the standard lens?

Jim Giberti · August 30th, 2003, 02:14 PM

<<If you want the look of film lenses then you'll have to use 35mm film lenses. That is, you would need to get a Mini35 adapter and a set of prime lenses. This would likely cost (much) more than twice what your camera cost, but it can produce some good results. >>

Ken, I just want to clarify that you don't need to invest in "film" lenses as far as traditional cine primes are concerned. I've been working exclusively with a set of Nikon primes with the Mini35 and the results are optically equivalent, and you can buy a full se of the fastest Nikon primes for not much more than the tax dollars on a single Cooke Ultra Prime. Also, due to vignetting, cine zooms are not a good idea with the Mini35.

Jeff Donald · August 30th, 2003, 05:58 PM

I think the two manual lenses are slightly sharper than the XL 16 IS. If you're asking do the manual lenses have a bokeh more similar to film, I'd say maybe slightly. The DOF on all these lenses (with1/3 inch chips) is too great to really look like 35mm film. The mini 35 goes a long way towards achieving your desired goal

Ken Tanaka · August 30th, 2003, 10:29 PM

Jim, thank you for the clarification. Indeed, good 35mm prime lenses are adequate to achieve the "film look" optical characteristics with the Mini35 adapter. Cooke primes or other cine-specific primes might well be overkill for this rig.

C.J. Cookson · August 31st, 2003, 03:20 AM

Thanks for the advice.. I think I'll check into the Mini35 adapter and see how much the 35m prime lenses are from Nikon etc.

Jim Giberti · August 31st, 2003, 01:58 PM

<<Cooke primes or other cine-specific primes might well be overkill for this rig.
>>

This is what Guy (the tech guru for the Mini35) and I came to in our discussion of the ultimate resolving power of the XL1s vs the potential resolution of cine primes vs Nkon primes.

August 29th, 2003, 01:48 PM	#1
C.J. Cookson New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 22	Bottom line on lenses for XL1/s Out of all the XL1 lenses within a reasonable price range, which is the best lens for obtaining a slightly better film look than the standard 16X IS II that comes with the camera? I've found with good lighting and camerawork the standard lens is very good, but lacks that 35mm look. Any suggestions from personal experience?

August 29th, 2003, 02:20 PM	#2
Mike Doyle Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 32	Lens preference CJ, I have permanently retired the 16XIS II lens that came with my XL1 and replaced it with the 16X Manual lens. When I bought my XL1S I ordered it with the 16X Manual lens. I also have a Canon 3X wide zoom for each camera but they will be replaced as soon as a 3X manual lens is available. I find that the finer control over focus and zoom afforded by the manual lenses more than makes up for the added cost.

August 29th, 2003, 02:21 PM	#3
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	No such thing. If you want the look of film lenses then you'll have to use 35mm film lenses. That is, you would need to get a Mini35 adapter and a set of prime lenses. This would likely cost (much) more than twice what your camera cost, but it can produce some good results. Do a Search on the Mini35, as there has been quite a bit written on it here. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

August 30th, 2003, 10:01 AM	#4
C.J. Cookson New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 22	16X lens? As the 16X lens is within the price range, can I just ask if it produces a better look than the standard lens?

August 30th, 2003, 05:58 PM	#6
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I think the two manual lenses are slightly sharper than the XL 16 IS. If you're asking do the manual lenses have a bokeh more similar to film, I'd say maybe slightly. The DOF on all these lenses (with1/3 inch chips) is too great to really look like 35mm film. The mini 35 goes a long way towards achieving your desired goal __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

August 30th, 2003, 02:14 PM	#5
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<If you want the look of film lenses then you'll have to use 35mm film lenses. That is, you would need to get a Mini35 adapter and a set of prime lenses. This would likely cost (much) more than twice what your camera cost, but it can produce some good results. >> Ken, I just want to clarify that you don't need to invest in "film" lenses as far as traditional cine primes are concerned. I've been working exclusively with a set of Nikon primes with the Mini35 and the results are optically equivalent, and you can buy a full se of the fastest Nikon primes for not much more than the tax dollars on a single Cooke Ultra Prime. Also, due to vignetting, cine zooms are not a good idea with the Mini35.

August 30th, 2003, 10:29 PM	#7
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Jim, thank you for the clarification. Indeed, good 35mm prime lenses are adequate to achieve the "film look" optical characteristics with the Mini35 adapter. Cooke primes or other cine-specific primes might well be overkill for this rig. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

August 31st, 2003, 03:20 AM	#8
C.J. Cookson New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 22	Thanks! Thanks for the advice.. I think I'll check into the Mini35 adapter and see how much the 35m prime lenses are from Nikon etc.

August 31st, 2003, 01:58 PM	#9
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<Cooke primes or other cine-specific primes might well be overkill for this rig. >> This is what Guy (the tech guru for the Mini35) and I came to in our discussion of the ultimate resolving power of the XL1s vs the potential resolution of cine primes vs Nkon primes.