EF Lens adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

[Robert J. Wolff]

I am also rather late for a reply. I am using the afore mentioned lens on my Bogen 516 head with the PLONG plate. My TP is the Manfrotto ARTS. The PLONG plate gives me a longer base for ballancing the camera/lens/assesories.

The major problem that I have encontered is strong wind conditions in these mountains. Even with the IS, it is hard to control at 400mm. I so far have not come up with a solution to this problem, other than stop shooting, which, is most impossible under out back considerations. Can't carry more than the 42 lbs. that I am doing now. So, no screens, etc.

Other than that, I am quite well satisfied with my outfit. Of course, like everyone else, I am always looking to improve.

[Jeff Donald]

Robert,

I'm not sure how your rig might support this, but in those conditions I put one or two sand bags on top of the camera/lens combination. I also don't set it up all the way. I leave the legs alone (un-extended) and just spread them. I've used that combination up in the Rockies, shooting Big Horns and Mtn.Goats. with great success.. If the tripod is locked down I also turn on the IS. If I'm going to try and pan or tilt I leave it off.

[Robert J. Wolff]

Jeff,

My problem is not so much HOW to "bag" the beast, but the added weight on my back. When I can motor in, I use a couple of 2 1/2 & 5 gallon plastic water carriers for both weight on my equipment, and, hi-gene. Since water weights in the vicinity of 8 lbs./gallon, you can reallly lock down the TP extremely well.

But. I still find that a very strong breeze or wind, will over ride the stablilizer of the lens.

Also, even empty bags, easily filled up on site, are too heavy for the few times that I would be using them.

As I mentioned, I am at 42 lbs. now. Frankly, I am at my weight limit. I will consider a volunteer unpaid bearer. (Proper gender, of course.)

Thanks for the thought, Jeff.

[Bob Deming]

Hi,

I'm sitting here ready to buy the 35-350 lens. Has anyone used this lens? Is it as cool as the 100-400 (quality)?

I have read some of the stuff on the 100-400 and looked at the pics here: http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images09.php


Also, I am familiar with the 7.2 mag of the adapter. And I have lots of filters.

So, I am with a Magnum XL mount from ZGC. What will I need more for this lens. New head, tripod, mounting plate, etc.?

Also, some of ya mentioned the .7 Century Adapter. I have ordered on from Chris at ZGC. I hear they are worth the money, any comments. I will be using the .7 on the 16XMF as a center camera for my interviews. I will be using my other two cameras on the sides. If anyone has used this WA adapter, have you found an optimum distance for shooting with it (interview types).

I also use the .3X WA which is okay.

Thanks,

[Jeff Donald]

Hi Bob, what are you going to shoot with the 35 - 350mm EF lens? In my opinion it is slightly sharper than the 100 - 400, but doesn't handle as well. I'm not a big fan of push - pull lenses, they throw off the center of gravity. As far as tripods, it depends on what you're going to shoot.

[Bob Deming]

Jeff,

I have about 5 eagles running around the mountains in back.

I made a mount for my Celestron 8" telescope but it is just not worth taking the chances of screwing up the XL mount on the camera. So I bought the adapter form ZGC and now I want a lens.

We also have deer and typical creatures running around the ranch.

My wife has a Canon 35mm body that she wants to use with this lens also.

But for $1,500.00 I need to find something and I like that 35mm vs the 100mm. I think I might be happy with a 70-300 but I have heard good reports on the 35-350.

???

[Jeff Donald]

The 100 - 400 has IS which is a big plus for still photographers. It is generally sharper than the 35 - 350 except at maximum zoom, where I would give the edge to the 35 - 350. The 35 - 350 is a stop faster (F3.5 vs. F4.5), but they both end up at F5.6

Either lens will require a mount to support the front of the lens. I had mine custom built at a machine shop. I've used the 70 - 300 IS and it is a good lens also. Not as sharp as the other zooms mentioned but fine for video. I wouldn't go much larger than an 8 X10 for still work.

[Bob Deming]

Thanks,

I'm going to get the 35-350 and play with it for a while.

Here in Tucson we have plenty of light and I can stop the lens with nice filters. ZGC sold me 3 sets of their 7 filters.

One of the reasons I chose the 35-350 over the 400 is simply the size of the lens. I can use the 72mm filters I have for the 16XMF on the zoom. That saves me a few hundred bucks.

Also the Chrosziel 4X4s I have will fit on that lens the the current adapters.

This lens is mostly for my wife. She wants to learn the XL-1 and keep it in the car in a cooler bag. I still get my 3 's' models for production. Figuring out something to do with these cameras and software is tuff. Well, besides shooting a few vets.

Later

[Rick Banfield]

I use the 100-400 regularly and the only tripod that has any satisfaction is the Miller (Australian brand). I have tried Manfrottos etc and had no satisfaction. I now mount lens only on tripod.

[Mike Rupp]

The sticks haven't been as important as the head
when using a long lens on the XL-1. I do use
Manfritto sticks, and have tried several heads, the only one working well with such long focal lengths being the O'conner and another pro brand I can't remember the name of. I use the Canon EOS 100-300 lens, so the camera is mounted to the head, not the lens. I tried the 100-400 IS and
found it a bit too long, and very much larger and heavier than the EOS 100-300 lens. I can work faster and easier with the smaller lens, with less hassle. Mike Rupp

[Robert J. Wolff]

Good Morning Mike, Rick, and everyone.

My problem is not the Manfrotto TP. It is working better than expected. The problem with the lens is weather related. The IS is not effective with sustained winds of 40 to 50 mph, here in the mountains. My observations over the past 7 months using the ARTS TP & 516 head with the XL-1s, are very positive. They make a great combo. I have had no problems other than the usual minor stiffness at -40?F. That is common to any head I have used. (Other than a fully mechanical head such as the old Houston-Feerless, which usually needed a pan handle used as a persuader, to "loosen" it up.)

If you are refering to mounting the lens on a separate TP, I believe that my use of the Plong plate on the 516 is a better solution. It alows me to mount the camera & lens as a one piece unit on the Manfrotto.

The solution to my problem with the weather, is to screen the set up from the effects of the wind. Again, back to the fact that humping the equipment up and down the Adirondack Mountains, limits how much I can carry.

[Rick Banfield]

I spend many hours just on daylight and dark in damp bush for my deer filming with xl1s and have it slung over my right shoulder on strap, ready at an instant to lift to my shoulder like a six gun should an animal apperar. I have it tied to the shoulder strap of a small backpack with a standard army slide clasp with standard lens. I carry the 100-400, a light tripod and bean bag. My asssocitate has an XM1 and it is much easier to "creep" up on animals with, doesn't catch so much in the bush. I sometimes wish for his and sometimes vice versa!
The xl1s is really a difficult camera to keep dry and safe and still be ready in an instant for filming. (See my fall and camera smash!) I would like to soon try and mould a case in the exact shape, that is quickly accessible, but safe in a fall.
(re: fall I fixed the camera with araldaite type glue called den...?,(broken viewfinder, broke tripod out of camera, now put tripod on 100-400lens only). Was amazed camera and lens survived.

Rick Banfield

[Robert J. Wolff]

Rick,

I cringe at your word "smash". I use a small daypack on my back, that fits the XL-1s with about 6 inches of excess all around. I am using 4 inch foam at the bottom of this pack to dampen any sudden shock when putting it down. On the 4 sides and the top, I am using 3 inch foam. It's a bit tight when securing the straps, but it sure cuts down on abuse to the cam and lens. The stuff weights next to nothing.

I might add, that I made a cover for my TP's head out of the same foam. Glues together rather easily. Does a nice job protecting the head. I secure the foam to the head with a simple tie down.

I don't know about your neck of the world, but here in the states, you can buy the foam at just about any furniture store. It's reasonably priced.

I always buy more than I need, to replace any of it that gets soggy or dirty.

[Robert J. Wolff]

Bob,

I would suggest the difference between the 35-300, and the 100-400 Canon lenses, are mostly academic.

I use the 100-400 on my Xl-1s, chasing Eagles, deer, field mice, butterflies, etc. The ability to use IS was a factor in my purchase of this lens.

My personel observations are that the full telephoto position on the lens is only used for very small objects at a distance. Larger bird/deer critters I probably shoot around the 300mm setting at 150 yards or so, for full frame to chest up shots.

A TP of excellence is to my mind, a far more important tool, than a few more mm's.

Get the one that most appeals to you. Ignore the slight difference in "mm power".

[Bob Deming]

Thanks,

That was what I did. I considered all the facts and went with the 350 vs the 400.

The eagles are a distance away. About 300 meters.

So I will see what happens. I should have the lens this week.

Later,