EF Lens adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

[Rob Lohman]

That is the difficulty with the XL series indeed. Personally I would go with the
35mm adapter in front of the lens. Much simpler. Check the imaging forum for
threads on that subject.

[Ron Pfister]

Hello all!

I have now used a number of different Canon EF-lenses (with the EF-Adapter, of course) on my XL-1s. While image quality has always been excellent, the weight of any but the shortest of these lenses poses problems (particularly with the 100-400 mm IS fully extended).

Ever since it's been released, I've been pondering purchasing the Canon EF 70-300 mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM (not to be confused with the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM). Due to its Diffractive Optics (DO) design, this lens is short and light - just what I'm looking for.

Since Canon states that this lens is NOT compatible with the 1.4x and 2.0x EF-extenders, I'm worried that there could be problems using it in conjunction with the EF-adapter on my XL-1s rig.

Any feedback from people using this lens on their XL-1/2 rigs would be highly appreciated! I'd primarily be using it for wildlife shooting, and any feedback regarding it's usability in that area would very welcome, too.

TIA for your feedback!

Warm regards,

Ron

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Ron,

I'm not exactly sure why that lens isn't compatible with the Canon EF extenders, but there should be no problem using it with the XL adapter.

[Rainer Hoffmann]

Some lenses are not compatible because the extenders have a front element that protrudes right into the barrel of the lens, i.e. it's a simple mechanical problem. For example, the EF 24-70mm f2.8 USM is not compatible. When you try to attach the extender, you would damage the last lens element.

[Chris Hurd]

On the other hand, the XL adapter does not have a protruding front element. Thanks for the explanation, Rainer -- much appreciated,

[Robert Mann Z.]

i have used this lens on my d300, its a bit soft zoomed out but i don't think that softness will effect video resolution as much as a 6mpx still...i thought the lens was well contructed but i ended returning it in favor of a 70-200 which gave my photos better contrast and was much sharper throughout the zoom, i owna 100-400 as well and i thought it was sharper then the do lens, with much better color rendition...i also thought the do lens was a bit pricey for what you get quality wise, but that is subjective...

[Ron Pfister]

Thanks to everyone for their feedback!

@ Chris and Rainer: yes, it's most likely a construction-related issue that prevents the extenders from working with the lens. As you have mentioned, this is true for quite a few EF-lenses, I now remember. But if someone knows differently (i.e. it's due to the diffractive optics), I'd be very interested to find out!

@ Robert: thanks a bunch for the input regarding image quality! Since kicking-off this thread, I've looked around a bit on the Net, and have found a number of resources that attest the lens good but not stellar image quality, and you seem to corroborate this fact. Since I'm a stickler for image quality, I'll research further!

I'd still be very interested in feedback (better yet: frame grabs) from people using this lens on their XL-1/2 rigs. And just to note: image quality is important to me, but it's not everything. Usability goes a long way, which is partly why I'm considering this lens...

Cheers,

Ron

[Richard J Morris]

Both of Roberts lenses are L glass whereas the 70-300 is not. Hardly surprising there is an image quality difference!

Robert certainly has taste when it comes to lenses! (and budget to match, lucky devil!!!)

[Ron Pfister]

@ Richard: True, but Canon seems to put the DO lenses in a different category altogether (green ring instead of the red one on the L-series) - at least so far.

And don't think that anything non-L is inferior to L. For example, the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM provides better image quality than the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM at 100 mm and identical apertures (and at a much lower price). Granted, not the fairest comparison, since the former is faster and a prime and the latter is a zoom lens.

But my point here is that price isn't everything. You have to really evaluate each lens purchase from all angles (image quality, usability, price) to see if it fits your bill - just what I'm trying to do now... :-)

Cheers,

Ron

[Andrew Hsu]

I use an XL1S and have an EF Adaptor that I would like to use for wedding ceremonies. What are some lenses that you would recommend that could handle the potentially low light and long distances of a wedding ceremony? What I'm looking for is something that could rival the 16x manual servo lens in its versatility for this type of venue.

My photographer friends say to go at least f2.8 on the lens because of the low light (but I'm sort of thinking that increasing the gain can at least compensate for some of the low-light issues I might face.) Obviously I'd like a telephoto (and maybe a wide angle for some ext/int establishing shots)

I'm looking forward to a rack focus lens that will work well with subjects coming toward me (e.g., bride walking down the aisle toward my camera) and not have to deal with the back focus problem of losing the sharpness as I zoom as the stock 16x IS II is infamous for.

Is my hypothesis correct? Will using an EF lens with an EF adaptor take care of these issues for me?
Lastly, what about generic Canon adaptable lenses like Sigma brand lenses? Is the decrease glass quality of a generic lens severe enough to avoid using it even for video? Of course cost is an issue, as it is for all of us!

Thanks for your help!

[Jeff Toogood]

I am totally out of my league here (not owning an XL1) but I recall reading the when using the EF adapter there is a 7.2X magnification factor in place?
So a standard lens like a 24-70mm F2.8 would be the equivalent of a 202-504mm lens?
If so that would be pretty useless in a church I imagine.

[Chris Hurd]

An XL camcorder with any EF lens becomes a telescope. See this page:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php

Written for the XL2 but the same basic principles apply for XL1 / XL1S.

The fast EF lenses at f/2.8 or so are pretty high up there in cost. They will not be as responsive in low light as any of the XL lenses, which have a max. aperture of f/1.6. The EF lenses certainly have some amazing applications but I don't think wedding videography is one of them.

See also http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article58.php.

[Andrew Hsu]

Chris,
Thanks for the links. Now that I looked at those links I remember reading them in the past - thanks for the reminder. It's exactly what I needed.

Also, it seems that using a Sigma telephoto lens in conjunction with an EF adaptor would not be a bad solution for an outdoor wedding where darkness is less of an issue. I would love to get extreme closeups of the exchange or rings, for example, that a good photographer gets but to get it in actual, moving video. What a concept!

Two more questions for the unflappable Chris Hurd:
1) Do you know if the Sigma Canon adaptable lenses will cause the 'check the lens' error on the XL1S? Also, do you have experience with the less expensive 'Phoenix' and 'Vivitar' brand Canon lenses?

2) I have tried an L series Canon lens on my XL1S before and it seemed to have the same back-focus problem as my stock 16X IS II. That is, full zoom and focus; go full wide and lose focus along the way. I didn't expect this to happen with a Canon Photo lens. Is there an inherent problem with using a photo lens with a videocamera? Is there no way to compensate for the difference in distance between the lenses and the camera's sensor? There was no back focus adjustment on the L series lens I was borrowing so does that mean I'm out of luck? What am I doing wrong?

(yes, I know, that was way more than two questions. But Chris Hurd being Chris Hurd, I'm sure he can handle it. ;-)

Thanks,

Andrew Hsu
Morning Star Videography

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Andrew,

Originally Posted by Andrew Hsu

I would love to get extreme closeups of the exchange or rings, for example, that a good photographer gets but to get it in actual, moving video.

The trouble with that Andrew is that you're using a still photo tool in a video application. With an EF lens, you lose autofocus, motorized zoom, and wide angle, which are three things generally needed for event work. As fast as things occur in a wedding, I would not want to change lenses in a middle of a shoot like that.

1) Do you know if the Sigma Canon adaptable lenses will cause the 'check the lens' error on the XL1S? Also, do you have experience with the less expensive 'Phoenix' and 'Vivitar' brand Canon lenses?

I can confirm that using a Sigma lens with the EF adapter will NOT cause a "check lens" warning. Be aware that inexpensive third-party lenses usually suffer from chromatic abberation (the dreaded purple fringe) at long focal lengths. You can see this in my FOV Comparison page in the Sigma images. Your best bet from a quality standpoint is to stick with genuine Canon optics.

2) I have tried an L series Canon lens on my XL1S before and it seemed to have the same back-focus problem as my stock 16X IS II. Is there an inherent problem with using a photo lens with a videocamera? What am I doing wrong?

You're doing nothing wrong. This is a by-product of using the EF adapter. The thickness of the adapter itself represents a change in the optical path which throws off back-focus. This is not considered a fault; it's not a "problem" as much as it is a "gotcha." It's part of the price you're paying for using a still-photo tool in a video application.

The EF lens adapter and associated still-photo lenses is a very cool feature of the Canon XL series, but really not very practical for many forms of videography, including weddings. Its usefulness is limited to some specialized types of work such as surveillance and long-distance wildlife recording. Hope this helps,

[Andrew Hsu]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I also think switching lenses in event videography is a much harder and riskier task than switching lenses in scripted work (or event photography, for that matter) but on the occasion that my second or third camera have good shots, I can switch lenses for dramatic effect.

Another interesting note: I used an extreme fisheye lens once on my XL1S/EF adaptor and it didn't give the effect you would expect. The 7.2X factor in the EF adaptor pretty much negated any 'wide angleness' you would have expected. For those of you considering getting a fish for extablishing shots and stuff (like I did) I would recommend going into your local camera store to try the lens and its effects on your video.

Thanks,
Andrew Hsu
Morning Star Videography