EF Lens adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

[Neo Castillo]

It's been a while. No one has an answer to this?

[Dan Vance]

I'll take a shot.
Yes, the 8mm would give the field of view of a 57mm.
It might have some barrel distortion but I've never tried one myself so I can't say for sure. If your camera came with a stock lens, you'll be much better off using that. The 8mm won't give you any more of a "film look" than the stock lens, and may not be wide enough to give you the versatility you want when you shoot.
Before you get 'corrupted' by the shallow depth-of-field consortium, rent and study "Citizen Kane" and "Wuthering Heights." You don't need shallow DOF to obtain a magnificent cinematic look.

[Neo Castillo]

Don't worry im not too concerned with the shallow depth of field. I'm just wanted ot know if I could get a closer to film look with it. SInce i cant aford a min35mm adapter lol, and I alreadt have the EF though maybe I could achieve this lol. And even if it dont work i guess id have a cool lens for my Rebel XT.

[Kyle Ringin]

This has been discussed many times before. The mini35, micro35, G35 all give a shallow depth of field. This is their main reason for existing. The EF adaptor won't give you the shallow depth of field that the mini35 (or other adaptors) give you. It doesn't retain the DOF and angle of view properties of the lense when used with an SLR.

If you aren't concerrned with getting super shallow DOF, then there won't be any advantage to using the EF adaptor and a fisheye lense, except you can hit focus marks and the image may even be worse than the standard lens. I agree with Dan - you'll probably be better off with the standard lens.

The only real reason I can see for using the EF adaptor is to get the equivalent of extreme telephoto lenses for wildlife videography or whatever.

[Eugene Yeung]

Hi all,

I would like to know the answer to your question too! Has anyone tried this lens with the XL1S?

Sorry for my ignorance, I also don't know if the IS and AF functions are still enabled with the EF adapter to the XL1S. How about if I attach an EF or XL extension tube?

Thanks!

Eugene

[Terry Yuen]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hsu

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

I was contemplating to buy the 8mm Peleng Fish-eye lens, are you refering to this one?

[Andrew Hsu]

I think the multiplication factor will negate the wide-angle-ness of any fish eye lens. i imagine even a 180degree fisheye. i wasn't talking about a specific model or brand.

[Mekhael Trepanier]

just wanting some opnions...

i shoot photos alot and have a EF 70-200 Lseries 2.8 lens

if i now buy a canon XL camera body only (xl1 xl1s or xl2) and the EF lens adapter... am i now able to film as if it were a normal lens...?

ive read about the 7 X magnifier... but all the links ive found only talk about photos being taken with theese lenses on them...

[Dmitry Yun]

Hey man, here is a link for you to check out.

www.adapterplace.com

he has EF lens to XL body adapters I think.

Good luck.

[Josh Hibbard]

I just used my EF adaptor for the first time last night, The photographer was a great guy and let me borrow his telescopic lense and put it on my camera, wow was it great getting a fullscreen video of the full moon


While the lense was already a tele I couldnt see having an application for it in wedding videography (less you regularly get stuck in the balcony of some large churches.)

My impartiality on this matter can be expressed by the fact that I have an EF adaptor for sale... And im not trying to tell you its the answer to your prayers ;)

[Clint Grant]

Hello everybody,

I have the canon EF/XL adapter foro my XL1s, and am intersted in purchasing a long EF lens. I am familiar with the 7.2 mag. factor, which is good for my purposes. I will be shooting the moon, a bit of wildlife, some Grand Canyon, (when I go next summer), and airplanes taking off the runway from a long distance. I have narrowed my choices down to just a few lenses.

Either:
-Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (the $1100 version, not $1700 version.)
-Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5 USM (I know it's discontinued, would have to buy used)
-any other suggestion you may have. (Prefer the white barrel lenses)

What I'm looking for help with is which of those two lenses to go with. I prefer the greater zoom ratio of the 35-350mm, but the 70-200mm is newer. Also, I believe the 35-350mm has better lens quality -21/15 groups/elements compared to 15/18? I understand the 70-200mm has better f/stop range, but this is not a huge factor for me. One of the biggest deciding factors is if the 70-200mm lens is push-pull zooming or not. I know it throws off the centre of balance, and can even disrupt dust in the lens, but I kinda like the idea of it (makes the camera seem bigger- big plus!).

Another big issue is compatibility with the EF extenders. If both are compatible, the next biggest issue is push-pull zooming.



Well, it will be really great if someone can help steer me in the right direction, or give me another lens suggestion.

Thank you very much,

~Clint Grant~
P.S. I know that the old 35-350mm lens was replaced by the 28-300mm, but that one's just a bit over the budget!

[Jeff Donald]

Have you considered the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5/5.6 IS lens? Optically it's probably a better lens than the 35-350 over the majority of it's range. If you thought you'd be using mostly the short range (35-100) then I'd opt for the 35-350. If you think you'd be working at the other end of the zoom range (or considering a TC for greater reach) then I would get the 100-400. The later will also hold it's resale value, since it's not discontinued.

[Clint Grant]

Very true, thanks a lot. Yes, after I posted the first message, I started re-considering the 100-400mm lens. Now that I think about it, are all three of these lenses compatible with the 2x extender? I know for a fact that the 100-400 is a push-pull zoom. However, my other problem is that I'm not sure how often I would be at the short end of the zoom. I think it would be better to have a wider zoom range; or something that is shorter anyways......

Which has better image quality: The 70-200mm, or 100-400mm?



Thanks again,

~Clint Grant~

[Clint Grant]

Just checked the stats, and can confirm that the 100-400mm is compatible with the 1.4 and 2x TC's. Thanks,

~Clint Grant~

[Clint Grant]

Darn, now I'm even worse off. I've been doing a lot of reading here around the forum, and now REALLY can't decide.

Now it's between:
-EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM -supposedly the best image quality, but not definate on that,
-EF 100-400mm f/4.5L USM - has the longest telephoto range, okay optics
-EF 35-350mm f/4.5L USM - has widest zoom range, apparently the smoothest for push-pull zoom, good optics.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the 35-350mm has 21 elements in 18 groups, whereas the 70-200mm has 15 elements in 18 groups. How much of a difference would this make? Would the 70-200mm optics be better because it's newer? Sorry for all this trouble, but I'd like to get the best image wuality out of these three lenses.

Thanks very much, and I apologize for all this.

~Clint Grant~