EF Lens adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

<<<-- Originally posted by afterburnerDV : I'm not sure if Canon have a 15-80 EF lens. The widest Zoom I'm aware of is a 16-35mm and it costs around the same as the 16x Manual Servo Lens. -->>>

I've no idea if there is a 15-80 or not, it was just for exemple!

But, I just saw a Sigma (cheaper but still very good) 17-35 lens at about 400$.

Now, I need to find the second part:
a 0.3X lens converter (82mm diameter filter mount)
That's the difficult part :-)


Nobody ever try this before???

[Adrian Douglas]

The Sigma is a great ultra wide lens. I used one a few times in Canada for shooting some halfpipe stills. It had a max apature of F2.8-4. It should work well but the 82mm dia will cause some problems in finding a WA converter

Maybe it's possible to use an adapter ring from 82 to the larger 0.3 avaliable (like the Century fisheye).
I'm not sure if there is problem of vignetting, because the lense is only used at its center.

I posed the following questions to Michael Pappas, perhaps some here may be able to answer the following questions as well:

I am going to be shooting an indie film this summer. For obvious reasons we don't want to use the standard 16x lens. We are now debating between the "Pappas System" with the EOS lenses and a standard 14x manual lens. I can see that with a 15mm EOS lens and the .42x adapter it is possible to achieve the equivalent of a 45mm lens. We will be shooting in a house, and will need to be at times, a lot wider than 45mm. Now here are my questions:

Q. What is the best way to accomplish a wide angle? Use the 14x manual and the .42x wide angle adapter? Or just use the Canon 3x Wide Angle Lens for the XL1?

Q. How is the depth-of-field affected with the EOS lenses? I would assume the depth-of-field becomes a lot shallower with the 35mm lens. What has been your experience?

Q. How is the depth-of-field affected in the "Pappas System?" With the light passing through a wide angle lens, then an EOS lens, and then the .42x adapter, how does this affect the depth-of-field? I see that with the 15mm EOS lens it becomes the equivalent of a 45mm lens... does the depth-of-field correspond to that as well?

Q. Is more light needed in general with the EOS lenses compared to the standard or manual video lenses to obtain the same exposure?

Q. On another topic. The only real place I know of in LA to rent Canon and XL1 related DV equipment is Samy's Camera in Hollywood. Is there any other places that you know of that rent a lot of DV equipment, lenses, and adapter like those I've mentioned?

Apollo

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

<< For obvious reasons we don't want to use the standard 16x lens. >>

What are those reasons, because they're not obvious to me. Steven Soderbergh just shot a feature in which 85% of the material comes from an XL1S with the standard 16x lens.

<< Q. What is the best way to accomplish a wide angle? Use the 14x manual and the .42x wide angle adapter? Or just use the Canon 3x Wide Angle Lens for the XL1? >>

Not possible to accomplish wide angle with an EOS lens on the XL1. Best to use the Canon 3x lens, or a wide angle adapter on a longer 14x or 16x lens. For example Soderbergh used a Century Optics .7x on the 16x standard lens.

<< Q. Is more light needed in general with the EOS lenses compared to the standard or manual video lenses to obtain the same exposure? >>

Yes, because different EOS lenses have different minimum apertures. Only the most expensive EOS lens are anywhere near as fast as the video lens. Most have minimum apertures of f/2.8, f/3.5, f/4 etc.

The Pappas System idea which Michael submitted many many moons ago was basically a work-around which served before the Canon 14x even existed. These days, it would be more expensive to implement, and less considerably effective, than nearly any other lens option.

<< Q. On another topic. The only real place I know of in LA to rent Canon and XL1 related DV equipment is Samy's Camera in Hollywood. Is there any other places that you know of that rent a lot of DV equipment, lenses, and adapter like those I've mentioned? >>

Most be several in L.A. but Birns & Sawyer comes to mind right away.

Chris,

Thanks for the reply.... You had mentioned that the Pappas System was an old work around and really had no relevance today. Why is that? To me the biggest advantage of using the Pappas System is still valid -> that being you can acheive a 45mm focal length at the widest, but by using the EOS lens your depth of field would remain much shallower than if you just used any video lens.

I want to achieve a depth of field that is similar to 35mm. The only way to do this (other than the P+S Technik) is to use an EOS lens.

[Chris Hurd]

I get shallow depth of field all the time with the standard 16x auto lens. Just add plenty of light, a wide aperture and a fast shutter! Presto... shallow depth of focus. Try shooting in AV mode at f/2 with bright lighting and the shutter will automatically adjust accordingly. Should give you what you're looking for.

[Jacques Mersereau]

Hey XL1'ers and Mr. Hurd,

I am looking into buying an EOS adaptor and telephoto lens.
I am taking some footage of a Blue Heron rookery here
in Michigan. I use the 1.6 extender now on the 16X, and it works
pretty good, but I need MORE ;)


I've been reading the other posts, but I am still not sure
which lens it is that Canon is recommending for nature
videography. Is it the
Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM Autofocus

I am correct that auto focus will NOT work?

Has anyone priced them?

B&H the place to buy?

[Mike Rupp]

I have used a cheapo 75-300mm Canon lens on my Xl-1 for some time, and am happy with the results. What everyone has said earlier is absolutely true- a good set of sticks AND a really expensive head are necessary for truly professional results. The image clarity is there, and the tremendous focal length available is really useful in the nature photography I do, BUT, focusing is very critical, as the auto focus does not work with this setup, (nor does auto exposure)and seems to vary somewhat depending upon the focal length used. I suspect the cheapo 75-300 I'm using is the reason. I'd like to hear from others using the higher quality zoom lens, as I'm considering getting one as well. Overall though, I'm happy with the results I'm getting- I'd say the clarity, and color are as good as the 16x lens, when not zoomed out all the way. I would recommend this arrangement. Mike

[Mike Rupp]

I've found that light-gathering with any EOS 35mmm lens on the xl-1 is always very good. Figure, the eos lens was made to cover 35mmm film, not a small CCD, so you're using the middle of the lens most of the time, and a lens aperature of 5.6 gives you PLENTY of light. Exposure is never a problem for me. Most of the time I'm shooting around 1/900 sec. at f8 or so. There's a LOT of exposure latitude available- it's not an issue at all. Mike

[Mike Rupp]

I looked at one today at my camera store, and figure that spending $1200 for a lens that won't provide auto-focus or auto-exposure when conected to the xl-1, probably isn't worth it, as I don't need it other types of shooting. I saw a Tamron 200-400mm for half the money that might provide
the level of quality I want- anyone know about Tamron's quality, or lack of it? Hoping to make some decisions soon- I may take the xl down to the store and shoot some stuff i their parking lot. Will let you know how that comes out. Mike Rupp

[Jacques Mersereau]

That would be great. I too would really love to try out the newest
generation of IS USM lens like the 70-200 with the EOS adapter
before plunking down $2500.00.

Hey Mr. Hurd,
is there anyway you could inquire with your cohorts at usa.canon.com
about having an EOS/EF telephoto package at NAB? Barring that, some
actual tests to see how the new '3rd' generation of image stabilizer USM
lens works with the XL1 :)

[Willard Hill]

I have used the Canon 75-300mm IS, The Sigma 170-500mm, and the Canon 35-350mm L lens on the XL-1s. The 35-350L lens is significantly sharper than the Sigma lens. The 75-300 IS has good image quality but is more prone to problems from vibration unless IS is used, but surprisingly the IS works fairly well especially if one is touching the tripod handle. I do prefer the 35-350L except for its weight. The lenses are not auto focus with the EF adapter but auto exposure works. One must have the lever on the left side of the adapter pulled back toward the camera, but the change in exposure level may not be as smooth as with the normal lens. I prefer to use this control much as the push auto focus button is used on the 16x lens, leaving it in the forward position and just pushing in on the button when lighting conditions change. I bought my 35-350 used from B&H for$1,200. Do I feel it's worth it? The answer is an emphatic yes.
Will

[Andrew Leigh]

Mike and I are of like mind. The el cheapo 75 -300mm works great, sometime I battle to focus when in low light situations and that on the pod you obviously loose the OIS feature.

The original post referred to footage of the Grey Heron so lets go back there. If you can get close, great. In my experience which is limited to wildlife footage is that I run out of lens. If you are into birding then I am told that the SIGMA 170 - 500mm F5,6 is superb. I am busy investigating this at present. The fact that autofocus will not be present is also not a problem for me as I am often focussing past twigs leaves etc. and could not work with AF. The lens has had rave reviews.

Has anyone got experience on the SIGMA? I know in South Africa they were selling for R 7000 which could mean about $500, not too shure.

Andrew

[Jacques Mersereau]

I have been looking closely at the 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM.
I want as fast a lens as I can afford. Much of the action
happens at dawn and sunset, so I want to go with the
best low light lens that's under $2K.
I'd love it if I could spend only $500, but I've found you get
what you pay for, and $500 for a telephoto worries me.

This new Canon lens also has the "3rd generation" image stabilizer, which claims you can choose to only stabilizer up/down motion, thus enabling
better pans. Though how smooth could a pan be at full zoom
even with a good tripod? (I have a Vinten Vision 3.)

Seems like a 500mm (~3500mm w/ EOS adapter) is so long
that it would be hard to get a steady image or even find
anything as the slightest movement (wind) would send you all over
the place.