EF Lens adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

Andrew Leigh · March 21st, 2002, 09:19 AM

Hello Jacques

You are right, in most instances it costs to have what you want. I have met a couple of professional wildlife photographers in the Kruger National Park (one of Africa's best). In most cases they use exclusively Canon equipment and Canon Ultrasonic lenses. The lenses used are often these superfast telphoto lenses that cost what my car does think one was F2,8 at 400mm.

One of the pro's happened to have the SIGMA lens I spoke of and he spoke highly of it, thats how my interest was aroused.

Apart from the 16X I use the 75 - 300mm ultrasonic, yeah, probably not the best but affordable. I do not generate any income from my hobby.

As a matter of interest have seen filming crews in KNP using betacams and a Novoflex 600mm with 1,6X extender and large bean bags. I don't know what the ratio is for Betacam is.

At 200mm I would not have enough lens, no question. One may not alight from ones vehicle owing to the danger and you may also not leave the road to get closer to the subject.

Regards
Andrew

Mike Rupp · March 21st, 2002, 02:44 PM

Andrew and Jacques- I really think that anything beyond 300mm (2150mm on the XL) puts you in "no-man's land". I've shot extensively, and really smooth, professional results are difficult at this focal length. I've tried various tripods and heads, including Millers, and CSI's and still, it's difficult to get a perfectly smooth pan. Close, real close, but you're right about even wind affecting the shot.I've been looking at the Tamron 200-400mm, and might give that a try, but my quest for longer, longer, actually translates into "harder, harder". I'm looking at using camo like some friends here, to try to close the gap in distance to the bird somewhat, rather than go longer on the focal length. This has some promise.
On another subject, I've been posting to the "audio and mics" forum as well about shotgun mics to cancel lateral and rear audio out during shooting- either of you have a suggestion on this, as the ME67 Sennheiser I just tested did poorly at that. Parabolic? Gosh, how much stuff can one drag into the field? Mike

March 21st, 2002, 03:31 PM

Folks,

I agree with Mike that these longer lenses are very difficult to adapt to. I've been using the 100-400mm on a very good head and sticks. Other than the equipment the main thing that helped me was to practice often. I breath like I was doing Qigong (from the stomach) and developed a steady hand. You would be surprised how much better you will be after several hours a day for a week. Not much you can do if you are caught in the open if it's windy though. But in the end the shots are well worth the trouble. Kind of opens a whole other world.

Willard Hill · March 21st, 2002, 09:20 PM

While the Sigma 170-500mm is a good lens for 35mm use it is less than ideal for video use. In low light conditions the image at the longer telephoto lenghts becomes very soft at the edges. This is very noticeable both in the viewfinder and on the monitor. As the light fadaes one must continually drop to a lower focal lenght in order to obtain acceptably sharp images. I originally bought this lens because of the 500mm upper end and it does quite well in good light but would I buy it again? No! I would rather put the money toward a 35-300, 100-400. or 70-200 Canon lens, all of course the L series. There is a definite difference. Surprisingly, the 170-500mm is not all that hard to control at the 500mm length. The lens is very rigid and resists wind vibration etc. very well. I am not completely condemning this lens but I seldom use mine anymore and I think most serious videographers will find themselves considering replacing the lens after a time as they become more irritated with its short-comings.
Will

March 23rd, 2002, 12:49 PM

The 16x lens does not do it for me. I need a more extreme backblur effect. But with a focal length of let's say 2000mm (an ef lens with xl1) should do it i hope. I need to shoot full figure people with total blur in the background. Anyone tried this out with an ef lens?

Thanks in advance

Regards,

Erik T.

March 23rd, 2002, 12:56 PM

I need an extreme backblur effect. But with a focal length of let's say 2000mm (an ef lens with xl1) I should make it i hope. I need to shoot full figure people with total blur in the background. Anyone tried this out with an ef lens? Is it possible?

Thanks in advance

Regards,

Erik T.

Ron Transco · July 11th, 2002, 08:36 PM

Is anyone using this lens with the EF adapter? As I understand it, the image stabilizer and auto-exposure will work on the XL1S, but not the auto-focus, is this correct? Does the front element rotate, or is it stationary? Macro focus capability? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Jeff Donald · July 11th, 2002, 09:08 PM

I have used this lens and it would not be my first choice. I found the 100 to 400 to balance a little nicer and it is smaller. You might want to check out the specs at Canon's site but I don't recall the 35 to 350 having IS or the front element rotating. The EOS lenses do not AF when on the EF adapter.

Jeff

Ron Transco · July 11th, 2002, 10:33 PM

Jeff -

You are correct, I was getting the 35-350 confused with the 75-300 (Canon P/N 2570A003) which is image stabilized. The 100-400 is $1000 more than the 75-300 which puts it way out of my range.

Jeff Donald · July 11th, 2002, 10:44 PM

Steve (stevenyc1@aol.com) uses the 75 - 300 and i believe he is quite pleased with it. You may want to email him or wait and see if he replies here.

Jeff

Andrew Leigh · July 12th, 2002, 01:29 AM

Hi,

I use the 75 - 300mm USM IS lens and have had good results. I tend to use it in full manual as the as I find the "fluttering sound" of the iris / motor as it hunts for the correct aperture a little irritating.

This lens has allowed me to get shots that I normally would not have managed. I do find it difficult at times to focus but that would be true for any longer lens.

I only use this lens when on a tripod and consequently turn off the IS. The IS works when mounted to EOS adaptor as does the auto exposure, the auto focus does not. The great thing is that I bought a EOS camera and only need one set of lenses.

Macro focus, not to sure what you would consider macro focus. If I think back some months ago I went for a walk in the bush determined to "film all the little things". If I recall correctly it is possible to full frame a 1" long spider, the only problem is you need to be about 6 or 7 ' away.

Will have to check the lens to see if the front element rotates. e-mail me should you need any other info. aleigh@iafrica.com

Cheers
Andrew

July 12th, 2002, 05:37 AM

How about the Sigma lenses? the 70-200mm 2.8 Apo gets very nice reviews, that lens combine with the 1.6Converter should be a nice cheap solution. and you get f2.8 at '1440mm' :)

<a href "http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83598_3128crx.aspx#reviews">

Jeff Donald · July 12th, 2002, 06:10 AM

Hi,

The 1.6x convertor works with XL lenses only, it will not work with Canon EOS EF lenses or lenses made for EOS mount. Instead, try the Canon EF adapter. It allows Canon EOS EF lenses to be used on the XL. There is an effective gain in image size by a factor of 7.2x. This is the result of going from 35mm film size to 1/3" chips. So, my 100-400 Canon EOS zoom becomes 720-2880 zoom or a magnification of 58x.

Jeff

Jeff Donald · July 12th, 2002, 06:11 AM

Hi,

The 1.6x convertor works with XL lenses only, it will not work with Canon EOS EF lenses or lenses made for EOS mount. Instead, try the Canon EF adapter. It allows Canon EOS EF lenses to be used on the XL. There is an effective gain in image size by a factor of 7.2x. This is the result of going from 35mm film size to 1/3" chips. So, my 100-400 Canon EOS zoom becomes 720-2880 zoom or a magnification of 58x.

July 12th, 2002, 06:42 AM

oh jtdonald i meant '1.6x extender' sorry! i know you have to use a EF adaptor,.

if you use a 'EOS 1.6x Extender' with a EOS lens instead of the 'XL Extender', could that work?

> XL1s > EF adapter > EOS 1.6x Extender > EOS EF- lens ?
or
> XL1s > EF adapter > XL 1.6 Extender > EOS EF -lens ?

.

March 21st, 2002, 02:44 PM	#62
Mike Rupp Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: phoenix, az Posts: 25	telephoto lenses Andrew and Jacques- I really think that anything beyond 300mm (2150mm on the XL) puts you in "no-man's land". I've shot extensively, and really smooth, professional results are difficult at this focal length. I've tried various tripods and heads, including Millers, and CSI's and still, it's difficult to get a perfectly smooth pan. Close, real close, but you're right about even wind affecting the shot.I've been looking at the Tamron 200-400mm, and might give that a try, but my quest for longer, longer, actually translates into "harder, harder". I'm looking at using camo like some friends here, to try to close the gap in distance to the bird somewhat, rather than go longer on the focal length. This has some promise. On another subject, I've been posting to the "audio and mics" forum as well about shotgun mics to cancel lateral and rear audio out during shooting- either of you have a suggestion on this, as the ME67 Sennheiser I just tested did poorly at that. Parabolic? Gosh, how much stuff can one drag into the field? Mike

March 21st, 2002, 09:20 PM	#64
Willard Hill Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 191	While the Sigma 170-500mm is a good lens for 35mm use it is less than ideal for video use. In low light conditions the image at the longer telephoto lenghts becomes very soft at the edges. This is very noticeable both in the viewfinder and on the monitor. As the light fadaes one must continually drop to a lower focal lenght in order to obtain acceptably sharp images. I originally bought this lens because of the 500mm upper end and it does quite well in good light but would I buy it again? No! I would rather put the money toward a 35-300, 100-400. or 70-200 Canon lens, all of course the L series. There is a definite difference. Surprisingly, the 170-500mm is not all that hard to control at the 500mm length. The lens is very rigid and resists wind vibration etc. very well. I am not completely condemning this lens but I seldom use mine anymore and I think most serious videographers will find themselves considering replacing the lens after a time as they become more irritated with its short-comings. Will __________________ Willard http://pawildlifephotographer.blogspot.com/

July 11th, 2002, 08:36 PM	#67
Ron Transco Regular Crew Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 53	Canon EF 75-300 IS USM lens Is anyone using this lens with the EF adapter? As I understand it, the image stabilizer and auto-exposure will work on the XL1S, but not the auto-focus, is this correct? Does the front element rotate, or is it stationary? Macro focus capability? Any information would be greatly appreciated. __________________ Ron

July 11th, 2002, 10:33 PM	#69
Ron Transco Regular Crew Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 53	Jeff - You are correct, I was getting the 35-350 confused with the 75-300 (Canon P/N 2570A003) which is image stabilized. The 100-400 is $1000 more than the 75-300 which puts it way out of my range. __________________ Ron

July 12th, 2002, 01:29 AM	#71
Andrew Leigh Major Player Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Posts: 220	Hi, I use the 75 - 300mm USM IS lens and have had good results. I tend to use it in full manual as the as I find the "fluttering sound" of the iris / motor as it hunts for the correct aperture a little irritating. This lens has allowed me to get shots that I normally would not have managed. I do find it difficult at times to focus but that would be true for any longer lens. I only use this lens when on a tripod and consequently turn off the IS. The IS works when mounted to EOS adaptor as does the auto exposure, the auto focus does not. The great thing is that I bought a EOS camera and only need one set of lenses. Macro focus, not to sure what you would consider macro focus. If I think back some months ago I went for a walk in the bush determined to "film all the little things". If I recall correctly it is possible to full frame a 1" long spider, the only problem is you need to be about 6 or 7 ' away. Will have to check the lens to see if the front element rotates. e-mail me should you need any other info. aleigh@iafrica.com Cheers Andrew __________________ PAL XL-1, DV Raptor, Premiere TOTAL AMATEUR - DOING IT FOR THE FUN

March 21st, 2002, 09:19 AM	#61
Andrew Leigh Major Player Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Posts: 220	Hello Jacques You are right, in most instances it costs to have what you want. I have met a couple of professional wildlife photographers in the Kruger National Park (one of Africa's best). In most cases they use exclusively Canon equipment and Canon Ultrasonic lenses. The lenses used are often these superfast telphoto lenses that cost what my car does think one was F2,8 at 400mm. One of the pro's happened to have the SIGMA lens I spoke of and he spoke highly of it, thats how my interest was aroused. Apart from the 16X I use the 75 - 300mm ultrasonic, yeah, probably not the best but affordable. I do not generate any income from my hobby. As a matter of interest have seen filming crews in KNP using betacams and a Novoflex 600mm with 1,6X extender and large bean bags. I don't know what the ratio is for Betacam is. At 200mm I would not have enough lens, no question. One may not alight from ones vehicle owing to the danger and you may also not leave the road to get closer to the subject. Regards Andrew

March 21st, 2002, 03:31 PM	#63
Laza2usa Posts: n/a	Folks, I agree with Mike that these longer lenses are very difficult to adapt to. I've been using the 100-400mm on a very good head and sticks. Other than the equipment the main thing that helped me was to practice often. I breath like I was doing Qigong (from the stomach) and developed a steady hand. You would be surprised how much better you will be after several hours a day for a week. Not much you can do if you are caught in the open if it's windy though. But in the end the shots are well worth the trouble. Kind of opens a whole other world.

March 23rd, 2002, 12:49 PM	#65
ErikFilmcrew Posts: n/a	The 16x lens does not do it for me. I need a more extreme backblur effect. But with a focal length of let's say 2000mm (an ef lens with xl1) should do it i hope. I need to shoot full figure people with total blur in the background. Anyone tried this out with an ef lens? Thanks in advance Regards, Erik T.

March 23rd, 2002, 12:56 PM	#66
ErikFilmcrew Posts: n/a	I need an extreme backblur effect. But with a focal length of let's say 2000mm (an ef lens with xl1) I should make it i hope. I need to shoot full figure people with total blur in the background. Anyone tried this out with an ef lens? Is it possible? Thanks in advance Regards, Erik T.

July 11th, 2002, 09:08 PM	#68
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I have used this lens and it would not be my first choice. I found the 100 to 400 to balance a little nicer and it is smaller. You might want to check out the specs at Canon's site but I don't recall the 35 to 350 having IS or the front element rotating. The EOS lenses do not AF when on the EF adapter. Jeff

July 11th, 2002, 10:44 PM	#70
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Steve (stevenyc1@aol.com) uses the 75 - 300 and i believe he is quite pleased with it. You may want to email him or wait and see if he replies here. Jeff

July 12th, 2002, 05:37 AM	#72
graphiouz Posts: n/a	How about the Sigma lenses? the 70-200mm 2.8 Apo gets very nice reviews, that lens combine with the 1.6Converter should be a nice cheap solution. and you get f2.8 at '1440mm' :) <a href "http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83598_3128crx.aspx#reviews">

July 12th, 2002, 06:10 AM	#73
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Hi, The 1.6x convertor works with XL lenses only, it will not work with Canon EOS EF lenses or lenses made for EOS mount. Instead, try the Canon EF adapter. It allows Canon EOS EF lenses to be used on the XL. There is an effective gain in image size by a factor of 7.2x. This is the result of going from 35mm film size to 1/3" chips. So, my 100-400 Canon EOS zoom becomes 720-2880 zoom or a magnification of 58x. Jeff

July 12th, 2002, 06:11 AM	#74
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Hi, The 1.6x convertor works with XL lenses only, it will not work with Canon EOS EF lenses or lenses made for EOS mount. Instead, try the Canon EF adapter. It allows Canon EOS EF lenses to be used on the XL. There is an effective gain in image size by a factor of 7.2x. This is the result of going from 35mm film size to 1/3" chips. So, my 100-400 Canon EOS zoom becomes 720-2880 zoom or a magnification of 58x.

July 12th, 2002, 06:42 AM	#75
graphiouz Posts: n/a	oh jtdonald i meant '1.6x extender' sorry! i know you have to use a EF adaptor,. if you use a 'EOS 1.6x Extender' with a EOS lens instead of the 'XL Extender', could that work? > XL1s > EF adapter > EOS 1.6x Extender > EOS EF- lens ? or > XL1s > EF adapter > XL 1.6 Extender > EOS EF -lens ? .