EF Lens adapter / EF Lenses / EOS Lens

Jeff Donald · July 12th, 2002, 07:15 AM

XL 1.6 adapter should not be used with EOS lenses. Instead use Canon EOS EF 1.4x or 2x extenders

XL>EF adpt.>EOS 1.4/2x> EOS lens

Jeff

Ron Transco · July 12th, 2002, 08:50 AM

I was just wondering if the image stabilizer is of any use when the 70-300 is used with the XL1s; i.e. could you handhold even at 70mm which is 500mm on the XL1s? I'm guessing it wouldn't. I don't have a Canon still camera so whatever lens I buy would only be used on the XL1s.

July 12th, 2002, 08:54 AM

im dizzy today lol , i meant 1.4x Ef,,,,

Jeff Donald · July 12th, 2002, 09:03 AM

Not for hand holding. However, most peoples tripod won't hold it steady at the 300mm position. I would say try it both ways and see what works best for your particular subject matter and camera/tripod combination.

jeff

Ron Transco · July 12th, 2002, 09:23 AM

Hmmm... I'm wondering if the Canon 28-135 might be a better choice. It would be 200-972 on the XL1s. Leaves less of a gap with the standard lens, and from past experience with 1000mm lenses, 972 is about it. Really difficult working with anything longer.

Jeff Donald · July 12th, 2002, 09:31 AM

I've used the 28-135 and it works well for me. I have to reconfigure the camera a little, too back heavy, but otherwise a joy to use.

Jeff

Ron Transco · July 12th, 2002, 09:44 AM

Jeff -

Are you using the 28-135 IS? If so, are you able to handhold at the shorter focal lengths? When you say "reconfigure the camera", what exactly are you doing?

Jeff Donald · July 12th, 2002, 03:59 PM

I use the 28-135 now and then for certain shots. It is not as big and heavy as the 16x XL lens. Normally I have the CH910 on the back with 2 batteries. The lighter lens on the front throws the balance off too much so I remove the CH910and attach a smaller battery to the XL body. It lowers the center of gravity, makes it more comfortable to hold and it counter balances on the tripod better.

Jeff

Steve Nunez · July 12th, 2002, 04:51 PM

I'm a big fan of using EOS lenses with the EF adapter- the resulting video is usually super sharp (you can't get better!!) and very well saturated....possibilities are numerous (macro-tele etc), even with the less expensive lenses....the biggest problem is no-image stabilization- so anything longer than 100mm will likely require a tripod.....

..Sigma makes a 50-500 lens that's i'd love to try...what a focal range!

..have fun.

Andrew Leigh · July 13th, 2002, 12:12 AM

Ron,

you have not mentioned why you need "more" lens in terms of increased focul length. Perhaps if the forum could get a better idea of your requirements more focused opinions could be offered.

e.g. My requirement left me with no other option but to get more lens. I do almost all my serious shooting in the Kruger National Park where one may not leave your vehicle. This in essence means at most times you may end up far from the subject matter. I have a VW Microbus which, with the middle seat removed, allows for the full installation of a heavy duty tripod and 5" monitor, with the sliding door open the opportunities are great. I would prefer the 100 - 400mm but don't think it was available when I was in the market, and truth be told could not have afforded it. I find it almost impossible to hand hold the 75 - 300mm but with a bean bag you can get reasonable off tripod results. What I like about the 100 - 400mm is the option of variably selecting the mode of stabilisation.

Even on a solid tripod I rarely try pan or touch the camcorder when in the exended zoom ranges. It is O' so easy to introduce vibrations. I use the remote to start and stop.

<<Sigma makes a 50-500 lens that's i'd love to try...what a focal range!>>

Steve I too have lusted for, courted and fondled such lens. Having done this I posted for other users to offer opinions, can't remember the forum but think it was here, have a look for my posts. The result was not that promising. It would appear as if the lens is not that sharp and shows severe drop in resolution at full zoom. In fact there was gardly a good mention so I gave up my quest knowing the advice is good. Canon glass still kicks butt.

Cheers
Andrew

Ron Transco · July 13th, 2002, 09:06 AM

Andrew -

My needs are opposite of yours. I sometimes make training videos for electronic assembly. The stock lens works fine for table shots, but doesn't work for closeups of small parts, etc. Often this has to be done handheld as well which means an image stabilizer is a plus and the less weight I'm holding the better. The more working distance, the better since I often have to stand to the side or on the opposite side of the bench. There are also long shots of multiple workstations or though windows in areas where I am not allowed to go. It looks like the 28-135 IS USM might fill the bill. Money is always an issue and I believe this lens is about as cheap as you can get for an "IS".

Andrew Leigh · July 13th, 2002, 09:12 AM

Hi Ron,

can't help here.....good luck.

Cheers
Andrew

John Wilcox · July 23rd, 2002, 01:57 PM

This coming winter I shall be undertaking a project that involves filming wild geese, which from past experience will be far away and completely unapproachable. So I have decided to take the plunge and get an EF adapter and EOS lens. But which lens?
I've had a chat with my local camera shop who who have said they will get the lenses I want to try so I can have a play before I part with my money.
I've so far, thanks to the info contained on this boards mainly, ask them to get me the Canon 75 - 300mm USM IS and the 100-400mm to try.
Dose any body have any suggestions of other lenses I should ask to try?
I've been involved in multimedia and video editing for a good few years now but have only recently started to shoot my own video footage and the wonders cameras and lenses are still make my head hurt, therefor any advice will be gratefully received.

Thanks

Don Palomaki · July 23rd, 2002, 03:05 PM

Several of the past threads here address wildlife video questions. You might browse them for ideas and contacts.

Jeff Donald · July 23rd, 2002, 04:49 PM

I own both lenses and with out a doubt the 100 - 400mm is the better lens. It also carries the better price, probably 3x what the 70 - 300mm IS costs. Is it 3x better optically? No, but if you're after the best optically and have a tripod to support it, the 100 - 400mm wins. I've tried many other lenses and I can discount the 35 - 350mm (too heavy, doesn't balance well) 28 -135mm IS (not enough telephoto) and 100 - 300 (too slow). The 100 - 400mm is an L series lens, uses Cannon's best glass. You will be able to see the difference.

Jeff

July 12th, 2002, 08:50 AM	#77
Ron Transco Regular Crew Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 53	I was just wondering if the image stabilizer is of any use when the 70-300 is used with the XL1s; i.e. could you handhold even at 70mm which is 500mm on the XL1s? I'm guessing it wouldn't. I don't have a Canon still camera so whatever lens I buy would only be used on the XL1s. __________________ Ron

July 12th, 2002, 09:23 AM	#80
Ron Transco Regular Crew Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 53	Hmmm... I'm wondering if the Canon 28-135 might be a better choice. It would be 200-972 on the XL1s. Leaves less of a gap with the standard lens, and from past experience with 1000mm lenses, 972 is about it. Really difficult working with anything longer. __________________ Ron

July 12th, 2002, 09:44 AM	#82
Ron Transco Regular Crew Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 53	Jeff - Are you using the 28-135 IS? If so, are you able to handhold at the shorter focal lengths? When you say "reconfigure the camera", what exactly are you doing? __________________ Ron

July 12th, 2002, 04:51 PM	#84
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	I'm a big fan of using EOS lenses with the EF adapter- the resulting video is usually super sharp (you can't get better!!) and very well saturated....possibilities are numerous (macro-tele etc), even with the less expensive lenses....the biggest problem is no-image stabilization- so anything longer than 100mm will likely require a tripod..... ..Sigma makes a 50-500 lens that's i'd love to try...what a focal range! ..have fun. __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

July 13th, 2002, 12:12 AM	#85
Andrew Leigh Major Player Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Posts: 220	Ron, you have not mentioned why you need "more" lens in terms of increased focul length. Perhaps if the forum could get a better idea of your requirements more focused opinions could be offered. e.g. My requirement left me with no other option but to get more lens. I do almost all my serious shooting in the Kruger National Park where one may not leave your vehicle. This in essence means at most times you may end up far from the subject matter. I have a VW Microbus which, with the middle seat removed, allows for the full installation of a heavy duty tripod and 5" monitor, with the sliding door open the opportunities are great. I would prefer the 100 - 400mm but don't think it was available when I was in the market, and truth be told could not have afforded it. I find it almost impossible to hand hold the 75 - 300mm but with a bean bag you can get reasonable off tripod results. What I like about the 100 - 400mm is the option of variably selecting the mode of stabilisation. Even on a solid tripod I rarely try pan or touch the camcorder when in the exended zoom ranges. It is O' so easy to introduce vibrations. I use the remote to start and stop. <<Sigma makes a 50-500 lens that's i'd love to try...what a focal range!>> Steve I too have lusted for, courted and fondled such lens. Having done this I posted for other users to offer opinions, can't remember the forum but think it was here, have a look for my posts. The result was not that promising. It would appear as if the lens is not that sharp and shows severe drop in resolution at full zoom. In fact there was gardly a good mention so I gave up my quest knowing the advice is good. Canon glass still kicks butt. Cheers Andrew __________________ PAL XL-1, DV Raptor, Premiere TOTAL AMATEUR - DOING IT FOR THE FUN

July 12th, 2002, 07:15 AM	#76
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	XL 1.6 adapter should not be used with EOS lenses. Instead use Canon EOS EF 1.4x or 2x extenders XL>EF adpt.>EOS 1.4/2x> EOS lens Jeff

July 12th, 2002, 08:54 AM	#78
graphiouz Posts: n/a	im dizzy today lol , i meant 1.4x Ef,,,,

July 12th, 2002, 09:03 AM	#79
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Not for hand holding. However, most peoples tripod won't hold it steady at the 300mm position. I would say try it both ways and see what works best for your particular subject matter and camera/tripod combination. jeff

July 12th, 2002, 09:31 AM	#81
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I've used the 28-135 and it works well for me. I have to reconfigure the camera a little, too back heavy, but otherwise a joy to use. Jeff

July 12th, 2002, 03:59 PM	#83
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I use the 28-135 now and then for certain shots. It is not as big and heavy as the 16x XL lens. Normally I have the CH910 on the back with 2 batteries. The lighter lens on the front throws the balance off too much so I remove the CH910and attach a smaller battery to the XL body. It lowers the center of gravity, makes it more comfortable to hold and it counter balances on the tripod better. Jeff

July 13th, 2002, 09:06 AM	#86
Ron Transco Regular Crew Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 53	Andrew - My needs are opposite of yours. I sometimes make training videos for electronic assembly. The stock lens works fine for table shots, but doesn't work for closeups of small parts, etc. Often this has to be done handheld as well which means an image stabilizer is a plus and the less weight I'm holding the better. The more working distance, the better since I often have to stand to the side or on the opposite side of the bench. There are also long shots of multiple workstations or though windows in areas where I am not allowed to go. It looks like the 28-135 IS USM might fill the bill. Money is always an issue and I believe this lens is about as cheap as you can get for an "IS". __________________ Ron

July 13th, 2002, 09:12 AM	#87
Andrew Leigh Major Player Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Posts: 220	Hi Ron, can't help here.....good luck. Cheers Andrew __________________ PAL XL-1, DV Raptor, Premiere TOTAL AMATEUR - DOING IT FOR THE FUN

July 23rd, 2002, 01:57 PM	#88
John Wilcox Regular Crew Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Yorkshire, UK Posts: 25	Which EOS lenses should I try? This coming winter I shall be undertaking a project that involves filming wild geese, which from past experience will be far away and completely unapproachable. So I have decided to take the plunge and get an EF adapter and EOS lens. But which lens? I've had a chat with my local camera shop who who have said they will get the lenses I want to try so I can have a play before I part with my money. I've so far, thanks to the info contained on this boards mainly, ask them to get me the Canon 75 - 300mm USM IS and the 100-400mm to try. Dose any body have any suggestions of other lenses I should ask to try? I've been involved in multimedia and video editing for a good few years now but have only recently started to shoot my own video footage and the wonders cameras and lenses are still make my head hurt, therefor any advice will be gratefully received. Thanks __________________ John Wilcox

July 23rd, 2002, 03:05 PM	#89
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,488	Several of the past threads here address wildlife video questions. You might browse them for ideas and contacts.

July 23rd, 2002, 04:49 PM	#90
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I own both lenses and with out a doubt the 100 - 400mm is the better lens. It also carries the better price, probably 3x what the 70 - 300mm IS costs. Is it 3x better optically? No, but if you're after the best optically and have a tripod to support it, the 100 - 400mm wins. I've tried many other lenses and I can discount the 35 - 350mm (too heavy, doesn't balance well) 28 -135mm IS (not enough telephoto) and 100 - 300 (too slow). The 100 - 400mm is an L series lens, uses Cannon's best glass. You will be able to see the difference. Jeff