Canon XL 1.6 range extender

Chris Hurd · May 4th, 2002, 09:54 AM

Jacques,

I'll see you at ShowBiz Expo for sure.

Canon doesn't recommend the 100-400 IS because of the way the IS works on that lens (differently than how IS works on other IS lenses). However, I know many XL1 shooters who *are* using this particular lens without complaints. There should be a whole thread about this particular lens in here somewhere.

See ya in L.A.,

Steve Siegel · May 6th, 2002, 06:33 PM

While we're talking about the 100-400 mm IS lens, don't forget
the 75-300 mm IS. It's almost as good for bird footage, and costs a quarter as much. Also, as far as extenders, I have found that the EOS 2X positioned between the lens and the XL adapter gives a sharper image than the 1.6 X XL-1 extender (and is cheaper, too).

Jacques Mersereau · May 6th, 2002, 07:17 PM

<SNIP>
> as far as extenders, I have found that the EOS 2X
>positioned between the lens and the XL adapter gives a sharper image
>than the 1.6 X XL-1 extender (and is cheaper, too).
-------------------

You lost me. I don't yet own an EOS adapter or that
EOS 2X extender. Seems like those items will cost more than the
1.6 extender, which is like what . . . $400?

& yes, the 1.6 is pretty soft. The 16X alone is soft enough for me, but
the 1.6 is even softer. Sometimes soft looks good. That said,
I would still prefer a MUCH sharper image as one can always blur it later.
Ah, pixel shift technology.

When is some camera company going to hook up three "cheap"
mega pixel CCDs and give us HD resolution for what it should cost?
I need feather detail :)

Meanwhile, I still love my XL1.

Steve Siegel · May 7th, 2002, 04:24 PM

Sorry Jacques,
I assumed that you already used the EOS adapter ($450), because you can't mount a 100-400 zoom, or any other 35mm
lens without it.
At any rate, the images you get with EOS lenses and the adapter and an EOS extender are sharper than what you get with the 16X and the 1.6 extender.

Bob Safay · October 19th, 2002, 06:57 AM

I used the standard 16x lens with the 1.6 extender while videoing in the Amazon. I was videoing tree sloths...handheld, full zoom, against the sky, sitting in a moving boat. Image...magnificant! You have the best combo right there. Oh, I always shoot first in auto to get "a shot", then go full manual to get the great shots.

May 4th, 2002, 09:54 AM	#16
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Jacques, I'll see you at ShowBiz Expo for sure. Canon doesn't recommend the 100-400 IS because of the way the IS works on that lens (differently than how IS works on other IS lenses). However, I know many XL1 shooters who are using this particular lens without complaints. There should be a whole thread about this particular lens in here somewhere. See ya in L.A., __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 6th, 2002, 07:17 PM	#18
Jacques Mersereau Trustee Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 1,334	<SNIP> > as far as extenders, I have found that the EOS 2X >positioned between the lens and the XL adapter gives a sharper image >than the 1.6 X XL-1 extender (and is cheaper, too). ------------------- You lost me. I don't yet own an EOS adapter or that EOS 2X extender. Seems like those items will cost more than the 1.6 extender, which is like what . . . $400? & yes, the 1.6 is pretty soft. The 16X alone is soft enough for me, but the 1.6 is even softer. Sometimes soft looks good. That said, I would still prefer a MUCH sharper image as one can always blur it later. Ah, pixel shift technology. When is some camera company going to hook up three "cheap" mega pixel CCDs and give us HD resolution for what it should cost? I need feather detail :) Meanwhile, I still love my XL1. __________________ Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager

May 6th, 2002, 06:33 PM	#17
Steve Siegel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Posts: 840	While we're talking about the 100-400 mm IS lens, don't forget the 75-300 mm IS. It's almost as good for bird footage, and costs a quarter as much. Also, as far as extenders, I have found that the EOS 2X positioned between the lens and the XL adapter gives a sharper image than the 1.6 X XL-1 extender (and is cheaper, too).

May 7th, 2002, 04:24 PM	#19
Steve Siegel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Posts: 840	Sorry Jacques, I assumed that you already used the EOS adapter ($450), because you can't mount a 100-400 zoom, or any other 35mm lens without it. At any rate, the images you get with EOS lenses and the adapter and an EOS extender are sharper than what you get with the 16X and the 1.6 extender.

October 19th, 2002, 06:57 AM	#20
Bob Safay Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,558	I used the standard 16x lens with the 1.6 extender while videoing in the Amazon. I was videoing tree sloths...handheld, full zoom, against the sky, sitting in a moving boat. Image...magnificant! You have the best combo right there. Oh, I always shoot first in auto to get "a shot", then go full manual to get the great shots.