16X Manual Lens Questions

I use the Chrosziel 3x3 sunshade with mine. It works great and also lets you use 3x3 square filters as well.

[Michel Brewer]

if youre a membe rof the xl1 owners club call and buy it fro canon one of the options on the phone listing. Ive replaced a few items by being transferred to parts and they probably have it..probably cost under $30 (my guess) based on some items ive bought ...of course as dylan says im probably wrong on that (price)...

m

[Bob Deming]

Retail is about 40 to 43 bucks.

I sold the one that I didn't need for 33.00 and that included shipping. I think that was a fair price. I was new, never used.

ZGC had it up for $42.00 not including shipping.

I think that the person I sold it to got a fair deal.

At least he knows where I am and that he can contact me on this web site if he is not happy.

He is welcome to a full refund, less shipping.

Canon in NJ sells it for more about the same price as ZGC.

[Jason Steussy]

Thanks Bob! The lens hood showed up in perfect condition and has already been put to much use. I appreciate everyone's help on the board with this matter, too!
-Jason

[Bob Deming]

Glad you found what you wanted on this site.

If you need anything let us know. We all might have some stuff laying around.

Enjoy that lens. I have 3 XL's and they each have the 16XMSL on them. I use the 4th XL for the 3XWA and the 16X IS. Now I'm mounting the XL converter so I can shoot with EF lenses.

You should check out:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article21.htm

[Bill Edmunds]

I read the in depth review of the manual servo lens on the XL1 Watchdog, but still have some questions for anyone who can answer any (or all) of them...

- Does the lens produce a sharper image than the standard 16x II lens? If so, is it a small difference or a more noticeable difference?

- Does the weight of the lens truly make hand-held shooting extremely difficult (as suggested in the review)? If so, what do you use to support the cam for handheld use?

- Does the manual servo lens have any effect on low light performance when compared to the standard lens?

- If you boost the sharpness to the limit and use this lens, does it equal the sharp look of Sony cams like the PD150?

- I've read that the XL1S can't handle high contrast lighting as well as a PD150...I assume this is still the case with this lens (being an electronic issue, I presume)?

Thanks!

[Don Berube]

Hiya Bill!

Welcome to DVinfo.net! How goes everything in the Mount Washington Valley? You may remember me from RSN.com. I used to love reading your movie review columns in the Daily Sun! That was you, right? Is Herbie Schneider still gracing the slopes on Mt Cranmore? I hope so,,, I'll never forget one morning, as we rode the Red Triple up to the top of the mountain. Hearing his wonderful stories and seeing him ski so skillfully, and so effortlessly, was such an inspiration to me. Is Joe Quirk still running the Majestic Theatre? Say hello to him for me when you can!

>>>>>>- Does the lens produce a sharper image than the standard 16x II lens? If so, is it a small difference or a more noticeable difference?

- Here's a simple test for you to look at. Straight frame grabs from tape, no color correction or processing of any kind, just simple file conversion to a standard JPEG file. All I did was add text so you would know which image came from which lens. Shot in standard Movie Mode. (turn off Image "Fit to screen" if you are using a PeeCee)
http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo

>>>>>>- Does the weight of the lens truly make hand-held shooting extremely difficult (as suggested in the review)? If so, what do you use to support the cam for handheld use?

- Naw. Let's be clear, the XL1S is not exactly a 'handycam' form factor. On that note, it is still extremely light and easy to move about when compared to the larger shoulder cams. I grew up on a large, heavy BetaCam, so the XL1S is a treat for me to use in that regard. I have no problem with it. I just wish we had the opportunity to use the XL1S way back when I was shooting on skiis with RSN. Back then, we were shooting with the much larger Panasonic SuperCam as well as a BetaCam on occasion. The XL1S is milestones more sensitive in low light than those cameras were.

>>>>>>- Does the manual servo lens have any effect on low light performance when compared to the standard lens?

- Nope. More or less the same thing really.

>>>>>>- If you boost the sharpness to the limit and use this lens, does it equal the sharp look of Sony cams like the PD150?

- Not exactly. Boosting up the sharpness setting all the way will induce some noise artifacts. Keep it to about 2-3 notches above default for that kind of stuff. If you are shooting with the XL1S -and- a PD150, then I would suggest dialing down the sharpness on the PD150 a wee bit. I'd much rather have the Canon 16X Manual/ Servo lens than the lens on the PD150, especially when pointing the camera up a slope at skiers and such.

>>>>>>- I've read that the XL1S can't handle high contrast lighting as well as a PD150...I assume this is still the case with this lens (being an electronic issue, I presume)?

- I have yet to have any tangible problem in that regard worth mentioning.

Bill, I hope this info helps!

Do tell us what you are up to and what you are looking to do with your next camera.

Happy shooting,

- don

[Bill Edmunds]

Don:

Yep, that's me. No more movie column, alas. RSN bought an XL1 a few years ago, BTW.

Thanks for those resolution shots. I really didn't notice much difference between them. Is that normal or is my monitor not sharp enough?

Wouldn't the manual servo lens on the XL1S be hard to keep from shaking when in telephoto mode?

Basically, I shoot with a Sony DSR250 and love it, but am looking at smaller cams that still have a professional "look". The XL1S sounds good, but I've read so many horror stories about the standard 16x II lens having back focus problems and poor autofocus that I'm wary of the camera. That's why I asked about the manual servo lens. It sounds like a good lens, but I'm worried about it being too front heavy to hold in telephoto zoom settings when not on a tripod. You thoughts? Should I wait for an XL2?

[Mike Doyle]

The thing that drove us nuts about the auto-focus 16x lens is the inability to consistently shift focus manually as when panning from a distant object to a closer one. We found the auto-focus usually had trouble racking accurately and the focus ring, when in manual, had no feel at all. Once we got the manual 17X lens the autofocus lens was permanently retired...now if we could get a manual 3x...

Yes, at maximum telephoto the manual 16X is hard to hold steady but no more than any other camera/lens combo at that magnification. If a tripod or even a monopod is out of the question, look into the Glidecam 4000 Pro...we've had reasonably good luck with it.

[Ken Tanaka]

Bill,
I certainly can't add much to Don's usual thoughtful, detailed post. (Whew, nice res chart comparison, Don!)

No, there's nothing wrong with your monitor; the resolutions are basically identical.

Re: the weight of the lens, yes I noted that it's heavier than the 16x auto...which it is. But the issue with the XL1s is not so much weight as it is balance and center of gravity. Unless you're using, say, an MA-200 with a loaded CH-910 dual battery holder fully extended the majority of the camera/lens weight falls forward. It's more fatiguing to hand-hold than a heavier camera with better shoulder balance.

[Don Berube]

Iv'e added three more (b-i-g) images, comparing the sharpness between the PANASONIC AJ-DVX100 and the trusty 'ol CANON XL1S with 16X Manual/ Servo lens. The 16:9 letterbox mask on the DVX100 images are generated in-camera, except for the AJ-DVX100 image #3 in "5.jpg"... that one was applied in PhotoShop. On the XL1S images I added the same mask via PhotoShop, much in the same way you would with any decent NLE. The last image "7.jpg" shows the differences in the way each camera handles color.
These shots were taken with each camera in their own version of "Full Auto" mode.
***Again, if you are viewing these images via Windows, turn OFF "Fit Image To Screen" in Internet Exploder.

http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo/5.jpg
http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo/6.jpg
http://noisybrain.com/SDTV/ISII_vs_manualservo/7.jpg

- don

[Ken Tanaka]

My 49 yr.old eyes can't see a difference in sharpness or resolution. I can see a marked difference in gamma and saturation, though, on image #7.

[Alex Dunn]

Ken,

I'm thinking of not buying the standard lens at all when I get my XL1s (or hopefully XL2). Is there any BIG reason not to just by the 16x manual-servo. It seems to have every thing the other has and more.

[Ken Tanaka]

Alex,
Many people bypass the 16x Auto lens completely. In fact, I did that when I bought the XL1, although I eventually bought my XL1s with the Auto lens.

As long as you don't feel you will need an image stabilizer and are comfortable (to the extent possible with the XL1s) with the slightly heavier manual lens, then go forth with confidence. Just note that buying the the 16x Auto lens separately can be an expensive proposition, although you may be able to find someone willing to sell one for a good price.

[Alex Dunn]

Yeah, ZGC, has several package deals including one with the body, the 16x Manual-Servo, and the FU1000 for about the same as the regular price for the standard kit. So it's really quite easy.