Canon 3x wide angle lens questions

[Vic Owen]

You're gonna hate it -- it is really a 'piece'! (And, I'd be willing to take it off your hands for, say, $600.00 up front! :) )

Cheers

[John Locke]

Peter, let us know what you think about your new 3X after you've had a chance to play with it.

I've been using the 3X more than the 16X lately...in fact, it stays on the camera all the time and then sometimes I replace it with the 16.

Back in my college days I had an "old school" photo professor who shot practically everything with a short focal length lens and absolutely hated zoom lenses. His reasoning was that as long as you have legs, you don't need a zoom lens or telephoto lens. I'm not that extreme...and of course there are other considerations in video that don't come into play with photography...but there's something to be said for remembering to just walk up to things sometimes.

Speaking of "zoom"...I've been wondering what the consensus is among you guys about whether you like the technique that's so popular now...in those "jittery cam" TV shows and movies...where you start a shot with a really fast zoom in. What do you think? Cool? Or overdone?

[ja135321]

I got this lens a few weeks ago and shot an infomercial about wine. If I didnt have this lens I dont think I would have been able to do it. Besides getting a small room, it gets a great perspective with big areas such as vineyards. Although, I did have to switch back to the 16x to try to achieve a macro shot of the vines and leaves.

[Peter Koller]

Vic...

I trust in your wise opinion and will immediately forward the lens to your address when I get it.
$600? No way. I cannot charge you so much money for such a lousy piece of junk. I don´t want to rip you off! Is it okay for you if I ask $20 for it? (just to cover shipping expenses)
:-)))

Cheers, Peter

PS: NEVER EVER WILL I GIVE THIS LENS AWAY! YOU´D HAVE TO PULL IT OUT OF MY DEAD FINGERS!!!

[Dylan Couper]

After debating between a wide angle converter, or the 3x lens, I chose the lens. If for nothing else, it's got a great re-sale value on Ebay. :)

I purchsed a used one locally in mint condition. I might have been able to get one off Ebay cheaper, but I'd rather pay a bit more and get to inspect it before buying.

It's in mint shape, but there is one thing (always is). There is a tiny piece of lint on the inside of the glass of the camera side of the lens. I demo'd it and it does not show up on tape or monitor, but I'd really like it gone.

Taking the lens apart myself is probably the mother of all bad ideas, so who would be qualified to do so? A local camera repair place? Or would it have to go back to Canon?


Apart from that, all you guys who praised this lens are right. It's excellent, and probably worth the money over a zoom through converter if you can get one for less than $1000. IMHO, a bit more zoom would be appreciated.

[Jeff Donald]

Try shooting towards a light source and check for flare or ghost images from the lint. I doubt you'll see anything. If it were my lens I would leave it alone because it is not effecting the performance. Call Canon and ask what the charge will be. I suspect between $150 and $200.

Jeff

[Ken Tanaka]

Congratulations. I think you'll find it to be a very handy lens to have, especially when shooting in tight space.

I wouldn't even hallucinate over letting anyone except Canon disassemble and clean the lens. Take Jeff's advice: if it ain't too broke, don't fix it. (I'm paraphrasing, Jeff <g>.)

[Chris Hurd]

Ditto, ditto, ditto! Do *not* attempt to dis-assemble that lens yourself... sounds like it's not worth worrying about. Congrats on your new lens! I want a cigar.

[Dylan Couper]

What if I had a couple shots of vodka to steady my nerves before taking it apart?
Kidding of course! :)

Thanks for the congradulations, I feel like a proud father.

I used it to tape a friend of mine playing Celtic music at a party last night and was instantly glad I got it. The whole scene would have felt confined using the 16x lens.

I think overall (for me), it's a much more usable lens than the 16x, and if it was maybe a 5x instead of 3x, might have been a better choice to ship with the camera.

I tested it outside in bright sunlight with no traces of images from the lint, but it still bugs me knowing its there. Oh well. It can stay I guess.

[Don Parrish]

Dylan,
Now that you have had this lens for a while, how is it working for you? I thought about your shot with a 200 to 972 mm lens of a friend playing music at a party . One would think the lens would be limited to close-ups and really close-ups. Also, how is the IS stab system working? Any problems with dust or dirt while changing lenses? Do you find yourself going back to the 16X II lens for some shots?

(sorry, some of these questions were for the 28-135 canon thread)

Thanks
Donny

[Dylan Couper]

There is no image stabilizing on the 3x lens, so it didn't work at all! :)

No problems with dust or dirt, yet.... But I am very careful.

At the party I stuck with the 3x the whole night and just walked closer to someone when I had to zoom past 3x
Indoors there is rarely a need to use the 16x, unless you are in a theater, church or stadium of course.

[Alex Ratson]

Congratulations on the new Lens. Just out of curiosity were did you purchase it from?


Alex

[Dylan Couper]

I picked it up localy, slightly used. Found it in a classified ad.
Quite lucky, actually!

[Nick Glenister]

Hi,

I'm looking to get a wideange lens for my XL1. Is it worth spending £1000 on the XL1 3x super wideangle lens of would it be more advisable to get the EF adapter and use a different wideangle lens? What are the pro's and cons?

I've read other post in this forum suggesting how to use the wideangle lens and i'm keen to try it out. Ultimately i'm making a no budget film and would need a wideangle lens for this but i'm also keen to try the lens for filming lightning for example.

Any tips on a cost effective way of getting wideangle would be most appreciated.

Regards

Nick

[Peter Koller]

Nick, due to the size of the ccd chip, all 35mm format lenses attached to the EF adapter will have their focal length increased by a factor of 7, meaning a 14mm wideangle lens will turn into a 98mm lens. So the EF adapter is (only) good for surveillance or wildlife photography, because with a 400mm lens you will get a killer-tele of 2800mm.

For wideangle work the 3x lens is the best way to go, there are also some widenangle extensions for the standard 16x lens. Use the search function, all, the lenses, the EF adapter and the extensions have been discussed several times.

Cheers, Peter