Canon 3x wide angle lens questions

Bob Safay · February 23rd, 2004, 03:48 PM

Jack, they are great for doing interviews as you can get closer to the subject and use the onboard mic. Also, last year I took a small ship throught the Straights, I used it in the cabin, passageways, engine room (by the way, being able to turn the volume down is fantastic in a situation like this) and SMALL dining room/bar. I have used it at parties wedding receptions, hazardous waste sites and in back alleys. It is a really good lens to have. I never actually thought I would buy one, until I realized how often I was borrowing one. Bob Safay

Gino Terribilini · March 2nd, 2004, 09:59 PM

I don't know how much information is out on the XL2 yet, but wont you be able to use the 3x lens on the XL2 as well as the XL1/s? Assuming they are carrying on their reputation of having a camera that can do anything and then some... ooo, i'm excited.

Rick Bravo · March 3rd, 2004, 11:20 PM

Great for shooting with the GlideCam V8!

RB

Dave Phillips · March 24th, 2004, 01:46 PM

XL1s and Canon 3X WA
After reading so many good things about the 3X wide angle I splashed-out nearly 800 GB pounds on one, primarily to use for shooting property interiors. My question is, how do you get a crisp, well focused image.
I have read every single posting on the topic and still have not found the answer.I have used every aperture/shutter speed/shooting mode possible, but still cant achieve anything but a slightly fuzzy image.
From minimum distance to about 1.5 m everything is razor-sharp, but beyond that it's all downhill!
Help please.
Regards to all
Dave

Dylan Couper · March 25th, 2004, 02:08 AM

Hi Dave
It would help if you could post a screen grab of the image for us to look at. The 3x lens is a little on the soft side.

John Threat · April 27th, 2004, 10:18 PM

One thing that will help focus if there is good light in the space you are shooting and you can shoot at a 5.6-4.8 F-stop for that sweet spot.

Stopping down with the ND filter to hit that sweet spot will really make a nice focused image possible.

Other than that.. I still maintain that Canon shafted us a bit with the 3x.

Ken Tanaka · April 27th, 2004, 10:45 PM

I agree with John's suggestion: light your scene up. Way up. Get that iris closed down to get deep focus field.

Also, you should note that video cameras' relatively low resolution (with respect to film) make for mushy-looking wide shots. This generally doesn't become apparent (at television-size images) until you look at relatively distant objects. If you're shooting interiors this may not be a factor in your current complaint. But it's worth keeping in mind prospectively.

Tight interior shots is the ideal application for that 3x lens. I've been very happy with mine in that application.

David Phillips · April 27th, 2004, 11:39 PM

Thanks for the replies, but now I'm even more confused.
John says open up the iris and Ken says close down for d.o.f. and go for tight shots.
If I needed tight interior shots then I'd use the standard 16X, the Idea behind the 3X was to produce wide interior shots for real-estate work. However, I do agree that the 3X is a bit of a leg-pull from Canon.
After being in 'stills' photography for over 30 years I find the transition to video not as straight forward as I imagined, but it does work if you stick to 'Video Rules' and shoot tight and close.
I shot one of my best ever weddings last week-end, simply because everything was c/up. I have no doubts that the XL1s and lenses are very good, used in the right conditions and sticking to manual operation will achieve unbeatable results.
My advice to anyone thinking of buying a 3X would be to fully understand its limitations and make sure it fits in perfectly with your requirements.
Regards, Dave

Ken Tanaka · April 27th, 2004, 11:54 PM

No, actually I -think- John and I may be making the same comment. That is, light the scene brightly to afford yourself (i.e. the camera) the opportunity to be flexible with your aperture. As you probably know from your still photo work, tighter apertures lead to deeper depths of focus. John remarks that you may find a "sweet spot" around f5.6, and that use of the lens' ND might be handy to achieve that aperture. Depending on colors and the depth of the scene I might even go down a stop or so tighter.

No, I'm not recommending tight shots, per se. Just remarking that video cameras, particularly small cameras like the XL1S, wouldn't be my first pick to shoot the Grand Canyon.

(Are we in fact coincident, John?)

Yi Fong Yu · July 17th, 2004, 06:50 PM

I'm considering getting the XL2 body and just getting the 3x lens ONLY. Do you think this is wise? I'm only shooting features and shorts and will be using 24p ALL the time. Do I really need the 20x "L" series? I like the wide look and want to keep it for everything. I know that the 3x wide has less of a telephoto feature but I can't think of a reason for telephoto as I can't get audio so far away anyway (unless I dub it in while in post). So all in all I think 3x will be fine. Can anyone give me advice from their experience? I'm a novice!

Jean-Philippe Archibald · July 17th, 2004, 11:20 PM

A longer lens can be handy if you want shorter DOF. Perhaps you should consider to buy a good manual lens with a .6 or .7 wideangle adapter...

Dylan Couper · July 17th, 2004, 11:38 PM

I shot my last two short films entirely with the 3x lenses. So, sure. However, that was the tool for the job at the time.

The bottom line is the right tool for the right job.

Yi Fong Yu · July 18th, 2004, 12:12 PM

but i thought DOF should be achieved by moving further away from subject anyway?

Yi Fong Yu · July 20th, 2004, 06:27 PM

meaning instead of taking a 16x lens and screwing century wide lens adapters to it, you take a 3x lens and screw telephoto lens to it. it this possible? converting a wide to telephoto?

Christopher Reynolds · July 28th, 2004, 07:35 AM

What kind of depth of field are you talking about exactly Yi? Shallow or deep? You can achieve a Shallow depth of field by zooming in and simply focusing on your subject, but keep in mind, this also increases the size of anything behind the subject, and in front of them for that matter. Also, opening the aperature up as far as you can with a good ND filter, gives more shallow depth of field. Closing up the iris can help with a greater depth of field as long as your luminence is high enough to keep the image from getting too dark.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I shot my last two short films entirely with the 3x lenses. So, sure. However, that was the tool for the job at the time.

The bottom line is the right tool for the right job. -->>>

Exactly... =)

March 3rd, 2004, 11:20 PM	#123
Rick Bravo Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 574	Great for shooting with the GlideCam V8! RB __________________ "The future ain't what it used to be." Yogi Berra. www.rbravo.com

March 24th, 2004, 01:46 PM	#124
Dave Phillips New Boot Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Norfolk UK Posts: 5	3X WA Help!! XL1s and Canon 3X WA After reading so many good things about the 3X wide angle I splashed-out nearly 800 GB pounds on one, primarily to use for shooting property interiors. My question is, how do you get a crisp, well focused image. I have read every single posting on the topic and still have not found the answer.I have used every aperture/shutter speed/shooting mode possible, but still cant achieve anything but a slightly fuzzy image. From minimum distance to about 1.5 m everything is razor-sharp, but beyond that it's all downhill! Help please. Regards to all Dave

March 25th, 2004, 02:08 AM	#125
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Hi Dave It would help if you could post a screen grab of the image for us to look at. The 3x lens is a little on the soft side. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 27th, 2004, 10:18 PM	#126
John Threat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York Posts: 322	One thing that will help focus if there is good light in the space you are shooting and you can shoot at a 5.6-4.8 F-stop for that sweet spot. Stopping down with the ND filter to hit that sweet spot will really make a nice focused image possible. Other than that.. I still maintain that Canon shafted us a bit with the 3x. __________________ Director: http://www.mediathreat.com

April 27th, 2004, 10:45 PM	#127
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	I agree with John's suggestion: light your scene up. Way up. Get that iris closed down to get deep focus field. Also, you should note that video cameras' relatively low resolution (with respect to film) make for mushy-looking wide shots. This generally doesn't become apparent (at television-size images) until you look at relatively distant objects. If you're shooting interiors this may not be a factor in your current complaint. But it's worth keeping in mind prospectively. Tight interior shots is the ideal application for that 3x lens. I've been very happy with mine in that application. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

February 23rd, 2004, 03:48 PM	#121
Bob Safay Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,558	Jack, they are great for doing interviews as you can get closer to the subject and use the onboard mic. Also, last year I took a small ship throught the Straights, I used it in the cabin, passageways, engine room (by the way, being able to turn the volume down is fantastic in a situation like this) and SMALL dining room/bar. I have used it at parties wedding receptions, hazardous waste sites and in back alleys. It is a really good lens to have. I never actually thought I would buy one, until I realized how often I was borrowing one. Bob Safay

March 2nd, 2004, 09:59 PM	#122
Gino Terribilini Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 91	I don't know how much information is out on the XL2 yet, but wont you be able to use the 3x lens on the XL2 as well as the XL1/s? Assuming they are carrying on their reputation of having a camera that can do anything and then some... ooo, i'm excited.

April 27th, 2004, 11:39 PM	#128
David Phillips Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Norwich Norfolk UK Posts: 112	3X Wide Thanks for the replies, but now I'm even more confused. John says open up the iris and Ken says close down for d.o.f. and go for tight shots. If I needed tight interior shots then I'd use the standard 16X, the Idea behind the 3X was to produce wide interior shots for real-estate work. However, I do agree that the 3X is a bit of a leg-pull from Canon. After being in 'stills' photography for over 30 years I find the transition to video not as straight forward as I imagined, but it does work if you stick to 'Video Rules' and shoot tight and close. I shot one of my best ever weddings last week-end, simply because everything was c/up. I have no doubts that the XL1s and lenses are very good, used in the right conditions and sticking to manual operation will achieve unbeatable results. My advice to anyone thinking of buying a 3X would be to fully understand its limitations and make sure it fits in perfectly with your requirements. Regards, Dave __________________ David Phillips

April 27th, 2004, 11:54 PM	#129
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	No, actually I -think- John and I may be making the same comment. That is, light the scene brightly to afford yourself (i.e. the camera) the opportunity to be flexible with your aperture. As you probably know from your still photo work, tighter apertures lead to deeper depths of focus. John remarks that you may find a "sweet spot" around f5.6, and that use of the lens' ND might be handy to achieve that aperture. Depending on colors and the depth of the scene I might even go down a stop or so tighter. No, I'm not recommending tight shots, per se. Just remarking that video cameras, particularly small cameras like the XL1S, wouldn't be my first pick to shoot the Grand Canyon. (Are we in fact coincident, John?) __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

July 17th, 2004, 06:50 PM	#130
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	Can you take on all conditions of a 'indie' shoot with only the 3x wide lens? I'm considering getting the XL2 body and just getting the 3x lens ONLY. Do you think this is wise? I'm only shooting features and shorts and will be using 24p ALL the time. Do I really need the 20x "L" series? I like the wide look and want to keep it for everything. I know that the 3x wide has less of a telephoto feature but I can't think of a reason for telephoto as I can't get audio so far away anyway (unless I dub it in while in post). So all in all I think 3x will be fine. Can anyone give me advice from their experience? I'm a novice! __________________ bow wow wow

July 17th, 2004, 11:20 PM	#131
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	A longer lens can be handy if you want shorter DOF. Perhaps you should consider to buy a good manual lens with a .6 or .7 wideangle adapter... __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

July 17th, 2004, 11:38 PM	#132
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	I shot my last two short films entirely with the 3x lenses. So, sure. However, that was the tool for the job at the time. The bottom line is the right tool for the right job. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

July 18th, 2004, 12:12 PM	#133
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	but i thought DOF should be achieved by moving further away from subject anyway? __________________ bow wow wow

July 20th, 2004, 06:27 PM	#134
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	there any lenses that make telephoto out of the 3x lens? meaning instead of taking a 16x lens and screwing century wide lens adapters to it, you take a 3x lens and screw telephoto lens to it. it this possible? converting a wide to telephoto? __________________ bow wow wow

July 28th, 2004, 07:35 AM	#135
Christopher Reynolds Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: North Canton, Ohio Posts: 109	What kind of depth of field are you talking about exactly Yi? Shallow or deep? You can achieve a Shallow depth of field by zooming in and simply focusing on your subject, but keep in mind, this also increases the size of anything behind the subject, and in front of them for that matter. Also, opening the aperature up as far as you can with a good ND filter, gives more shallow depth of field. Closing up the iris can help with a greater depth of field as long as your luminence is high enough to keep the image from getting too dark. <<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I shot my last two short films entirely with the 3x lenses. So, sure. However, that was the tool for the job at the time. The bottom line is the right tool for the right job. -->>> Exactly... =)