Canon 3X lens or W/A adapter?

Rick Bravo · September 22nd, 2004, 05:49 PM

The 3X.

Chris Hurd · September 22nd, 2004, 05:51 PM

The 3x is a lot lighter, and a lot easier to shoot with, than a 16x with an adapter on the front (this combo is a little on the heavy side). You're giving up the OIS, but you shouldn't need it on a wide-angle anyway.

About the Century adapters, the wider of the two is not full-zoom through, it loses the telephoto half of the lens. The other one lets you zoom all the way through the entire range of the lens.

Roger Moore · September 22nd, 2004, 08:32 PM

Chris, what is the minimum focus for the 3X?

I see 3/4" at widest zoom on this canon page

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...5&modelid=8274

But at adorama and other retailers I see 0.5 m...

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20171962.html

Can you tell me which it is? Thanks.

Ken Tanaka · September 22nd, 2004, 09:09 PM

See the bottom of my 16x review page.

Roger Moore · September 22nd, 2004, 10:41 PM

Thanks, Ken. I'm wondering if it's just a typo on that canon page; do you think it's something else that the 3/4" could be referring to?

Ken Tanaka · September 22nd, 2004, 11:11 PM

Roger,
One of the hazards of transcribing spec data from the little lens sheets is that you get cross-eyed after a while and are no longer thinking about what you're typing. That's apparently what I did on that comparative chart.

The 3x lens' minimum focusing distance at its widest setting is 20mm, not 20cm. That, of course, converts to just above 3/4". I just tested this with my own lens and it is accurate.

The other error regarding the 3x lens on my chart is that it does have a built-in ND filter, whereas I indicated that it does not.

My sincere apologies for misleading you. I'll see if Chris can make the corrections pronto.

Jeff Donald · September 22nd, 2004, 11:22 PM

I can confirm this as well. Several years ago I shot some wildflowers in the early morning with dew on them. I got so close that I got dew on the front element. The dew drops on the lens are in perfect focus. If I can find the footage, I'll make a screen grab and post a link to the shot. On another occasion I got spider webs across the lens hood and the silk from the web is in focus.

Roger Moore · September 22nd, 2004, 11:57 PM

Thanks again, Ken.
Your updated spec and Jeff's anecdote have more or less convinced me to get this baby.

Yi Fong Yu · September 23rd, 2004, 07:03 AM

rog,

i have the 3x and through horsing around with it, i have felt that it has become an indispensible tool for closeups. if i need to utilize telephoto then i put on 16x auto but 3x all the way for closeups. in fact if you don't have 3x then it just doesn't have that 'broadcast quality'. i suppose part of the appeal of broadcast cams like real-world or newsmedia shows is that their lens is wider. apparently making everyone look a bit fatter is 'professional' =^).

Tony Hall · September 23rd, 2004, 11:06 AM

Thanks, I think I'll get the 3x now... besides I guess I'll be able to use it when I upgrade my camera.

Chris Hurd · September 23rd, 2004, 12:17 PM

Gotta love that built-in macro. The little Canon single-chip DV cameras have this, too. Zoom out to full wide, and they'll focus right up to the glass.

Jan Zirn · October 22nd, 2004, 02:07 AM

Hi,
I read a lot here in the forum to make up my mind about the 3x vs. Century .6 or .7.

In the end I tested them side by side and I can agree with all who say that the 3x is worth the money (although not cheap).

So I've got one myself and I can say: It is now the standard on my XL1s. I only use the 16x when true 16x is needed.

I am very pleased with it, but have to admit, that the "getting the picture sharp" is an issue. As someone said here in the forum: Tha Canons are a bit on the soft side ;-)

Cheers from Germany
Jan

September 22nd, 2004, 05:49 PM	#16
Rick Bravo Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 574	The 3X. __________________ "The future ain't what it used to be." Yogi Berra. www.rbravo.com

September 22nd, 2004, 05:51 PM	#17
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	The 3x is a lot lighter, and a lot easier to shoot with, than a 16x with an adapter on the front (this combo is a little on the heavy side). You're giving up the OIS, but you shouldn't need it on a wide-angle anyway. About the Century adapters, the wider of the two is not full-zoom through, it loses the telephoto half of the lens. The other one lets you zoom all the way through the entire range of the lens. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

September 22nd, 2004, 09:09 PM	#19
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	See the bottom of my 16x review page. __________________ 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

September 22nd, 2004, 11:11 PM	#21
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Roger, One of the hazards of transcribing spec data from the little lens sheets is that you get cross-eyed after a while and are no longer thinking about what you're typing. That's apparently what I did on that comparative chart. The 3x lens' minimum focusing distance at its widest setting is 20mm, not 20cm. That, of course, converts to just above 3/4". I just tested this with my own lens and it is accurate. The other error regarding the 3x lens on my chart is that it does have a built-in ND filter, whereas I indicated that it does not. My sincere apologies for misleading you. I'll see if Chris can make the corrections pronto. __________________ 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

September 22nd, 2004, 11:22 PM	#22
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I can confirm this as well. Several years ago I shot some wildflowers in the early morning with dew on them. I got so close that I got dew on the front element. The dew drops on the lens are in perfect focus. If I can find the footage, I'll make a screen grab and post a link to the shot. On another occasion I got spider webs across the lens hood and the silk from the web is in focus. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 22nd, 2004, 08:32 PM	#18
Roger Moore Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: toronto Posts: 99	Chris, what is the minimum focus for the 3X? I see 3/4" at widest zoom on this canon page http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...5&modelid=8274 But at adorama and other retailers I see 0.5 m... http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20171962.html Can you tell me which it is? Thanks.

September 22nd, 2004, 10:41 PM	#20
Roger Moore Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: toronto Posts: 99	Thanks, Ken. I'm wondering if it's just a typo on that canon page; do you think it's something else that the 3/4" could be referring to?

September 22nd, 2004, 11:57 PM	#23
Roger Moore Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: toronto Posts: 99	Thanks again, Ken. Your updated spec and Jeff's anecdote have more or less convinced me to get this baby.

September 23rd, 2004, 07:03 AM	#24
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	rog, i have the 3x and through horsing around with it, i have felt that it has become an indispensible tool for closeups. if i need to utilize telephoto then i put on 16x auto but 3x all the way for closeups. in fact if you don't have 3x then it just doesn't have that 'broadcast quality'. i suppose part of the appeal of broadcast cams like real-world or newsmedia shows is that their lens is wider. apparently making everyone look a bit fatter is 'professional' =^). __________________ bow wow wow

September 23rd, 2004, 11:06 AM	#25
Tony Hall Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: springfield, OH Posts: 344	Thanks, I think I'll get the 3x now... besides I guess I'll be able to use it when I upgrade my camera. __________________ Tony "Good taste is the enemy of creativity" - Picasso Blog: http://www.tonyhall.name

September 23rd, 2004, 12:17 PM	#26
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Gotta love that built-in macro. The little Canon single-chip DV cameras have this, too. Zoom out to full wide, and they'll focus right up to the glass. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 22nd, 2004, 02:07 AM	#27
Jan Zirn New Boot Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bad Nauheim, Germany Posts: 7	Hi, I read a lot here in the forum to make up my mind about the 3x vs. Century .6 or .7. In the end I tested them side by side and I can agree with all who say that the 3x is worth the money (although not cheap). So I've got one myself and I can say: It is now the standard on my XL1s. I only use the 16x when true 16x is needed. I am very pleased with it, but have to admit, that the "getting the picture sharp" is an issue. As someone said here in the forum: Tha Canons are a bit on the soft side ;-) Cheers from Germany Jan