Canon 3X lens or W/A adapter?

I'm close to pulling the trigger on an XL1S purchase. I intend to go with the 16x Manual lens.

However, I would like your comments on whether I would be better off buying the 3x lens or purchasing a wide angle adapater (from either Canon or Century Optics) for the 16x lens.

What would I lose with the adapter?

[Andrew Hogan]

I bought the Canon 3x lens and I like it. I don't think Canon make a WA adapter.

[Don Palomaki]

With the Century adapter (if you get the correct one) you save a few $$$ over the 3x lens and you get a full 16x zoom through, and perhaps aquicker change back to the normal zoom lens (just pull the adapter)

The adapter adds weight, the 3x would be a lighter package (including your wallet). Also, the 3x might be able to take filters, the adapter might not

Hi everyone

I want to shoot in wide-angle with my XL-1. I have bought a PAL body (from ZGC for $2,400) and am now trying to choose the best lens for it. So what would you all suggest?

Canon 3x wide-angle lens (about $1,200)? I hesitate on this option because a) it limits me to wide-angle shots only and b) I've read that the focus is soft.

Canon 16x manual lens ($1,600) with a 0.6x adaptor ($500)? I hesitate on this option because a) more expensive and b) not sure if 16x manual takes the adaptor and c) not sure of the quality of these adaptors.

Looking for your experiences or advice.

Thanks in advance.
Phillip

[Ken Tanaka]

Always get a lens rather than an adapter if possible. A lens' optics are designed specifically for a range off tasks. Adapters are for folks that have no other choice.

Canon's 3x lens is outstanding and the "soft focus" stuff is a load of bull cr*p with respect to this lens. Whoever told you that doesn't (a) know much about lenses, (b) knows nothing about this lens and (c) has never used this lens. End of that story.

But, back to you, when you say "I want to shoot in wide-angle with my XL-1." what the heck do you really -mean-?

Thanks for the advice, KenTanaka. By "I want to shoot in wide-angle with my XL-1", I mean that I'd like to be able to use the same lens in any situation (closeup, long shot, zoom between the two), at least initially since I can afford only 1 lens at the moment. If I buy the wide-angle lens, won't I be limiting myself??

As for the "soft-focus" of the 3x lens, I read about it on some posts in the Lens forums. Below is what I have read.

-----------copied from LENS forum--------------

The auto-lenses (16x, 3x)are both a little soft. Peter Koller in Image: 16x manual vs 3x wideangle thread.

I also have the 3X Wide Angle Lens and although it gives a nice "wide angle", I find that it gives a softer look than the standard lens as well. I'm also considering using a good wide angle adapter with the manual lens in hopes to get sharper wide shots than with the 3X Lens. Donbarzini in XL1(S) 16X Manual Lens thread

I used the 3X Wide Angle Lens, and to me, that was a pain to use as well. I never knew if I was in focus, it was always a gamble. It also never seemd to provide a good sharp image which to me is critical, especially in a wide shot. Donbarzini

------------end of copy------------------------------

KenTanaka wrote "Canon's 3x lens is outstanding and the "soft focus" stuff is a load of bull cr*p with respect to this lens.", so just looking for some more opinions out there.

Thanks!
Phillip

[Dan O'Bannon]

If you guys had the option (money was no object) would you get the 3X wide lens For the XL1s, the .6x or the .7x.
I have a 16x manual on there now but am in the market for somthing a little wider for tight shots.
I'm concerned the adaptors will morph the edges of the frame.
Any feed back would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Dan O'Bannon

[Dylan Couper]

3x lens. That's a no brainer.

[Ken Tanaka]

Dan,
I -basically- second Dylan's opinion (and own a 3x and 16x manual, but not a wide adapter for the 16x). The 3x is a pretty good piece of glass.

My only qualification is the possibility that you might want to retain the manual controls and dual-stage ND filters offered on your 16x. In that case you might find a wide adapter a more appropriate choice. But it would be a very specific application, such as a particular filmmaking shoot, that might drive such a choice.

Adapters, no matter how high of a quality, always represent some compromise in imaging when compared to lenses designed for specific optical ranges.

[Dan O'Bannon]

Thanks Ken, I appreciate your help!

Dan O'Bannon

[Dean Sensui]

Dan...

I have the Century 0.7 adapter and keep it mounted on my lens almost full time.

If there is any difference in sharpness, it's so slight as to be unnoticable.

The only noticable difference is some barrel distortion at the widest setting. It's where straight lines take on a slight curve. Not a big deal when shooting in most situations, but if you're doing interior architectural shots, it can be a significant problem.

I don't know if the 3x lens has the same problem but it would be worth checking out.

The biggest advantage of putting a 0.7x on the 16x manual is having a much greater zoom range than the 3x. Swapping lenses isn't a problem for most of the shooting I'm doing right now.

But if I'm doing run-and-gun work, then swapping lenses is out of the question. The 0.7x/16x manual combination would be the natural choice.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

[Dan O'Bannon]

Thanks Dean, now if I can find out if there is "any" distortion at the widest end of the 3x lens, I can make my decision.

Dan

[Ken Tanaka]

The optical nature of all true wide-angle lenses is that there will be some barrel distortion on the edges. It's just physics. The wider the lens the greater the distortion. The XL1's 3x will bend lines close to the edges, but not radically.

[Tony Hall]

There's a couple of wide angle adapters available from Century precision optics for the 16x canon XL lens. One is a .6 and one's a .7 and both are pretty expensive.

My questions is:

What gives you a better looking image: The 16x lens with an adapter or the 3x wide angle lens? As a general rule, wide angle adapters cost you some sharpness and contrast, but I've also heard that the 3x isn't as sharp as the 16x lens. The adapter would be cheaper and more convinient, but if it doesn't look as good, I might consider the lens.

Thanks,

Tony

[Tony Hall]

Could somebody move this to the XL2 watchdog forum, since nobody seems to be around here?