Canon KH16EX5.7 IRSE

[Derek Reich]

Okay, so no one has any experience with the Canon 1/2" adapter for EX.... fair enough. I didn't think there were too many out there anyway. So this brings me to my next question: has anyone used the Canon KH16EXX5.7 lens on an EX? I recently borrowed a used one of these to try out on my EX, hoping the IQ would be at least as good and maybe even better than the stock Fuji lens. Since this lens had a list price of nearly $16,000 when new, I anticipated something approaching my 2/3" Canon broadcast lenses from my Beta days.
I couldn't have been more wrong. This lens is shockingly bad.... the stock Fuji absolutely blows it away! I don't know if there is something wrong with this lens, but it does not appear to be something out of adjustment.... just a surprisingly bad lens. I've been a very loyal Canon user for over 25 years, and this is the first time I've been so appalled by a Canon product. The lens is lacking any contrast at all, producing an incredibly flat bland image, slightly softer than the stock Fuji.... and color rendition is also lifeless and muddy. The chromatic aberration is abysmal.
Either Fuji knocked one out of the park with this stock lens, or Canon has failed miserably with a lens that cost nearly twice as much as the EX with it's stock lens. Any other users with similar (or different) experience here? I'm really curious why Canon would have produced such a characteristically inferior product.

[Luc De Wandel]

I've never had the opportunity to test this specific lens, but I have the YH19x6,7 on my PMW320 most of the time, and I'm very satisfied with it's performance. According to Canon, this is not a HD-lens, but visually (even on a 42 inch tv) I see no difference with the much more expensive, high-def KH10ex3.6 IRSE lens, that I also have. I compared the latter to the Fujinon equivalent, and there I found that the Canon is way better. Of course there are important differences from lens to another, so perhaps the one you had was just a lemon...?

[Michael Sims]

I use a Canon YH12x4.8 KRS-A on my PMW320. I prefer its look over the Fujinon HD stock lens that came with the camera.

[Luc De Wandel]

Michael, that seems to confirm my findings that the non-HD Canons are sometimes as good as the much more expensive HD-models. Too bad Canon does not have a comprehensive book with curves of video lens data like they do have for still lenses. That would make a more scientific comparison possible.

In any case, in my experience, the two YH-type Canons that I own are in the same league for sharpness and color rendition as the KH-type wide angle that I use. One big difference though is that the less expensive YH"s breathe a lot more. But then again, that is a minor disadvantage compared to the much lower price.

[Derek Reich]

Interesting..... and to confirm whether or not this is just a 'lemon' or not, I've sent it off to be evaluated by a technician who I've used for over 20 years and trust implicitly. I'm really hoping there is just a problem with this lens and I can get back on track with it! Of course, I'll still have to get the Canon adapter for proper lens function (iris, servo, record start/stop). Do you guys use this adapter with your Canon 1/2" lenses, or do you do without those functions?

[Ronald Jackson]

Looking forward to reading what happens in Derek's test. I'm interested in a long(er) lens for my recently acquired EX3. Older, SD, perhaps 2/3 lenses seem reasonably affordable with two caveats, connectivity, the need for adapters which may or may not be electronic, and most important, image quality.

I'd be interested in hearing of experiences with longer lenses on XDCAM EX cameras.


Ron

[Luc De Wandel]

For extreme long tele work, I use Nikon photo lenses with a Century Optics adapter (with correction lens). I have a 300mm prime that becomes a 2100 mm on my PMW320, and a 135mm that this becomes approx. a 1000 mm long lens. Sharpness is outstanding, but focusing is very difficult.

I also have another Canon SD-lens, designed to be especially lightweight, so a very good marriage with the light PMW320, and that is the Canon YH16x7 KRS. It's also very sharp (a little less than the 19x though) and it is really lightweight. Because I don't use both I'm selling the 16x. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/private-...h-cameras.html)

[Derek Reich]

So I heard back from the lens tech, and the news is this lens is apparently fine.... and looks good to him on the bench. We both explored why this might be looking so flat on my EX3, and it occurred to both of us that maybe it needs a lens file set up to look normal? Because this lens doesn't (at the moment) have electrical connections to the camera, there is no communication. Does anyone have any experience setting up lens files, and/or any success doing so? I have two options for restoring communication with the lens and camera, I can either buy the very expensive Canon adapter (about $1800) or I can have the mount switched out on this lens (allegedly) for one with hot shoe connections for less than 1/3 that price. I'm reluctant to do either unless I can feel confident that setting up a lens file will allow what is supposed to be a decent enough lens to look as good as it can? As it is now, it's simply not good enough IQ to justify any cost... but if the lens file and maybe a custom profile can make this work, then I'd be all over it. But this needs to look at least as good as the stock lens.
Anyone?

[Derek Reich]

No one out there has experienced needing to fiddle with lens files or PP when using a bayonet ENG lens?
Anyone? Bueller?...... Bueller?.......