Canon XL2 with EOS 70-200mm f2.8 Lens at DVinfo.net

James Darren · January 1st, 2006, 07:55 PM

Hello,

Has anyone used the XL2 with EF adaptor with a 70-200mm f2.8 L (non IS) Series Lens? I already have the 70-200mm lens & a heaps of other EOS glass from my 35mm stills kit & was thinking of mounting it on a XL2

I've heard mixed reports that the EF adaptor is not very sharp on the XL2...

I'm mostly shooting surfing from the shore so a long lens seems ideal....

Ron Armstrong · January 1st, 2006, 10:34 PM

Hi James;
I have that setup and am pleased with the results on an XL1. There is a question of the 70-200 and, in particular, the adapter being sharp enough for the XL H1. The 70-200 is an excellent lens and I think you would be happy with the results when used on your XL2.
Check my website for some help with stability.

James Darren · January 2nd, 2006, 07:34 AM

[QUOTE=Ron Armstrong]There is a question of the 70-200 and, in particular, the adapter being sharp enough for the XL H1.QUOTE]

Hi Ron,
So it's more of a question of the EF adaptor being the problem on the XLH1 rather than the lens itself?

Would you say the 70-200 f2.8 is sharper than the stock lens the XL2 comes with?

Ron Armstrong · January 2nd, 2006, 11:56 AM

Hi James;
IMO the adaptor is the weak point in the system and would show up more in the XL H1 due to more detail required in HDV. Tests are being done, and other threads cover this; However no concrete decisions have been reached.
I have only had experience with an XL2 demo from Canon and found the lens much improved over the XL1 lens. I recall trying the 500, the 100-400, and the 300 L lenses, all were very good and would hold up as well or better than the stock lens. However, I can't remember the 7-200 without looking up my notes. I don't use that lens much because of the overlap with the stock lens. I am impressed with the 70-200 and would feel strongly that it is better than the 100-400.
Would I say it's sharper? I would say it's at least as sharp as the XL2 stock lens. Would the average TV viewer see the difference? No.

Ron

Meryem Ersoz · January 2nd, 2006, 12:21 PM

they're roughly the same for sharpness, in my opinion, but the 70-200mm will take you places the 20x cannot. you can get the most amazing detail with the 70-200mm, that you cannot with the 20x. 70-200mm may even be a tad sharper. if you add a teleconverter (more glass) to the 20x and compare, the 70-200 wins...the 70-200mm is very good combined with the EF adapter and XL2. if you already own a bunch of EF lenses, the adapter will only set you back a few hundred dollars, nothing compared to the lenses themselves! that lens is a winner with the XL2, but how it performs with the H1 is under consideration.

go to this link for info about the H1 with the 70-200mm with EF adapter.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56642

it's a long thread, but there's a 70-200mm with EF adapter test shot. also the same test shot with a 400mm prime, which is much sharper than the zoom. but primes generally are....

Bob Thompson · January 2nd, 2006, 10:29 PM

I am using a Canon FD 300mm 2.8 lens on an XL2 and the quality is outstanding, the advantage of the FD is I am able to mount the lens with a straight adaptor, whereas the EF adaptor has an intermediate lens. Even with a 2x extender (Optex) on the 300mm the quality is very good.

I am using on bird photography

Lauri Kettunen · January 18th, 2006, 09:28 AM

I just captured footages to hard disk which were shot last May with the EF 70-200 lens and XL2. I know that I used both the EF 70-200mm lens and the 20x lens, but now afterwards, I'm not able to say which footage was taken with the EF lens and which not. Still, I do remember well, that the image on the EVF made me suspicious on the 70-200mm lens, and that I made afterwards tests which led me to the conclusion the 70-200 lense is slightly less sharp than the prime EF lenses. But as said, it seems very diffucult to detect the same afterwards (now I've forgotten the details).

Dan Euritt · January 18th, 2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Darren

I'm mostly shooting surfing from the shore so a long lens seems ideal....

i have been shooting a lot of surfing lately, and the problem is that you will almost always need a quality zoom lens to keep the frame full, as the surfer is moving down the line.

i don't know of any 35mm lens that will give you zoom control on these video cameras, but if anyone does, please speak up.

Alan Craven · January 28th, 2006, 08:58 AM

I realise that power zoom is not on with these Canon lenses, but I assume that you do still get autofocus, and aperture priority and shutter priority auto-exposure, if you use the EF convertor with the XL2?

Meryem Ersoz · January 28th, 2006, 09:18 AM

no auto-focus, you need to use long lenses on full manual.

Alan Craven · January 28th, 2006, 10:03 AM

Thanks for confirming my fears, Meryem.

Meryem Ersoz · January 28th, 2006, 10:28 AM

what applications were you considering, alan? i hate to be the grim reaper! maybe there's a way to turn what appears to be a disadvantage into something workable....

Lauri Kettunen · January 28th, 2006, 02:32 PM

James, I posted couple examples to you. These images

www.luontovideo.net/Woodpecker.tif
www.luontovideo.net/Woodpecker2.tif

are taken with XL2, EF-adapter and EF 400mm. The difference between EF 400mm and EF 70-200mm is rather small.

Open the images in photoshop and set pixel ratio to DV PAL 16:9.

Alan Craven · January 30th, 2006, 01:14 AM

Thank you for the offer of help, Meryem. At the moment I am trying to find out just what the XL2 is capable of, largely to convince myself that spending £3000 on a hobby is justified.

Most of what I do is videoing birds, partly from hides, but also stalking. I have an XM1/GL1 at the moment, but this is about to give up the ghost. I would probably need to replace that for the stalking.

I use it with a Sony 1.7X convertor on a tripod in hides, but would welcome some extra focal length. I have some problems due to a stroke, so need to use some automation.

An alternative route to this long focal length would be Canon's own 1.6X convertor - I assume this retains the auto-functions of the 20X lens?

Century also do a 1.6X convertor which attaches to the front of the 20X. Obviously this would retain all the metering/focussing/zoom functions of the XL2. This is twice the price of the Canon convertor, though.

Meryem Ersoz · January 30th, 2006, 09:34 AM

awhile back, i heard of people stacking canon's 1.6x, which rear-mounts on the lens, with the century 1.6x, which mounts on the front. that's some serious reach, which i believe maintains auto-functions. but i don't know how much softness or vignetting that would introduce to the image. maybe take a look at this link and shoot darren (who planned to do this very thing) an e-mail to get this question answered:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...n+1.6x+century

the 1.6x's occasionally come up for sale here in the classifieds, and you can save a coupla bucks. also the XL2, for that matter. if auto functions are a priority, i'm betting this is about as long a reach as you'll get, and even with the purchase of two teleconverters and an XL2, it's still cheaper than getting bitten by the long lens bug! suddenly, you'll be waking up in the night wondering where you can find room in the budget for one of these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

(that's an exaggeration, of course, but lens addiction is a real thing!)

January 1st, 2006, 07:55 PM	#1
James Darren Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 235	Canon XL2 with EOS 70-200mm f2.8 Lens Hello, Has anyone used the XL2 with EF adaptor with a 70-200mm f2.8 L (non IS) Series Lens? I already have the 70-200mm lens & a heaps of other EOS glass from my 35mm stills kit & was thinking of mounting it on a XL2 I've heard mixed reports that the EF adaptor is not very sharp on the XL2... I'm mostly shooting surfing from the shore so a long lens seems ideal....

January 1st, 2006, 10:34 PM	#2
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	Hi James; I have that setup and am pleased with the results on an XL1. There is a question of the 70-200 and, in particular, the adapter being sharp enough for the XL H1. The 70-200 is an excellent lens and I think you would be happy with the results when used on your XL2. Check my website for some help with stability.

January 2nd, 2006, 07:34 AM	#3
James Darren Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 235	[QUOTE=Ron Armstrong]There is a question of the 70-200 and, in particular, the adapter being sharp enough for the XL H1.QUOTE] Hi Ron, So it's more of a question of the EF adaptor being the problem on the XLH1 rather than the lens itself? Would you say the 70-200 f2.8 is sharper than the stock lens the XL2 comes with?

January 2nd, 2006, 11:56 AM	#4
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	Hi James; IMO the adaptor is the weak point in the system and would show up more in the XL H1 due to more detail required in HDV. Tests are being done, and other threads cover this; However no concrete decisions have been reached. I have only had experience with an XL2 demo from Canon and found the lens much improved over the XL1 lens. I recall trying the 500, the 100-400, and the 300 L lenses, all were very good and would hold up as well or better than the stock lens. However, I can't remember the 7-200 without looking up my notes. I don't use that lens much because of the overlap with the stock lens. I am impressed with the 70-200 and would feel strongly that it is better than the 100-400. Would I say it's sharper? I would say it's at least as sharp as the XL2 stock lens. Would the average TV viewer see the difference? No. Ron

January 2nd, 2006, 12:21 PM	#5
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	they're roughly the same for sharpness, in my opinion, but the 70-200mm will take you places the 20x cannot. you can get the most amazing detail with the 70-200mm, that you cannot with the 20x. 70-200mm may even be a tad sharper. if you add a teleconverter (more glass) to the 20x and compare, the 70-200 wins...the 70-200mm is very good combined with the EF adapter and XL2. if you already own a bunch of EF lenses, the adapter will only set you back a few hundred dollars, nothing compared to the lenses themselves! that lens is a winner with the XL2, but how it performs with the H1 is under consideration. go to this link for info about the H1 with the 70-200mm with EF adapter. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56642 it's a long thread, but there's a 70-200mm with EF adapter test shot. also the same test shot with a 400mm prime, which is much sharper than the zoom. but primes generally are....

January 2nd, 2006, 10:29 PM	#6
Bob Thompson Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 340	I am using a Canon FD 300mm 2.8 lens on an XL2 and the quality is outstanding, the advantage of the FD is I am able to mount the lens with a straight adaptor, whereas the EF adaptor has an intermediate lens. Even with a 2x extender (Optex) on the 300mm the quality is very good. I am using on bird photography

January 18th, 2006, 09:28 AM	#7
Lauri Kettunen Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Kangasala, Finland Posts: 445	I just captured footages to hard disk which were shot last May with the EF 70-200 lens and XL2. I know that I used both the EF 70-200mm lens and the 20x lens, but now afterwards, I'm not able to say which footage was taken with the EF lens and which not. Still, I do remember well, that the image on the EVF made me suspicious on the 70-200mm lens, and that I made afterwards tests which led me to the conclusion the 70-200 lense is slightly less sharp than the prime EF lenses. But as said, it seems very diffucult to detect the same afterwards (now I've forgotten the details).

January 28th, 2006, 08:58 AM	#9
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	I realise that power zoom is not on with these Canon lenses, but I assume that you do still get autofocus, and aperture priority and shutter priority auto-exposure, if you use the EF convertor with the XL2?

January 28th, 2006, 09:18 AM	#10
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	no auto-focus, you need to use long lenses on full manual.

January 28th, 2006, 10:03 AM	#11
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	Thanks for confirming my fears, Meryem.

January 28th, 2006, 10:28 AM	#12
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	what applications were you considering, alan? i hate to be the grim reaper! maybe there's a way to turn what appears to be a disadvantage into something workable....

January 28th, 2006, 02:32 PM	#13
Lauri Kettunen Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Kangasala, Finland Posts: 445	James, I posted couple examples to you. These images www.luontovideo.net/Woodpecker.tif www.luontovideo.net/Woodpecker2.tif are taken with XL2, EF-adapter and EF 400mm. The difference between EF 400mm and EF 70-200mm is rather small. Open the images in photoshop and set pixel ratio to DV PAL 16:9.

January 30th, 2006, 01:14 AM	#14
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	Thank you for the offer of help, Meryem. At the moment I am trying to find out just what the XL2 is capable of, largely to convince myself that spending £3000 on a hobby is justified. Most of what I do is videoing birds, partly from hides, but also stalking. I have an XM1/GL1 at the moment, but this is about to give up the ghost. I would probably need to replace that for the stalking. I use it with a Sony 1.7X convertor on a tripod in hides, but would welcome some extra focal length. I have some problems due to a stroke, so need to use some automation. An alternative route to this long focal length would be Canon's own 1.6X convertor - I assume this retains the auto-functions of the 20X lens? Century also do a 1.6X convertor which attaches to the front of the 20X. Obviously this would retain all the metering/focussing/zoom functions of the XL2. This is twice the price of the Canon convertor, though.

January 30th, 2006, 09:34 AM	#15
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	awhile back, i heard of people stacking canon's 1.6x, which rear-mounts on the lens, with the century 1.6x, which mounts on the front. that's some serious reach, which i believe maintains auto-functions. but i don't know how much softness or vignetting that would introduce to the image. maybe take a look at this link and shoot darren (who planned to do this very thing) an e-mail to get this question answered: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...n+1.6x+century the 1.6x's occasionally come up for sale here in the classifieds, and you can save a coupla bucks. also the XL2, for that matter. if auto functions are a priority, i'm betting this is about as long a reach as you'll get, and even with the purchase of two teleconverters and an XL2, it's still cheaper than getting bitten by the long lens bug! suddenly, you'll be waking up in the night wondering where you can find room in the budget for one of these: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search (that's an exaggeration, of course, but lens addiction is a real thing!)