Lens Question

Chris Durham · November 7, 2006

So I started shooting my documentary this weekend and the XL2 was great for the interviews we did. The performances we shot left a little something to be desired though and I think what it is is that I need a wider angle so I can get closer to stage and capture the performers without a lot of crap above or below them. (I'm shooting a documentary about Renaissance Festivals). So I need to look at my lens options.

1) there's the expensive option of the 3x wide angle lens for the XL.

2) there's the less expensive option of getting a wide angle converter.

3) there's the middle-of-the-road option of getting the EF adapter and using Canon EF series lenses.

Does anybody have enough experience with any of these options to advise me? As far as the last option goes, I have the EFS 17-85mm lens for my Canon EOS still cam. Is there any conversion of focal length when you use the adapter with the XL2? How is the image on either option? Can I still use my filters on the wide angle converter? Do option 2 or three stop me down?

Help is appreciated.

Jack Barker · November 7, 2006

3) there's the middle-of-the-road option of getting the EF adapter and using Canon EF series lenses..

I have nothing to offer Chris, but like you, I would be very interested in knowing more about the results using still lenses. I also have a handful of EOS lenses hiding somewhere.

Jason Debus · November 8, 2006

Chris Hurd did comprehensive tests that he posted here. If you want wide angle the EF adapter isn't the way to go.

Allen Achterberg · November 8, 2006

I may be mis interpreting your question, but it doesn't sound like a wide angle lens will solve your problem. If you put a wide lens on, you will see more on top and on the bottom as well as from left to right. If you can, try shooting 16:9, and if you are, perhaps a matte like 2.35:1 if you can. But as I stated, I don't fully understand your question, but from my interpretation it sounds like you have onjects on the top of the frame and the bottom of the frame that you don't want there, and going in tighter won't give you the wide shot you want.

Hope this helps,

Allen Achterberg

Chris Durham · November 8, 2006

Right. A wide angle will give me more top and bottom, left and right. I'm shooting 16:9 and back 17'-20' from the stage in order to get both ends of it in the picture; which is far enough to give me more on top and bottom than I want. With a wide angle though I should be able to move the camera closer to the stage and still get all my left and right in frame - with the aspect ratio and perspective doing the cropping above and below for me; right? I'll admit that I'm new to this so I could be fairly well off in my thinking; but I intend to do a test before I make any purchase. If I'm wrong, please tell me the flaw in my thinking. Thanks.

Chris Hurd did comprehensive tests that he posted here. If you want wide angle the EF adapter isn't the way to go.

Thanks for the link; that helps a lot. I found another link - by Mr. Hurd - that was helpful too. It indicates that focal length is magnified by a factor of at least 7.8; which is definitely not what I'm looking for.

That leaves the two other options - anyone have experience with wide angle converters?

November 15, 2006

Hello!

there is a company in Germany named Novoflex where you can by adapters for the XL1/2 for any still-cameras. The cost are approx the half of the converter from Canon. There you can buy adaperts for Nikon, Leica, Canon, Minolta etc.

I tested the converter this year in Alaska and i used lenses from Sigma wit Nikon-Adapter. The result was absolutly ok. May be if you want to see a needle in 500 m the you will have problems, but in general I was surprised about the good quality.

You have to look at www.novoflex.de or com/adapters for XL1/2.

regards

Lothar