EX1 Wide Angle - Pros / Cons ?

[Cris Daniels]

I have the Schneider and the 16x9 .75 wide angle lenses. Optically, there is no difference from what I can tell. The 16x9 one is nice, and the rubber lens hood works great. There is an optional hood available for the Schnieder/Century piece that is more of a pain to put on since it will darken down a corner if it is not JUST right. BUT the Schneider allows you to use a 4x4 drop in, so it can also function more like a matte box on a budget.

EITHER of these lenses in MY experience will have problems if screw in UV filters are used. Corners will darken in both cases. The reason is that the UV filters will not allow the hood to slide all the way down to where it needs to be, so you will catch problems in all corners, which you can zoom through, but why? Even without a hood, you cannot use a UV filter without vingetting.

I run these lenses with no filters, or you can add a 4x4 UV to the Schneider kit. I have a Chrosziel sunshade/Matte box with 4x4's but I have not tried it to see if it works correctly with the 16x9 WA without any issues.

The lenses make these cameras much more front heavy, but I usually use the EX1 with a FigRig so I just balance it differently than I normally would.

Both of these lenses work on either camera.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Thanks Cris! Actually I already have that Schneider lens hood/filter holder for my Z1 lenses and it's very nice - good alternative to a mattebox if you don't need rotating filters (see: WIDE ANGLE SUNSHADE/FILTER HLD - Schneider Optics). But you are absolutely right, you have to align it perfectly or you'll get a little vignetting in the corners.

The post I quoted from Christoph Gelfand about vignetting with the Schneider is curious, especially his statement, "It vignetted at full wide and at 75% wide. And yes, it was the newer version- purchased 1/09".

How could it possibly vignette at 75%?...

[Cris Daniels]

I don't know, the only thing I found is that the UV filter was/is a problem. Mine was pretty shallow and still cut the corners badly.
You had to zoom through it quite a bit to get a clean image, which of course defeats the whole purpose of using a WA in the first place...

[Boyd Ostroff]

Now that I have my EX1 and the Century .75x wide adapter I wanted to update this thread. There is no vignetting whatsoever at full wide zoom with this adapter on my EX1. It also does not appear to add much, if any, distortion to the image. The EX1 lens itself has a bit more barrel distortion at the wide end than I expected, so that is still present of course.

As I mentioned above, I already had the Century wide angle sunshade/filter holder and it fits the lens. It does vignette slightly when attached however.You have to align the sunshade very carefully, and you can eliminate most but not all of the vignetting which probably would not be noticeable unless there's a light, even field in the shot. Zooming in from a setting of 0 to 1 on the EX1 scale cuts the vignetting out of the image.

I also have a Century mattebox on backorder and can report back on how that works with the wide lens when it arrives.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Christoph Gelfand

It vignetted at full wide and at 75% wide. And yes, it was the newer version- purchased 1/09.

Now that I've used the Century .75x wide lens for a few days, unfortunately I need to reverse what I said in the previous post. I am also seeing some vignetting like Christoph mentions, mainly in the upper left hand corner of the image. It is very strange because it's more noticeable in some shots than others, and as you zoom the vignette comes and goes.

It is visible through much of the zoom range, so you can't correct it by just zooming in a little. I really don't know much about optics, but assume this problem has something to do with the rear lens element being too small?

I am going to do some controlled testing before saying any more, and will post my results here soon.

[Greg Kiger]

Update - I ended up getting the Century .75 and am very pleased - while i have not done any technical tests the footage I shot outside looks great. I didn't notice a vignette or loss of image quality relative to the built in lens. the bayonet mount is rock solid, i don't use a filter so no vignette worries there either.

not cheap and maybe not quite as wide i would like but the best w/a for what i do.

happy happy

Greg Kiger
st louis

[Warren Kawamoto]

Wide Angle (and fisheye) Adapter= Can't zoom, or very limited zoom at the wide end. Focus is achieved in macro mode.
Wide Angle Converter= Zoom is generally operable throughout the entire zoom range. Focusing is done normally.

Generally, adapters have more barrel distortion, are wider, and lighter than converters. Converters usually zoom all the way through.

Edit: Anyway, it was defined like this 10 years ago. I just looked at some recent catalogs, and noticed that adapters and converters are now almost described interchageably. My, how times have changed.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Warren Kawamoto

I just looked at some recent catalogs, and noticed that adapters and converters are now almost described interchageably.

That's what I have seen also. I would not assume anything based on the name unless it specifically says "full zoom through"....

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Greg Kiger

I didn't notice a vignette or loss of image quality relative to the built in lens.

As you can see above, that's what I thought for the first few days as well. The vignetting is very sneaky and only appears in certain situations. Sorry, have not had a chance to put all my shots together and present them properly. But with a light colored relatively low contrast scene, the vignetting is barely visible. However with a high contrast scene it seems to rear its ugly head. I can pan across a scene and watch it come and go. Am trying to understand the pattern, but if the upper left corner is light and the right side of the image is dark, I believe it makes the vignetting visible at the upper left. Evidently there is some internal reflection in the lens?

Here's one example, but not from a controlled situation. I was using a filter for this and initially thought that was the problem. However the dark upper left corner is typical of what I am seeing on similar scenes through a whole range of zoom settings (not just full wide) without a filter or mattebox.

[Boyd Ostroff]

OK, shot a few tests this evening. They aren't "scientific", but are from a controlled situation. First - distortion.

I setup this grid on my wall and lit it with two cheap floodlights. The lines are electrical tape stretched into a measured grid. There is a bit of variation in the lines from the tape stretching, but they're pretty straight and the camera is centered on the grid.

In the first attachment you can compare the field of view and distortion with/without the converter lens at zoom settings of 00, 05 and 10.

In the second attachment I zoomed in with the converter lens attached until the field of view matched the stock lens at full wide.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Next - vignetting. Unfortunately I am seeing it through the zoom range 00-25 with the wide lens attached. Mostly in the upper left corner, but some in the upper right and slightly at the bottom. You will need to click on each attachment a couple times to make it full size, then look at the upper left hand corner at 100% view. I find the vignetting pretty noticeable, especially between zoom 10 to 15, but as I mentioned above it really depends on the composition of the shot and subject as to whether it will be a problem in everyday use. It is all but gone at a zoom setting of 30. But notice in the previous post - a zoom setting of 08 with the convertor attached is the equivalent of zoom 00 with no convertor.

These are full resolution highest quality JPEG files exported from the FCP timeline without any alteration. The video was shot at 1080/24p HQ at 1/48 f2.8 -3dB. There were no filters and no mattebox or lens hood in these these tests - just the wide convertor by itself.