Hi there,

Here's my situation in a nutshell: after twenty years as a producer, standing next to a cameraman who always shot with a beautiful wide-angle lens on his Sony betacam (he was often just a foot from the subject, so a face would almost fill half the frame), and who got the most wonderful footage - - now I'm operating a camera myself (the EX1), and I want the same look...

The problem is... whenever I myself right next to somebody, wanting the kind of shot my ex-cameraman would get, I'm too close to focus, and have to back off.

I guess I'm hoping a wide-angle lens will solve this problem... what do you think?

Maybe the Sony would be as good as the Zunow... especially if I have no intentions (now, anyway) of adding a matte-box? Neither is particularly wide, so I don't know if I'll be able to do what I want. The Schneider wide-angle lens might be wider... but I was told (I phoned them the other day) that it might be four or five months before they get it fixed and released.

Any suggestions?
Thanks, Malcolm

At Alex Kubalsky's suggestion, I'm wondering if I might be better off with a wide-angle adapter, such as the Red-Eye (which I think comes in a .65x).
This isn't a zoom-through lens, though, so I'd like to know how versatile it is. Could I, for example, with it on, still use macro, and get a really tight shot (someone writing some letters, for example)?
Thanks, Malcolm

You should turn Macro on. That way you can focus on really close objects - like, say, your hand up against the lens hood.

thanks for the note, Gabriel.
Here's my worry about using a wide-angle adapter... a note I got from Ryan, kindly explaining its strengths and weaknesses: "you can gain a very close focus. Shooting a piece of paper will technically focus at certain distances but it will appear very small and the page will be distorted in the sense that the vertical lines and words will curve inward. If you shoot a page with this the edges of the paper will not appear straight"

I don't want a wonky-looking shot. I want to do what my old cameraman used to do: have the camera close to someone's face, with the face in perfect focus, and no distortion.
When I put my EX1 where I want to put it, I can't get focus, so I have to back off. I was hoping a wide-angle lens or perhaps a wide-angle adapter might help, but now I'm not sure.

Would someone who knows lenses mind suggesting what route I should take?

Thanks, Malcolm

Hi Malcolm, I worked with another EX1 owner today who has the Century .6 Wide Angle we spoke about. I think it is just what you need. He uses it for interviews in places like passenger seat of a car and he says it works great. You can get up close, don't know exactly how close though he said right up to macro I didnt check this. Very short zoom through ability but I don't think it matters. The wide is better than my Sony one. Think I would have got it if I'd known.

I use the Sony 0.8 and it works very well for me. I have had no issues with the lens at all. As the EX1 is pretty wide anyway adding a 0.8 adapter gives a surprisingly wide view. There is some barrel distortion, but then almost all wide angles will have some, it's the nature of wide lenses.

Thanks for the note, Alexander - - I'll see if I can try out the Century or the Red Eye... I want to be really careful about making the right decision, because I've pretty well used up my budget at this point, and this wide-angle whatever will be my last purchase for a while.

and thanks for your reply, Alister. I might see if I can take the Sony w.a. for a test drive too. I guess the appeal with this option is that I'm not stuck in macro mode, as I think I am with a w.a. adapter on. In other words, is the adapter good ONLY for shots where you want to be really close? (and then you have to take it off for all your other shots?)
... whereas with the Sony w.a. lens, you can just leave it on, permanently?

Cheers everyone, Malcolm

Thanks for the note, Alexander - - I'll see if I can try out the Century or the Red Eye... I want to be really careful about making the right decision, because I've pretty well used up my budget at this point, and this wide-angle whatever will be my last purchase for a while.

and thanks for your reply, Alister. I might see if I can take the Sony w.a. for a test drive too. I guess the appeal with this option is that I'm not stuck in macro mode, as I think I am with a w.a. adapter on. In other words, is the adapter good ONLY for shots where you want to be really close? (and then you have to take it off for all your other shots?)
... whereas with the Sony w.a. lens, you can just leave it on, permanently?

Cheers everyone, Malcolm

Yes, I think that's about right. The Sony one lets you zoom through all the way but it is only 11x zoom instead of 14x without it. The .65 is fixed at the widest (although you can zoom in a little then suddenly becomes blurry beyond a point) but Im not sure if you have to switch to macro mode, I think it just allows you to get closer than the 80cm limit of the naked lens. I'll ask the guy today.

Alister, I have and like the Sony one too but I think the Century one may be better for real close up shots.

Hi Malcolm,
I own & shoot with the EX1 here in NZ and I very rarely take the Sony 0.8 off the camera! It's an extremely versatile lens and while there's certainly some barrel distortion it's part & parcel of the W/A look. In my opinion the Sony 0.8 is a very good compromise. It's zoom through - meaning it will hold focus throughout it's range so you can zoom in and focus on far away objects, and you'll find it wide enough for most applications. With the macro on you can get very tight indeed - maybe too close as you'll see every detail & imperfection on your subject's face very clearly! For some reason the macro can focus closer when the lens is switched to autofocus than when switched to manual on my camera? It's downside is the stupid fixed lens hood which stops the use of any mattebox without some DIY surgery.
In contrast you'll find you have to take the Century 0.6 off your camera repeatedly as it will not allow focus on anything far away. I tried this lens for the Z1P and it drove me nuts.
There's nothing wrong with Century optics of course - they're awesome - it's just the nature of the 0.6 lens. I'm waiting for the re-release of the Century 0.7 and then my Sony 0.8 will be for sale on eBay if you're interested!

Cheers

Mal

Hi Mal,
that's very useful information for me. I'll pop into a shop in town that carries the Sony w.a. and give it a try. I'm curious, though, that as happy as you seem to be with it, you want a .7 instead of a .8. Does it make that much of a difference?
Now, about that Century/Schneider .7 (or .75): Ryan Avery told me in an email (I can't think he'd mind me passing this on; it can't be a secret) that their w.a. zoom-through has been "discontinued" and, if it does come back into general release (which he said was "not likely"), it would be at least 6 months and more likely a year. He added that if and when it reappears, it will likely be a new design for other cameras that could be made to fit the EX1.
Given that, would you maybe be interested in the Zunow that Alexander has tried? Did you see his pix, comparing the Zunow with the Sony?
Regards,
Malcolm

Hi Malcolm,

The main reason that I'd go for the Century 0.7 over the Sony 0.8 is the mattebox attachment issue. It may not be a problem for you now but later on down the track when you're trying to shoot that glorious sunset this post will come back to haunt you :-)
Also I have to admit I'm a Century fan - we did extensive testing of w/a lenses for the PD & Z1 cameras and the Century 0.7 was by far the best. In particular the Z1P image quality was miraculously enhanced by the addition of the Century. Some of the other w/a adapters were so bad I don't think its fair to name them. Quite awful and noticeably soft in all conditions. The problems that Century are having with the EX are very real though and I'll need to do some thorough testing of any Century lens before purchasing, especially as Century are always at the top end of the price scale so I want them to outperform the competition. It would be a shame if they never released a lens to suit the EX series.
For me the difference between 0.8 and 0.7 is not a big issue. If you have a look at the pics that Alex posted of the Zunow I can't see much difference. I don't imagine that you'll find it too much of an issue either. Barrel distortion is the main thing to look for and here the Zunow wins by the looks of things. There's always some with w/a lenses and sometimes it can add to an image. I love the look of Fujinon's 4.5 on the DSR570 - sometimes I swear I can see my own ears while I'm shooting! It's a matter of personal preference. Most of the 'Reality' shows I shoot here DEMAND the w/a look but a less distorted look is better in my opinion. Also if you're shooting hand held a lot then a w/a really helps. It smooths out all your moves a lot - actually the complete opposite of zooming in of course. You just need to get closer to the action :-)
I'd really need to have the Zunow in my hands and test it out myself before I parted with my cash though. The pics Alex have posted don't show enough detail for me so I'll be sticking with the Sony for now.
I guess my main message would be if you're after some flexibility you need zoom through otherwise you're going to be screwing lenses on and off the camera the whole time, which loses it's appeal very quickly.

Cheers Mal

Mal makes a good point with the zoom through factor and the leaving it on all the time. Also, I have some doubts about the sharpness of the Zunow. Maybe you shoulod get the Sony. Thats what I use too and rarely take it off...although I think I sometimes miss the 14x zoomed shallow depth of field look that is not as pronounced at 11x zoom.

That Century .65 was way wide though. Aaah, I want them both.

Hi Malcolm,
..In contrast you'll find you have to take the Century 0.6 off your camera repeatedly as it will not allow focus on anything far away.....

I'm not sure what you mean Mal, you can focus on distant objects fine with the 0.6x. Do you mean you can't zoom much with the lens adapter on? If so that is true, but it is also the case with all lens adapters. Whether that is an issue or not is going to be very much down to your shooting style. The 0.8x Sony is a converter rather than an adapter so you can zoom through it, but it doesn't increase the field of view by that much.

I would favour the Century 0.6x over the Redeye. I tried a Redeye on an FX1, it was nice and light but lots of distortion and CA. The Century isn't perfect but it is pretty good considering the cost. The Sony 0.8x is probably the best choice if you don't need to go that wide, for me it wasn't quite wide enough though.

M

I'm not one (and neither is Krubrick) who thinks that: 'There is some barrel distortion, but then almost all wide angles will have some, it's the nature of wide lenses.' We've just been taught to think this way Alister because so many lenses are barrelling the world we see.

In my book, having the door frames bow outwards as you track room to room is just so amateurish, and having barrel-distorted brides is just not on.

I have a Bolex Aspheron which at 0.52x takes my Z1 down to the equiv of a 17 mm lens, so is seriously wide and is almost devoid of barrel distortion. I say almost, because the Z1's Zeiss lens barrel distorts quite noticeably down the wide end, and the Aspheron simply passes this on to the chips.

It's just such a pity that the EX1 and Z7 don't take kindly to this Aspheron lens - and of course Century have found out that making a wide-converter that works acceptably with the Fujinons is pretty difficult.

The Red-Eyes (a 0.7x and a 0.5x) I tested were beautifully coated and light, but the barrelling was awful. Sony's 0.8x is pretty mild for such a lump, but at least it works ok - though of course exaggerates the barrel distortion yet again.

So Malcolm - for now there's no add-on wide-converter for the EX1 that's worth buying. Sony's 0.8x gives the equiv of a 25 mm lens, so-so wide, but not startlingly, frighteningly, excitingly wide.

tom.

I can't seem to find frame grabs from the Century .6x with and without adapter to compare. I do not have a problem taking the lens off so I am interested in the wider lens.

Also it would be nice when the people receive the Century fisheye if they could review the lens.

Tom, first you say my statement about barrel distortion is wrong, then you go on to say that just about every wide angle adapter you have used has barrel distortion, so... as I say.... barrel distortion is the nature of the beast.

I'm not saying it's necessarily nice or pleasing, just that without spending enormous amounts of money barrel distortion is something you are going to have to live with especially with lenses designed to work with small imagers or film gates.

I'de place a good bet that the Bolex aspheron softens the image and introduces additional CA. It was never designed to work with the kinds of resolution that a camera like the EX1 can produce. I had a great 0.5x W/A adapter for my Z1 that had very little barrel distortion, but on the EX1 it is so soft it's unusable, especially at the mid to long end of the lens.

Sure I wish my Sony 0.8 was a bit wider, but for the money it is stunning value. In resolution terms I can't tell the difference between shots with it on and shots with it off. There is no noticeable vignetting, focus tracks perfectly and I have it on the camera most of the time.

You're quite right Alister, any single element converter will soften the image and introduce additional CA, it's the law of the land. The less powerful it is the less CA, so that parallel sided glass filters hardly produce any.

I'd like to know the make and model of the 0.5x W/A adapter for your Z1 that had very little barrel distortion. It's presumably a zoom-through?

tom.

I wish I could remember the brand. It was Japanese and cost £750.00. It was an apochromat with a flourite element to reduce CA. I'll have to go back through my books and dig out the invoice. I bet a similar lens for the EX1 would be around the £1k mark.

Sounds really interesting and the price seems ok vs the barrelling competition. Was there a reason you abandoned it (sold it?) other than it not being good enough for the EX1?

I sold the Z1 and it wasn't suitable for the EX so it went as part of the Z1 package. It was just a tiny bit soft on the Z1, but only at the mid to long end so I always removed it when I wasn't using it.

There are wide angle zoom lenses that exhibit almost no barrel distortion. I had a chance to try a Fujinon lens that was quite nice. It also cost more than $25,000 if I recall.

It's possible to eliminate the barrel distortion with After Effects. If I get a chance I'll post a still as an example.

I just noticed that Cavision is offering a series of lenses for the EX1 including a .4x fisheye. I have the SOny WA and the Schneider 1.6. but I am looking for a FishEye. I am not familiar with there lenses.
Any info is greatly appreciated.

Dasher

Charles, thanks for bringing this up.
Here's a link, for those interested:

http://www.cavision.com/pictures/EX1/EX1.htm

Along with Charles, I'd love to know what people here think of this company. Even better... anyone tried one of these? (most interested in the zoom-through variety - - would that be the converter, rather than the adapter?)
Malcolm

P.S. how could I have made that link active?

The Cavision .7x wide-angle converter (zoom-through) isn't out yet - - I've emailed the company to ask when it'll be released. Are there any other questions I should ask? On the web page that describes this lens, they mention that there is some vignetting at the perimeters. No barrel distortion is mentioned. Someone else could decipher this information better than I.
Cheers, Malcolm

I bought a Cavision 0.5x zoom-through for my VX2k a few years back. I returned the first one as there were specks onside the lens that showed up quite clearly on footage.

The replacement had cleaner elements but vignetted the corners of the frame and barrel distorted badly. I swapped this out for a third but this was exactly the same, so I opted for my money back.

Nicely coated and sharp - so no quarrels there. Maybe QC is better these days - I hope so.

tom.

for my FX1 i use this :SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH Superwide Lens Aspheric IV
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php
and it is pretty good , absolutely no barrel.
the thread filter size is 77mm and i use un 77 to 72 ring adapter.
unfortunately mine is second hand and lens is acrylic glass, so any light scratch will show if you got light right in to the lens. I am looking to polish it if it can help.
any light in the field of view is creating big flare, so huge sunshade recommended.

Giroud could you post some stills to let us compare?

I have two of these UWL II lenses and I agree with Giroud - they work very well on camcorders such as the PD170, Z1 and so on. They give a very wide field of view with zero barrel distortion but as he says they're uncoated so flare is a very real problem, especially because as they see so wide they're difficult to hood.

They're also non zoom-through (but allow you to use about 60% of your zoom's reach) and are plastic injection mouldings, so have to be treated with great care. Mind you, many people wear plastic lensed spectacles all day long with no problems.

tom.

Oh uncoated takes me out of that option. Shooting on the water flare is a real problem even with a great matte box.

here what my FX1 looks like with and without the lens.
i will post what the camera sees tomorrow. The difference is is really impressive.
The unfinished sunshade is made of thick carton (and is rock solid) to be light as possible because it is used on my glidecam.
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA1.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA2.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA3.jpg

update re Cavision's ("Available Soon") .7x zoom-through converter for the EX-1.

Just got an email, with this description and price:
"Three-element zoom through .7x converter with bayonet mount for Sony PMW-EX1. Please note: this converter will create a small amount of vignetting at the corners of the frame (outside 90% safety zone)"
price: $1,345 U.S.
That's pretty expensive, isn't it?

They also have a .7x wide-angle adapter ($359) and a .5x wide-angle adapter ($599), both with bayonet-clamp mounts.

Malcolm

I agree, the UWL is about a 0.55x converter that's devoid of any barrel distortion. If you know a spectacle firm you might be able to take the element and have it coated - it would be well worth while. Mine flares even if there's a bit of white paper (say) in the shot.

I have to admit I'm a Century fan - we did extensive testing of w/a lenses for the PD & Z1 cameras and the Century 0.7 was by far the best. In particular the Z1P image quality was miraculously enhanced by the addition of the

I have to agree with Mal here.
I visited CVP when I had a Z1 and both the proprietor (Phil) and myself were shocked by the superiority of the Century 0.7 over the competition.

But it appears we're talking about an animal that's not actually available!

For me, full zoom-through is essential.
1) When you're in a hurry to grab a shot (happens to us all from time to time) you may not always notice if you're just on the edge of soft - until it's too late.

2) The EX1's Fujinon is soft and suffers chronic barrel distortion at full wide, so it's far better to use a touch of zoom together with a very high quality wideangle to ensure you're sharp and distortion-free.

I can't prove it, particularly because I owned a Panasonic HVX200 after the Z1 but I'd swear the Z1 had less barrel than the EX1.

When I swapped the Z1 for the HVX (bad move) I was disappointed to notice the barrel distortion (I'm an ex professional product photographer and I hadn't noticed any on the Z1) and when I swapped the HVX for the EX1 I was hoping it would be barrel-free, but no.

Barrel distortion is something we shouldn't have to put up with. As previously stated, it's amateurish and for me, very disappointing in a camera that otherwise produces such stunning quality images.

Come on Guys, the EX1 is budget HD camera. A couple of years ago an HD lens with the performance of the one on the EX1 would have cost three or four times as much as the whole EX1 camera/lens assembly. In it's price range the EX1 has the best lens there is by a long way. Sony could have produced the EX1 with a longer focal length and no barrel distortion, but most people want a wide lens. You can't expect a Ferrari when you are only paying Fiat 500 money.

Mine isn't soft when fully wide and while there is some barrel distortion it certainly isn't chronic. It is soooo much easier to make lenses for stills cameras than video cameras. Stills lenses don't have to perfectly track focus through the zoom range (and rarely do). You almost never get the kind of zoom ratios on a stills lens seen on video lenses and stills lenses don't have different backfocus distances for the red green and blue channels and prism issues to deal with.

My Canon KH20x6.4 HD lens cost a lot more than my EX1, yet it is no better than the Fujinon on the EX1. If you think the EX1 lens is so bad then trade in your EX1 and buy an EX3 and stick that perfect lens your hoping to find without spending $10k on it.

Come on Guys, the EX1 is budget HD camera. A couple of years ago an HD lens with the performance of the one on the EX1 would have cost three or four times as much as the whole EX1 camera/lens assembly.

I quite agree Alister.
I'm simply saying that for me, I'd prefer a little less WA and no barrel distortion.

The EX1 is sensational value for money. I should know, I had a Panasonic HVX200 - positively prehistoric compared with the EX1. I had a Z1 before that, and a PD170 before that. I haven't yet ventured into the fully professional cam market and to be honest, for the type of work I do, I couldn't use one because they're too cumbersome.

But please allow me to express my opinion. There are cheap and nasty features on the EX1 that I find embarrassing (Sony must have a reason for including them). One is the barrel distortion. Mostly, they don't matter and with care you can avoid them. But if you need a wider view of your subject and you're in a hurry, you're probably going to zoom right back - and (because you have a million other things to think about at the time you're shooting) probably won't remember the barrel distortion until you're watching the footage in post.

To use your analogy, if you're going to sell a car that has the looks and speed of a Ferrari but sells for the price of a Fiat 500, why make it unusable at high speed because the steering's unstable?

But PLEASE don't get the idea I think this camera is anything other than awesome!
I consider myself lucky to be able to shoot the quality I currently do - and at last, I have a video camera I can actually FOCUS!

But I don't have any problem with my EX1 fully wide. It's not soft and what barrel distortion there is only shows up if you have strong vertical or horizontal lines in the picture, in most cases it's perfectly useable. If you don't want the distortion zoom in a bit, no one is forcing you to use it, that's just self discipline, same with a car, just because it can do 100mph doesn't mean you have to.

just because it can do 100mph doesn't mean you have to.

Sorry.
I'll have to bow out here, I was unaware that Sony's policy was to build cameras with lenses they didn't intend people to use fully wide.

Has anybody here been able to figure out what the "Wide Converter" setting does in the menu (not sure of exact wordage...not with my EX1 right now)? Does this cause the zoom control to inhibit the movement of the lens internals to compensate for this problem...or what? Since I don't have a wide adapter (and plan to get one), I'd love to know what this menu selection acutally does.

hello
as said above here are the picture made with and without the lens.
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA1.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA2.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA3.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA4.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA5.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA6.jpg
http://www.giroud2.com/divers/GA7.jpg

Thanks Giroud it looks nice. I do see some curvature in the door jam but not much considering the price.

I ordered the Sony .8x today and the Century fisheye both will be here on Monday. I need both for a shoot next week so I had to make a decision quickly.

Next step might be a 35mm adapter.

Sony wide angle arrived and first test look great. Also the Century fisheye arrived and I can not get focus in any mood. Getting two jobs out the door so I will try in more detail next week and post findings.

[QUOTE=Alister Chapman;901394]Come on Guys, the EX1 is budget HD camera. A couple of years ago an HD lens with the performance of the one on the EX1 would have cost three or four times as much as the whole EX1 camera/lens assembly. In it's price range the EX1 has the best lens there is by a long way. Sony could have produced the EX1 with a longer focal length and no barrel distortion, but most people want a wide lens. You can't expect a Ferrari when you are only paying Fiat 500 money.QUOTE]

Someone promote this man.

I'm glad you like the Sony w.a., Paul. I had a look at one myself the other day... I also like what I saw. It does add some weight to the front of the camera though (might need to start working out). I'm still sitting on the fence; still considering the .7 Cavision - - I raised the issue of Quality Control with someone at Cavision, and was told they now have three quality control checks before a customer gets one. They're out of stock at the moment.
If I do take the plunge, I'll report back on this thread.
Cheers,
Malcolm

Malcolm, I also have the Sony .8 and use it regularly. All shots here were done with it as are most on our site.
http://www.keystv.com/dynamic/?location=Key%20West&category=family&subcat=&video=clients%2FFKecoDiscovery%2Fecodiscovery.flv&client=Florida+Keys+Eco-Discovery+&desc=Center+%3Cbr%3E+Keys+Plants+and+Animals&id=528&pageNum=1

Good price...a bit heavy, bad sun shade.
Best, Craig

Paul or Craig can you post a pic or two showing screen shot with and without Sony WA... I am thinking of getting one but want to see just how much wider it really gets.... I have a century optics on my old VX2000 which is awsome and am still hoping their next release will work without issue with the EX1.

Jason and Malcolm I would suggest you just go for the Sony .8x it works well. Yes a little weight but nothing I noticed. Very crisp picture.

As for the fisheye I have to spend some time with it next week when I am done with the shoot through Monday. But first look was not good. It would not focus in AF or MF.

I will not be able to post stills till next week due to only 15 min in the office each day this week.

Did you have the EX1 set to Macro Paul? The fisheye is a lens adapter so it requires macro to focus?

M

...Never mind. Just seen your post on the fisheye thread.

Thanks Martin I will try that again when free on Tuesday thanks.

My mistake the Century Fisheye is working well. Focus ring forward, on Macro, and bottom switch either AF or MF both work.

Thanks for the help.

a quick update re wide-angle zoom-throughs... I've certainly received some good advice on this thread, and it's making me lean towards the Sony, but I thought I'd email Cavision, to give someone who's handled the lends a chance to talk up its good points.

I put it to this Cavision contact that:

- the Sony .8 wide-angle lens costs $500 and weighs 300 grams (I've tried it in a store, and even that feels heavy)

- and their Cavision .7 wide-angle converter costs $1345 (almost three times the cost of the Sony, then you need to buy a lens hood), and weighs 865 grams (almost three times as heavy as the Sony!).

Someone from Cavision wrote back to say that their lens if very high quality, multi-coated with three elements... and it is wider than the Sony, but in terms of the weight, yes, it is heavy, and he'd "probably recommend using a lens support, which means you'd
also need a rods support system"

I appreciated his reply, but it's kind of settled things for me. As much as I'd like a lens (that doesn't distort or vignette) that's wider than the Sony .8, the extra cost, and even more than that, the extra WEIGHT of the Cavision lens is too much for me.

Cheers, Malcolm