I've gotta get a wide angle converter, but I don't want to spend over $150. It seems the Century Optics DS-HR65-37 is made specifically for the PDX-10, but it's a little out of my price range. I know Boyd is a fan of his Digital Optics converter, but am also considering the Kenco and the Tiffen. However, I can't figure out which of these, if any, have zoom through capabilities. For my application, zoom through is a must.

I like the price on the Kenco ($79 at B&H) and the Tiffen ($69 at B&H). Can anybody confirm if these are zoom through?

Michael

Don't skimp on the cost of glass. I recommend the Canon wd-58.

That sounds like a real monster for a camera with a 37mm mount. Anyone actually use one of these on the PDX-10 or TRV-950? I'm sure it would be great on the VX-2000 or PD-150.

I am also looking for good zoom thru wide angle lens.
Can anybody tell me how good the Rainox HD-5000PRO is?

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/hd5000pro/index.htm

It specifies 600 lines/mm. How do I have to read that?

Does it suit the 16:9 picture of the PDX10 without vignetting?

I like the price on the Kenko ($79 at B&H) and the Tiffen ($69 at B&H). Can anybody confirm if these are zoom through?The Tiffen is better than the Kenko in the 37mm thread size. There are also 2 Tiffen wides available. (See Tiffen's website.) The Raynox HD-5000PRO might be better that both the Kenko and Tiffen. I don't believe any of them are "zoom-through." I don't know how the PDX10's 16:9 mode/video quality will be effected.

I have the Tiffen Mega WIde .56 that I use with my PDX10. It is not zoom thru. But it is very nice for $69.
Best,
Tony

Thanks. The Raynox is an interesting option.

Does the Tiffen have front filter threads?

..and the Raynox site shows a video clip, supposedly using the HD-5000PRO, while zooming. It looks like it might be good, but so hard to say from a small, compressed clip.

B and H mentions the resolution as "Achieving an amazing high definition of 500-lines resolution power at center..."

I guess I'm in the market too, since the holidays are approaching, so here's a stupid question: At what point (what fractional power factor, I guess is how I should say it) does one go from "wide angle" to a more "fisheye-like" effect? When does such distortion become REALLY obvious? (I actually like the look...)

Yes the Tiffen MegaPlus 0.56X WA that I have has 72mm threads to accept filters.

It also fits the Cavision split ring 75mm OD for the 3 X 3 matte box.

Tony

Thanks. I ordered the Tiffen this morning. The more I think about it, I can't really think of too many situations where I'd need the zoom through.

Now, about wireless lav's....

A genuine fisheye lens implants a circular image onto the film Chris, and the lens 'sees' 180 degrees. Barrel distortion is 100%. A full frame fisheye (FFFE) doesn't vignette the image in this way, but you only see the full 180 degrees from diagonal to diagonal.

The term fisheye is abused in the same way as macro is, but it doesn't matter much. Any barrel distortion in a wide-angle lens is seen as a 'fisheye effect' and lens power has very little to do with it. Minolta make (for their 35mm cameras) a 16mm FFFE with huge amounts of barrel distortion, yet their 15mm rectilinear wide-angle is almost completely devoid of distortion.

tom.

Tom, thanks for the info. A related question:
What is the widest angle "normal-looking" power? Something around .5? If I get something in the .4 range, is it starting to veer into the odd effect category, and is not as naturalistic?

I realize this is a near impossible thing to talk about without images as examples, and I'm afraid I'm doing a poor job of it...all of it is so subjective, and the terms are abused, as you say.

Guilty!! ;^)

Good question Chris, but look at it this way. Your PDX10 has a maximum wide-angle that should be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptio Act, for it's only wide in the fact that the lens sees more than at any other setting in the zoom range. In 35mm terms it equates to 50mm, and nobody ever called that a wide-angle.

If you pick up a Panasonic DVX100 you'll see that it's wide-angle is excellent - equating to 32.5mm right out of the box. Now say you attach a 0.5x w/a converter to each camera - the Sony now has a decent 25mm focal length and the Panasonic has a wild 16mm focal length (both converted to 35mm film terms as they use different sized chips which confuses the mathematics).
So yes, I'd say that you need at least a 0.5x on the Sony, but a milder (and less distorting) 0.7x will do on the Panasonic - and it'll STILL see wider than the PDX10.

All my tests show this: the more powerful the w/a converter, the greater the losses. Look at the Centyry fisheye - the loss there is to your bank account. But generally a 0.5x converter will be less sharp, will distort more, have more chromatic aberation and so on than a 0.7x. But as I say - in your case a 0.5x is about right and you'll have to live with the losses.

tom.

Great answer, Tom. Exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks!!

I ordered friday the Rainox HD-5000pro.

I could get it in Leiden NL for € 89,- !!

I must give it a try. I let you know, how this lens performs when I have got and tried it: probably next week.

Excellent, Jan. I'm looking at purchasing it, too. I look forward to your comments about it!

89 Euros is a good price, I think--I see that B and H here in the US sells it for 139 US dollars, which I think is about 117 Euros.

Other dealers have it for less, but I'm not sure that I trust them...

The price was given by a known photoshop in Leiden. They know what they are alking about. They set for years now stunning prices. Leiden is a universitytown and they sell a lot to students and academics.

I think that such a lens can never go wrong.
They had to order it themself , so I know it is new in box and not used :-)

Jan--

Sinter Klaus (or Black Peter?) is bringing me a Raynox HD-5000PRO this Christmas, though I don't think I am supposed to know that ;^)

It's hard to wait for it (2 more weeks!), and I was wondering: have you have gotten yours yet, and have you had a chance to evaluate it?

Chris--
No not yet. They orderded the wrong one. So they had to do it over. I think I will phone them today if the proper lens has arrived now.
:-)

In this case I am my own "Sinter Klaus" and I am curious enough to evaluate the lens soon: before Christmas.

Take a look at the horizon line in this frame grab (http://www.greenmist.com/nature/05). It should give you an idea of the barrel distortion with the .45x Titanium wide adaptor on the PDX-10.

Personally I like this effect and don't think it is all that odd. As Tom notes, the built-in lens is way too narrow and needs some help!

Yes please, Jan, tell us all about the Raynox, and don't hold back!

I'll post a "review" of it, as well, when I get it in my hands (sometime on the morning of the 25th...) I ordered it from BugEyeDigital (they have it for $89US), and was pleased that it came very quickly and well-packed. Then it was spirited away to be giftwrapped.

I'm wondering, besides shooting things and checking focus throughout the zoom range, paying attention to how it shows detail, how the edges look, etc; exactly how I might do a really good review of it's qualities? Is there a good method I might follow? Some sort of template for checking it out? Never done it before in any way other than eyeballing it...

shawn

My lens has not arived yet . I hope it will be delivered before Christmas. I will return with my "review" as soon i have tried it.

Chris - here's the test method I use. Set up your camera perpendicular to a brick wall and use a solid tripod. Side of your house is ideal - include door frames, wondows and any odds and ends that are lying about for details.

Shoot to Memory stick as this will show up the greatest detail when the frames are pulled into Photoshop for analysis. It also uses more of the chip area so any potential vignetting will be more obvious. Vary the shutter speed and shoot at maximum and minimum aperture (difficult to determine with the 950/PDX10).

Shoot at max wide-angle on the camera, then attach the wide converter and zoom to the same focal length (to give the same picture in the v/finder). Make notes. Compare these two frames in Photoshop. Look for colour and exposure differences. Look for distortion of straight lines, vignetting, flare and chromatic aberation. The brick wall test is excellent and shows faults very quickly indeed.

tom.

Thanks, Tom. I'll do it, if and when Christmas gets here ;^)

I got my Rainox this afternoon ! So I have not been able yet to test the lens in daylight, but my first impression is very satisfying:

1. The lens fits well in the wideanglehood from the PDx10.
2. The picture is sharp and full zoom thru.
3. Sharpening works as usual, automatic and manually!
4. In widescreen 16x9 there is practically no vignetting. I saw a very little darker border in one of the corners, but so small that it is very much out of the safe zone. It can not be seen on the LCD screen or in the viewfinder or on television.
5. In picturemode the vignetting is more visable in the corner.
The lens is delivered with a 37 to 37 (distance-)adapterring, but can be mounted on the PDX10 without it if no (UV-) filter is attached. I will try that tomorrow. I think that will help.

Overall the picture is very clear and very satisfying. I will test it tomorrow in daylight. The big advantage of the wideangle is also that it smoothes any unwanted movement of the cam, which occurs when no tripod is used. I could walk slowly with good results.

It was terribly raining and dark today. So I could not do much to test this wideangle convertor.
But I shot two stills to compare.
1. As said before: the PDX10 does not need the standard distance ring and when attached directly to the lens no vignetting can be seen.
2. The convertor is sharp in the middle but looses some sharpness in the borders. It is sharp within a circle with a diagonal of 50% of the diagonal in still mode. In Photoshop a softer contrast and a little less detail can be seen outside this innercircle.
I think it is the compromise of a convertor. What is your experience?
Nevertheless the picture looks well if not immediately compared and the problem will not be les evident in 4x3 videomode. In 16x9 mode however the left and right outsides are less sharp.

I have uploaded the pictures at:
Stills for comparison (http://www.jtv.be/JTV/equipment/Rainox/HD_5000PRO.html)
As soon the weather will allow me I will make some more stills and frameshots.

Thanks for the review(s), Jan, and for posting the still pictures. Very nice! I do see the blur in the corners you speak off--in the bicycle wheel at the left, for instance--though I wonder if the headlights of the car had any effect on the overall picture. Probably not, I guess.

Overall, very nice--I'm looking forward to getting my hands on mine. Thanks again!

Chris:

I agree that the bike is not representative.
But you see a difference in
1. the houses at the left right above the bridge.
2. the poster on the workmans car
3. the cars at the right
4. the trees at the top.

The center of the picture is perfect.

It was 14.00 hr midday. You can see how dark and rainy it was.
I think the rain is affecting the picture also. Remember the lens is about two times bigger, 62 mm against 37 mm, so it will "catch" two times more raindrops in its field of view.

It was less apparent in tungstenlight inside my house.

One strong point is that this convertor has little or no color-diffraction/fringing.

I would be pleased to see comparison pictures from other wideangle convertors to. There must be a lot of wideangle convertors amongst members of the forum. Tom Hardwick's advise of testing pleases me.

So i will ask others to share some comparison pics with us from there wideangle convertors. It helps with a kind of forumreview.

Actually Jan..i really like the photo without the wa lens...am less impressed with the edges of your wide shot...was goinna shop for a w/a lens and now im not sure...does the tiffen and kenko also deliver soft edges ??

I have updated my pics without rain:
pics without rain (http://www.jtv.be/JTV/equipment/Rainox/HD_5000PRO.html)

Do you think this is the razorsharp as the Rainox-site (http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/hd5000pro/index.htm) promises?
To be honest I hoped for better, but may be I am demanding to much.

Yes, it is a bit blurrier than I had hoped for. The image quality seems to fall off fairly quickly from the center out toward the edges. How does the image look in a close-up shot? Also, I'm thinking it won't be as noticeable in motion...

For others who have them (echoing David's question): Is this a common thing with adapters in this price range (the Kenko, Tiffen, etc)? Do they all exhibit a similar level of off-center blur?

The answer is a qualified 'yes', in the fact that all wide-angle converters degrade the image quality to a greater or lesser degree. The very best ones are so good that DV's resolving power doesn't show it up, and the less good ones make the losses obvious. They all add a bit of flare and they all soak a bit of light. Nearly all of them add to the distortion.

Converters are often focal length and aperture dependant too - which means they might be pretty sharp when zoomed in a bit and when used at f8. Moving away from these settings will introduce more losses.

I haven't tested the Raynox 0.5x, but the 0.66x I owned was very good indeed at max wide, and pretty bloomin soft at full tele.

tom.

Yes Chris, I agree.

I hoped for a lens that i could leave on in most cases.

How are the Ceintury lenses? Are they any better.

Tom ,
what you see on my pics, is that normal for you?



How are the Ceintury lenses? Are they any better.

Anybody has one?

Yes, Tom, I too am most curious about the Century adaptors.....

iIn my wide-angle group test for a British magazine my conclusions were this:

And the winner is…

The Century 0.65x. At just under £400 it’s the most expensive lens on test but it comes with proper lens caps that stay put, it has the best multi-coating and is the sharpest on test, regardless of the aperture used. Wide open it’s at its best in the centre but at smaller apertures the edges catch up. It doesn’t vignette the image at wide angle. There’s no filter thread but the breech lock bayonet is beautifully engineered, smooth as silk and makes the fitting and removal of the lens a quick and secure operation. Note that this only applies to the Sony VX2000, the Canon XM2 and the XL1s, the TRV900 and the DVCAM versions. There is a screw thread version available and a choice of three lens hoods.

It’s the heaviest lens on test at 325g, there’s just noticeable pincushion distortion at telephoto but overall it’s the winner. My only gripe is this. For a lens that isn’t very powerful it distorts straight lines too much. If I fit the 0.5x Cavision and zoom up to match the Century’s field of view I have a less distorting combination. And look at the Raynox – this lens has a lot less distortion for a quarter the price.

The Cavision 0.5x is a nice powerful converter though not without its faults. It has an 82mm filter thread and a 58mm attachment thread. It’s of three element, three group construction. It costs £144 complete with lens hood. The first two examples I looked at had specks of foreign matter between the elements and these were very obvious on footage shot with the lenses. The third lens was simply not as good as I expected it to be at the price so I asked for a forth sample to test. This lens was still disappointing although it gives remarkably little distortion for a powerful 0.5x, and for this I can forgive it some of its failings. It weighs in at 300g and the lens caps are useless, both of them falling off in warm weather. It comes in a leatherette draw-string case and has an 82mm filter thread. There’s a very good 4:3.5 aspect ratio hood that clamps to the outer diameter. Why not 4:3 Cavision?

At f2.4 the centre is as sharp as the Century, but the edges are way behind. By f11 the edges are better but diffraction has meant the snap has gone from the centre definition and colour fringing is most noticeable. Overall it’s better at f11 than at f2. There’s so much vignetting of the full DV frame that once cropped the 0.5x converter is more like a 0.6x. At full telephoto the performance is good at f5.6 and at this point the edges have sharpened up as well. www.cavision.com for more information.

The Raynox 0.66x is of three element, three group construction and sells for just under £100. It has a plastic box to keep it in, has a front lens cap that clips on securely and a rear cap that’s feeble, and weighs in at a lightweight 190g. The coating is nowhere near as good as on the Cavision and the Century, and hooding is recommended. It has a 72mm filter thread so this is not difficult to do. This Raynox is the only lens that you can use successfully as a converter for your 35mm still camera, where it handsomely outperforms all the rest. It’ll convert your 28mm f2.8 lens into an 18.5mm f2.8 lens with ease.

The instructions warn against using this lens past the half-way point on your zoom but I did some tests at full telephoto to check it out. Sure enough at full telephoto the image is decidedly soft and is covered with a veiling flare that is reminiscent of the effect given by the better soft focus screens. The effect is very aperture sensitive and at f4 it’s quite sharp in the middle of the frame with very soft edges. At f11 it’s soft all over and gives quite appealing portraiture shots.

At mid zoom it gives pincushion distortion but much better sharpness except right in the corners, and at wide it’s really a very good lens except that it vignettes the very corners of the frame. Overall it’s the best value for money here as its centre definition is indistinguishable from the VX2000 on its own.

tom.

Tom, does this Century have 37mm threads?

I recall a local pro shop and customer here doing a test with a number of wides, including a Century, for the TRV950 and their conclusion was the Tiffen was the sharpest.

My tests were all carried out on, and are only applicable to, a VX2000 Frank, so you'd have to check the Century web-site for fittings available.

So then the "best" wide for the VX2000's thread size is this Century, but you cannot assume another model made by Century will be just as good.

Jan: Thanks for the e-mail that you sent, but I stupidly managed to delete it before responding!

Regarding the Titanium .45x lens, no I haven't had a chance to do any real testing of it, although it's something I've wanted to do for awhile. I'll try to take a few minutes during the coming week to shoot some example shots and put them online for all to see. Despite the holidays, things are rather busy at work here...

Today I got more encouraging results.
The sun was there shortly and
I shot a very short video zooming fom wide to tele.
I did not use a tripod, which can bee seen in tele :-)

This shot (http://www.jtv.be/JTV/equipment/Rainox/Rainox-temp.html) is in MPEG full resolution to be able to examine the resolution. So it is a large file: 11,5Mb I uploaded it temporarely for your convenience.

In between I added another shot in full wide. The link is on the page.

Wow, Jan, I think it looks quite nice. I think I'll be happy with it--thanks for posting the clips!

Were these shot in 16:9?

Chris, yes they were shot in 16x9.

I have uploaded them specially for you, because you will get the lens for Christmas. I am also very happy with the new shots. That is where I bought this lens for. I think you can look forward to a nice present that to my opinion is worth every penny. In DV and in practise the results can be very satisfying. Initially i doubted like you did, but yesterday I made some more quick test (in a hurry) that were very satisfying also. After Christmas I will take some more testshots.

One question remains: I have the idea that the depth of field is less than without the convertor, while I expected that it should be bigger.
Who can tell me more about that? Is that the behaviour of the convertor instead of a real widelens? If so, one can may be profit by it. Tom what is yr experience?

One thing is sure to me, the lens needs some practical experimenting to get known with its behaviour and to know how to get optimal results: lightning conditions, zoom, focus, diaphragm, lenshood. I think Tom is very right; they all play there role, worth while to play with them.

Chris, I am looking forward to your experiences with the lens and will be glad to share them with you.
Wideangle convertors seem to be a very interesting and challenging matter.

PS: With the shots I had the standard distancering 37mm to 37 mm attached. As you can see there was no visible vignetting. That is what i wanted to know.

Adding a wide-angle converter actually does reduce the focal length Jan, so that the depth of field increases for any given aperture at any given focused distance. Don't forget though that the PDX10 lies when you push the "Display" button on replay, and I paste here a paragraph from my road test:

"To compound the injury, the 'Display' is very unreliable. The word ‘manual’ will appear on replay when you’ve selected a shutter speed but left the aperture on automatic. When you shoot at full telephoto and rewind to see what settings the camera used, it will often tell you that you shot at 1/60th sec and +18dB and f1.6 - yet at full telephoto the maximum aperture is only f2.8 - a good one and a half stops slower. To have the data shown in the viewfinder requires that you push Display, then touch FN on the touch screen, followed by Page 2, Data Code, Cam data, OK and then Exit. Having got there you’re none the wiser really because the code doesn’t record all the different ND settings you – or the automation - have dialled in. The camera also denotes automatic white balance as ATW rather than the more familiar AWB."

My guess is that the softer edges caused by using the w/a converter are making you think the DOF has been reduced Jan. Yes, you'll see there are losses, but the reason I love widies and have lots of them is the perspective control they give me. Love it!

tom.

Chris,

How is your convertor? What are your experiences?

I am curious to hear your results!


Jan

Jan, I haven't done a great deal of shooting with it yet. The few minutes of tape that I've run through it have left me very pleased.

Using still photos to judge the quality of the adapter is a fine thing to do, and must be the most accurate way of seeing how good it really is, I guess. I'm no expert, that's for sure. But for my purposes--non-professional, part-time, but nice-quality video--that method of judgement is probably more punitive than I need. So just by shooting some video, so far I'd say that it looks great! I'm extremely happy to have the extra field of view, and don't notice a tremendous amount of dropoff in resolution toward the edges. It's there, I'm know--I just don't think it's noticeable in the average video (not still) shot. Casual viewers don't actively look for that kind of thing, and it's hard to see anyway, as far as I can tell. So I like the Raynox very much.

I like the little plastic case it comes in (better than the soft pouch my last adapter came with). I like the lens caps, especially the front one, which solves my problem of having the Sony cap flapping around. It fits in the Sony's hood well, though I had one problem: I couldn't get the adapter to fit into the wide hood without screwing it into the UV filter ring I had attached to the PDX lens. Maybe if I try harder, I can get it to work (I was perhaps a bit impatient to get it attached on Christmas morning hehe). But attached to the UV ring, it's fine.

I like it a lot. It seems solid and well-built. I'll let you know more, if I manage to get more shot soon. Thanks for asking!

Tom
Cavision have made several changes in their lens since your review. They are made in a different factory alltogether. I think ther're still Chinese though.

Too bad OpTex don't make an adapter for the smaller lenses. I really like mine. It never comes off.

That's interesting Bryan. I guessed they would change the design of the 0.5X. But I thought they were made in Canada - or at least bought in from Japan. But China? What gives you this idea?

tom.

The owner of Cavision and his wife (Catherine) came to Canada from China and set up businness in Vancouver, BC, Canada. All of the product that i've seen (matte boxes, boom poles etc) is manufactured in china and assembled in Canada. I have visited their office and bought my matte box last May . While I was ther I mentioned that several people had issues with the lense quality. Catherine mentioned that they had a new design and a new source from the orient. The new source could be Japan but I doubt it.

Catherine and the salesman had mentioned the owner was in China keeping an eye on production. Everything I saw (non optical) looked to be of excellent quality. The owners of Cavision are very serious about a quality product.

My opinion is the non optical stuff is damn good. if i want a lense i'll stay with the people that have a history in optical production.

I'm using a Canon WD58 with a pdx10 to good results.

Full zoom through with crisp, even image and very little distortion at focal length extreams. A 37>58mm ring is less than $7 at B&H.

I always use the large battery on the camera and it maintains a fairly good balance, certainly workable. It holds up in 16:9 on projects alongside my Ikegami HL-DV7, clients are pleased, so am I. It's a great palmcorder and the Canon lens is a good compliment.

Best,

John