I believe ZGC is the only place to get this lens in the USA but i could be totally wrong. I have emailed them about the lens and t hey could only say good things about its build and optic quality. Send them an email they are more than willing to answer any of your questions. But for the money you cant beat the canon WD-58 with the lens hood just my opinion.

ZGC is, indeed, the only place in the US to get this lens. I wanted one last fall, and ZGC was temporarily out. I even went so far as to contact Optex in Britain. They could sell it to me and ship to the US, but the cost would have been slightly more than ZGC's price. I wound up waiting 'til ZGC got one in stock (I got the bayonet mount).

It's a nice lens, but be very careful about screwing in filters in the front. I used a standard UV filter and got vignetting (which DIDN'T show either in the viewfinder or the LCD screen of my VX2000, but DID show up when I went to edit). I have a "slim line" polarizer which I haven't tried yet, but I'm going to try to find a "slim line" UV filter and see how that works.

I didn't know there was a sun shade for it. How big is it? Does it just screw in the front?

I just bought the Optex .65 sony bayonet from Kingsway Motion Picture. They are the Canadian distributor. It was $500 Canadian.

ZGC is the distributor in the US. and do sell it for $298, I really do think that's as good a price as you'll get. By the time I paid shipping and brokerage it amounts to the same thing or within pennies.

Looks like a nice piece of glass with coatings on the rear elements. The tech claims all elements are coated. I'll have to play a bit tomorrow.

http://www.kingswaycanada.com/

Paul
They do show a shade but your better off buying a Cavision a chunk of change cheaper.
www.cavision.com

Paul, could you confirm the method of locking the lens. I aligh the slots with the red dot up. I turn the ring in the direction of the arrow (clockwise facing) and then turn the lens clockwise until tight.

If you could email me at bbeasleigh@rogers.com

I'm in the process of deciding on a matte box for the pig now.

Ive looked at the Chrosziel 4x4 and 3x3 DV hoods, the Cavisions, Lee's and the Century carbon Fibre.

The Century and Chrosziel are both a thing of beauty.
Anyone have any input here?

So which shade works on the Optex? French flag or super wide angle? or other

http://www.cavision.com/LensHood/LH100S.htm

The Rubber Sunshade for Internal Focal Lens:
Model number: LH-100M / P is suggested for .5 to .65 WA adapters.It doesn't mention the optex but remember the optex is the same as the centuiry .65.

The rubber hood comes with a (ABS) plastic (LH-100P) or metal (LH-100M) backmount.(clamp mount) It fits a 100mm barrel so it need a 100 to 85 stepping ring


http://www.cavision.com/french_flag_for_3x3.htm
The French Flag is just a very large elephant's ear that one clips on the top of the shade to prevent lens flare.

I have the price list on a word doc if you want a copy email me at bbeasleigh@nospamrogers.com.

The MBF3 french flag is $39 US
The LH-100M is $99 US
The LH-100P is $59 US
An ARP485 stepping ring from 100 to 85mm is $5
A cover is available for $10. if you have the french Flag it justs folds over and becomes a lens ahade cover.

Do you guys leave your wide angle lense on most of the time? I know zilch but am trying to learn. What is the advantages or disadvantages of leaving lense on?

Do you have any reason to take it off? seems like a sound criteria to me. If I'm using the wide to short telephoto, i'd leave it on. There's rarely an instance that I would use the long telephoto, so it's going to stay on.

Playing around with the optex I've noticed that a thin stepping ring or a thin protective filter would be in order. That front end is all glass

I hardly ever remove my WA lens from the VX2k.

Charles - advantages of leaving the wide-angle converter on all the time (and we'll assume a zoom through optic here, ok?)

1) Much more useful range of focal lengths in my view.
2) Easier to get in close and get even better sound tracks.
3) Less visible camera shake, easier tracking movements etc.
4) Less focusing worries. Can be locked down more often with less mistakes.
5) Wide-angle perspective control offered.
6) Less hose-pipeing of the scenery, and one shot gets-it-all-in.


And the disadvantages?

1) Probably three extra elements added to the lens line up. That's six extra surfaces all of which are not centred correctly as they rely on the thread or the bayonet. This means more flare, more distortion, less sharpness.

2). Added weight on the front of the camera.

3) Loss of differential focus because max tele is so reduced.

4) Inability to add filters for fear of vignetting.

Me? I use mine nearly all the time. Panasonic know this and their DVX100 has a much more wide-angle zoom fitted as standard - the same as having the VX2k with a 0.7x widie fitted.

tom.

I leave mine on almost all the time as well. However, I noticed that, on my VX2000, optical steady shot seems less effective with the lens on than off.

Paul - are you serious? You say optical steady shot seems less effective with the lens on than off. Oh - I've re-read it - you think the SSSS is still effective with a wide-angle in place but not as effective as when used on the standard zoom, is that it?

Well, try this test. Zoom to wide angle with SSSS turned on. Gently wave the camera about and note the steadying effect. Now attach the wide-angle converter and zoom up to the same focal length, so the viewfinder shows the same image as before. Gently shake the camera. Do you see any difference in the power or effectiveness of the SSSS? I don't.

tom.

Paul - are you serious? You say optical steady shot seems less effective with the lens on than off. Oh - I've re-read it - you think the SSSS is still effective with a wide-angle in place but not as effective as when used on the standard zoom, is that it?

I know it doesn't sound right, but that's been my experience. Both at full-wide, and at tele, steady shot seems more effective without the wide angle lens in place. I can't think of any reason why this should be so, but it was quite apparent in the video. My shots were steadier without the wide angle lens, than with.

I was doing shots in which I would follow my subjects along, walking behind and hand-holding the camera. Steady shot was more effective at full-wide without the wide angle lens that with it.

The other thing I did was shot at fairly extreme tele, from a seated position with my arms braced. My tele shots without the wide angle lens were much steadier than with.

Paul
With the optex on the VX2K is a hefty pig.
What kind of brace if any do you use and what do you use as a filter holder.

I also wondered how far you cinch up on the bayonet mount when tightening it.
Thanks
Bryan

I believe the owners manual to VX2k states that a WA lens attachment may reduce the steadyshot effectiveness.

I am thinking of the Optex for my PD150. Has anyone tried both the Optex and Century side-by-side? Is one shaper than the other or is there no real difference other than $100?

Will Boggs

I really doubt that by doing a simple A/B test anyone could see any difference. If there is a difference it will be something subtle that'll be noticed in time. The front and rear elements are very well coated and the lens construction is excellent. (I'm picky)

I am picky too. I have bought a few Optex gizmos over the years and like their work. The machining is always top notch. But, Century has become the "d'facto standard" in the relm of lens adaptors. I guess I can always get the Optex .65 and run a few tests and keep it if it is what works.

Will Boggs

I do have Sony VX9000 Camcorder DV with 52mm lens. Can somebody help me with wide lens I need to by? I found one on E-bay for aprox. USD 60. Model SONY VCL-R0752. Do you think it will fit and work on my camcorder?
Have about dark corners and focus?
Thanks

Ok I'm buying the optex today. Does anyone have suggestion on a uv or polorizer I should get. I read something about vignetting occurring using a polorizer. Also whats the cost on the cavision sunshade.

I posted prices and info for Cavision in great detail about 7 posts into this thread. Links, options, prices , the whole 9 yards.

The 3x3 sunshade pricing is as I mentioned above.

The 4x4 rotating filterholder is $445 complete with adapters for the Optex and the 58mm standard. I wouldn't trust a 3x3 filter on a 82mm thread (3"=76mm).

You could buy the plain sunshade and install a thin stepping ring 82mm to 86mm and buy 86mm filters. Stacked 82mm filters will vignette.

Does anyone have suggestion on a uv or polorizer I should get
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Optex will vignette with a standard-sized UV filter in front. Look for a "slim line," and even then, run tests to make sure you're okay. I have a "slim line" polarizer, but haven't yet had a chance to try it out with the Optex.

My lense came in this morning. Its seems awful hard to lock lense tho. Is this normal. I wouldn't want to break anything.

There's a little bit of a trick to it. Once the bayonet mount is locked, you need to rotate the lens to "cinch" it in place. If it's too hard to lock, try rotating the lens in the other direction.

Boy that was easy enough! I didnt get the sunshade and not having any luck getting a reply from cavision. I'm afraid I'm goin to scratch my lense somehow. I'm videoing my sons ballgame today. How should i care for and clean this lense? Dust etc. I've been trying to find a slim line uv filter so I have no protection for the lense.

I use a microfiber cloth to clean the lens. Standard lens tissue should work well, too. Do _not_ use regular tissues, as they can scratch the lens surface. I also avoid liquid lens cleaners. I don't know if this is true anymore, but when I started in photography 200 years ago, liquid cleaners could remove the coating on coated lenses (and all good lenses are coated).

B&H sells slim-line filters.

Oh No, It's me again. I'm not stupid jes ignert. Could someone tell me what size filters I need for the Optex WA. Also, I'm not sure about sunshade. I checked with cavision and with the hood and step down ring and this and that it looks like I'd be just as well off with the hood that optex offers and what the heck is a mattebox anyway. This darn camera is gonna break me!

Yeah, Charles, you can go broke if you have a bad case of "igottahaveit-itis," which is very common among new camera owners, and not at all unlike "penis envy." It looks like you may just have a slight touch of this virus, since you are realizing that a mattebox may be overkill for your purposes. To get additional help, contact Cavision direct at 604-681-6621, and ask for John Anthony. He is quite helpful and should be able to hook you up with what you need.

There is a growing community of shooters who are abandoning their filters for software "filters," which allow you to make creative decisions at your leisure, and more importantly, change your mind. Other than a polarizer, which has its own problems, virtually any look you will get with hard filters can be duplicated in post. And remember, if you pan with a polarizer on your camera, it can affect your exposure dramatically. That is, assuming you are getting any effect from the filter in the first place.

UV filter for protection? If it makes you feel better, go for it. Do get the microfiber cleaning cloth that was mentioned earlier.

Thanks Wayne, I needed that, it all makes lots of sense. I never meant to spend no where near as much money as I did on this camera. It's so easy to get caught up in the moment and go to thinking I needed so much. Heck I don't know diddly squat bout no camera. These manufacturer's have got us morons figured out. You buy the camera then you need batteries, wide angle lense, filters, tripods that cost 3 times more than the camera lights, xlr adapter , mics etc. No insult to info boards but I'm sure others like me get to reading about ALL the accesories one needs to be really equipped to do what? Altho I've learned a lot reading the different post. I probably would have been better off going to Wal-Mart and buying that $400 camcorder that got me to wanting one in the first place. But the more I read about the different ones the more I thought I needed. So now I'm in a quagmire and probably do need all these accessories to make this camera fully functional.

I always had this dream of doing some documentaries of a few idea's I had. I thought if only I had a camera. Little did I know. After reading what you would actually need to make this dream a reality, I feel like by buying this camera it's kinda like trying to kill a Bear with a BB Gun. What the heck, I've got it know. I guess I'll just have to learn my limitations and do the best I can. But my accessory buying is coming to an end shortly. Just a couple more things and I'm done and I'm not paying more for a tripod than I did for the camera and that's that.

This board is a wealth of information. Who's know's thanks to people like me someone might get a great deal on some camera and accessories one of these days, hehaw. That is if I don't make it to the Big Screen.

Charles "Goin For Broke" French

I made search on this Info Net about SONY wide angle lenses VCL-MHG07 and VCL-0752H.
I did not found any post about any of them. Please do not hash me or close my post if I'm wrong.

My question is: Do anybody know what is the different between them?
I did read somewhere about VCL-0752 that has dark corners if is used on VX2000, but I don’t know what I will gain if I will purchase VCL-MHG07 wide angle lens.
Please if somebody has experience about these lenses, let me know.

Cavision just sent me a price for a clear glass filter for the optex $60.00 WOW !!

Charles,

Always remember the quality of any production is determined by its content, not the equipment used to create it. A good story, told well, by a person with a $400 camera is far better than a poor story told on an IMAX screen and costing millions.

Don't wait to get the equipment you need, start shooting. If you are good, the money will come somehow.

Watch Genghis Blues. Shot on Hi-8 in Tuva without very much equipment at all. A Sundance winner. Or Blood, Guts, Bullets, and Octane. Shot here in Fairfield, CA on a GL1 for $7000 total cost. Shown at Sundance and distributed to theaters by Tom Cruse' distribution company. (That guy went on to direct 'Narc' and is now directing Harrison Ford in his next movie so I'm told)

As my teachers told me, "Its the story, stupid!"

So go create something. Even a one-minute short on your wife's roses.

I have the VCL-0752H and I get vignetting at wide angle. which is fixed by adjusting the lens a little to the telephoto. The results are wider than the stock lens, but not as wide as full capacity of the lens.

I have a VX-2000 and use a Sony VCL-HG0758 lens. Note the number is a little different than the other which was mentioned. This lens seems to have excellent optical quality; I did some resolution tests and couldn't see any difference when adding the wide adaptor. There is no vignetting with this lens.

So what is the difference? I got mine around October, 2001. Has my model been discontinued? Seems to me this was discussed earlier and someone asserted the lens was made by Kenko (I think) for Sony. Interestingly, there's sort of a rubber "donut" at the front of the lens if you look closely. This actually has the focal length and model number printed on it. If you roll this donut off you end up with a totally black lens housing devoid of any markings.

Sony includes the magnification power of the lens along with the attachment thread diameter in the model numbers. So an 0752 is a 0.7x wide-angle with a 52mm thread (for the TRV900) and a 2030 is a 2x telephoto converter with a 30mm diameter thread for something poofy like a TRV33.

tom.

This explain, why model VCL-0752 what is actually 52mm thread has wignetting and VCL-H0758 what is actually 58mm thread, has no wignetting if is used on VX2000, because VX2000 has 52mm lens and 58mm lens is bigger and of course is designed for larger lens. Probably the best solution for wignetting can be: Purchase always one step up larger lens and use adapter ring to bring it down to required size of threat.
What do you think? ( professionals).

The VX2k and the PD150 have a 58mm filter thread. The TRV900 has a 52mm thread and the 950 has a 37mm thread. It's not usually necessary to go the step down route and often this can be disadvantageous as it moves the wide-angle converter away from the camera's zoom and this in itself can vignette the image.

tom.

The VX1K and the VX9K both have 52mm optical filter threads, so with these two cams my converter lens will not vignette?

You asking me Garret? We shall never know - but you will. Shoot one single frame to memory stick with the w/angle converter in place. Open the file in Photoshop (whatever). Is the picture vignetted? If not, all is well and all will be well with your movies, too.

tom.

Thanks, I'll try that and post on it, that way we all can know.

Humm... so maybe I should sell my Century Optics .65 WA? I paid about $400

So whenever you attach the wide angle lens, you have to unscrew the UV filter from the standard lens in order to mount it?

And then you use the adapter without a UV filter?

Is that true when using the bayonette mount, too?

I have a mount for an old camera that lets you screw the 'base' of the adapter onto your existing lens, and then the wide angle lens "quick mounts" onto that. Is there anything like that for the PD150?

Thanks all.

Robert
The WA adapters mount to the 58mm filter threads or the bayonet mount on the outside of the lens barrel that holds the lens hood.

The optex and century bayonet adapters are a two piece assembly that includes both the threaded lens and the bayonet. It comes from the factory assembled and is not available separately.

If you left a filter threaded into the prime lens the bayonet mount wouldn't fit. The thought of mounting either a bayonet or threaded adapter over a filter makes me cringe. Even if it worked, that's not very much holding $400 worth of glass.

Why sell your Century, Anne? And what would you buy? Don't believe the above poster who stated that the Canon is as good as the Sony for half the money. I have seen stills from the Canon, and it definitely loses focus at longer focal lengths. But the Canon is a good deal for the money.

The Century consistently receives high marks for quality, Mike Rhemus' situation notwithstanding. Plus, they are a company that stands behind their product. Hopefully Mike will let us know the outcome.

If I hadn't gotten a great deal on the Sony lens, I certainly would have gone for the Century.

Also, if you consider using a WA adaptor screwed into a filter you should first do a test and look at the entire video frame. You may find some vignetting that doesn't show in your viewfinder. I know this was the case when I tried using one along with an ND filter on my PDX-10, and have read of similar problems on the PD-150.

Can anyone suggest a hood protecting the wide lens VCL-HG0758 from flaring? Thanks.

Depends what the outer (front) diameter of the lens is. I bought a good aspect ratio hood from www.cavision.com for my 0.5x Tecpro widre-angle converter, and it works a treat.

tom.

I think the Sony is 95mm, at any rate the cavision Wide Angle hood has a 100mm back mount. You would buy a 100 mm to 95mm slip ring for $5, the hood is $60 US. For $40 more they have a french flag that's as big as an elephants ear.
http://www.cavision.com/LensHood/LH100S.htm

Thanks, guys. I checked cavision. They claim their hood fits my lens. I found a similar hood at www.vjcentre.com. Don't know which of them is better. Should I take into account anything except the price?

The price is identical, it's whatever floats your boat. Either dealing with the UK or Canada.