******NEWBIE QUESTION ALERT****

HEY, I HAVE A (BRAND X)WIDE ANGLE LENS THAT I BOUGHT FROM ADORAMAS IN N.Y.C....I SHOOT A LOT OF PERFORMANCES IN NIGHTCLUBS AND I NOTICE I GET A FUZZINESS THAT SURROUNDS THE CORNERS OF THE LENS. WHAT CAUSES THIS? IS IT BECAUSE I BOUGHT A B-LEVEL LENS...OH YA WHITE ALWAYS GIVES ME A PROBLEM TOO, IT LOOKS LIKE THE PERSON IS GLOWING DAMN NEAR..I PLAY WITH EXPOSURE BUT, IT STILL GIVES OFF THAT LOOK.

OH YA IM USING A VX-2000 BY THE WAY

As some of you know, i am going to Africa to shoot a shot documentary about my granddfather. There will be interviews, etc., but there will also be Africa to shoot! I need need need a wide angle for my VX-2000! By now i have understood the concept of "it depends what your budget is". So is there a short list of lenses at different budgelevels that work for different people? Is there, for instance, a $200 lens that I should avoid and another $200 lens that is great? I would appreciate any help.

Oh, and what wide angle (.7,.65,.5, etc.) do you all use?
Thanks,

Marcello

I have the Century Optics .65 adapter. I like the mounting technique, I'd not like it in Africa without filter threads for a protective filter.

I don't like the slight softness it gives the footage. So much so that I sent it back for a checkup. They checked it for free, saying it 'meets their specs', and billed me $6 for return postage.

I also don't like buying a $400 piece of glass and getting it in a cardboard box with no case. No optional case either. I complained and they said they would have to raise the price if they supplied a case.

My take on Century Optics is they are not a customer-friendly company. At least their customer support folks leave the impression that they don't care what their customers need or want even while providing an adequate level of support. Hard to describe but it is their attitude, not their action.

I note that I also purchased a WA adapter from them for my PC110 which is much crisper. It came with a nice plastic box and a soft pouch. I suspect they didn't build this adapter.

(I don't mind the $6 but the bill came out of NY from their parent company and had to cost them $50- $100 to issue and process.)

Michael,

A brand name and model number would help here.

The fuzzy glow you are experiencing is not vignetting, that is darkening of the edges of the frame. The fuzzyness may be caused by a number of factors, the names of which don't really matter.

I've not experienced the problem with my Century Optics adapter nor have I heard of the problem with a Sony or Canon adapter.

That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist with those brands, just that it's not reported.

Only by testing with another brand of WA adapter can you determine that the problem rests with the copy you have and not the genre. Have you asked Adorama about the problem?

Differences exist between examples of the same model. You could have received a bad one. You might try another unit.

The white-out sounds to me as if your camcorders exposing for the whole frame whereas the subject is lit in a dark background. On the VX2k there's a "spotlight" switch under the lens barrel, and this works well if you don't want to use the manual exposure wheel.

The fuzziness you speak of could well be just unsharpness in the corners. My 0.5x Cavision was like that, and I returned it for a full refund. My Century 0.65x (like Mike has) is very much better.

tom.

Michael,

If you only notice the "fuzziness" when you are entirely zoomed out, then you are probably seeing the outer-most inside of the actual wide angle adapter lens. If you see it all the time, the lens is junk, and I would return it for a better one.

-Nori

Now that's the first post I've ever read where Century has taken a beating. Interesting.
I did a multi wide-angle test shoot-out for a British video magazine and top of the tree was the Century 0.65x. It has that wonderful breech-lock bayonet (but then so do Kenko, Optex and Tecpro), it had the best multi coating, came in a leatherette pouch and was very sharp indeed.

Frames pulled into Photoshop for evaluation were as close to the VX2k's unaided zoom as I could see. All the other lenses in the test were not as good, but then all other lenses were a lot less expensive.

The Raynox 0.66x distorted straight lines a lot less but for zero distortion the Schneider Kreutznach was Nr 1.

What widie do I use? I have a fisheye (gobs of vignetting), a 0.3x a 0,4x, a 0.5x and a 0.7x. They all have their uses, they all have their failings but they all extend the power of the Sony lens immensley. I wouldn't be without any of them.

tom.

I thought is was my PD150 but Sony replaced that and the softness is there with the new unit too.

I think it is a bum unit but Century say otherwise. Somewhere along the way they lost handing out the vinyl pouch that my other 2 Century WA adapters came with.

Now why don't they make a WA adapter like the one for my DSR-300. That's an impressive chunk of glass. The front element can be removed to provide less WA if desired. Must weight half as much as a PD150 by itself.

ya, I'm going back to adoramas on monday and drilling the staff about this problem--I shot a fashion show and the piece was extremely fuzzy, thanks for all the advice. (thats what happens when you try to save a buck)


p.s.

my work will be displayed on NONSTOPNIGHTS.com this weekend.
(my first shoot ever was the playboy party in n.y.c., man that was pressure! (but of course enjoyable)

you're sure the Century is at fault Mike? Try this test. Firm triopd, camera beautifully perpendicular to a brick wall that has door frame. window, flowerpots - whatever. Lots of detail.

Shoot to memory stick using a high shutter speed and something like f4, no NDs in place and using max wide on the PD150's zoom.

Now attach the Century 0.65x and zoom up so that the focal length is exactly 6mm and the view through the finder look as as before. Another shot to memorystick at the same settings.

Pull these frame into Photoshop (whatever). Have a careful look at the two pictures up there together on your PC screen. Look for detail around the edges of the frame, compare vignetting in the corners, check the centre definition.

Doing this test with my Century showed only the very tiniest degredation, and most people are hard pressed to see the difference. Repeat at other apertures if you like. This A/B test really shows the losses if they're there.

tom.

I bought a set of lens' from an internet auction site. It was a WA and a telephoto for 120 bucks. I knew that it would not be great but I thought how bad can it be?

Yikes! The WA lens is a piece of you know what. Lots of distortion and if you zoom all the way out to get the widest picture you get blurry grey corners. No good.

On the upside, it comes apart and can be used as a macro lens. Wait, is that an upside?

Anyway, I bought a WA from Canon.

Good luck and be kind to Africa.

Joe

Tom
What lenses did you review and where can we download it?

Cant download it as it hasn't been uploaded. But I could send you the text if you like. Too many pictures to send though.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : you're sure the Century is at fault Mike?

Tom,

I understand the 'fairness' of the test you suggest.

However, perception is the law in video and my perception is that the camera/Century WA adapter is just plain fuzzy when used. It is obvious to me when looking at footage even without a reference shot (with which to compare it) without the adapter.

It looks like my footage when I focus the 150 using the LCD screen in relatively poor light. I always miss just a little bit.

I will go back and try the adapter with the camera in autofocus and see if it is me screwing up the focus or I have another PD150 with a back-focus problem.

Thanks for the input.

Tom,

I would *really* appreciate reading your review on the wide angle lenses. I'm using :
Raynox HD-6600Pro58 58mm 0.66x High Quality Wide Angle Converter Lens (Front filter size: 72 mm)

It really seems to soften the image. Overexposed areas
get a major angelic halo.

Thanks for any advice.

You say it really seems to soften the image. Overexposed areas
get a major angelic halo. You mean at or near full telephoto, right? At wide angle the effects you describe are not there, are they?

Remember this lens is sold as a non-distorting yet pretty powerful partial zoom-through. Raynox can't stop you zooming the whole way but they do warn in all the literature that sharpness will be lost at longer focal lengths.

I'm pretty sure that this is due to a single element aspheric being used in the three group construction. You loose the distortion so common with these A-lenses, but also loose the facility of full zoom through.

I'll send you my writeup via email Vince.

tom.

Howdy

I have three VX2000's and use the CANON WD-58 on all three, I have absolutely no complaints. They are full zoom-thru and I have never noticed the problems you describe at any focal length or f.stop. They have a very useable lens cap also, however, as my Sons point out to me every time they see my video "Clean your lens"... keep a can of air with you.

Good Luck

Bob

Thanks, Tom. Thanks for sending me your reviews. They're a major help.

Yeah, the literature says the Raynox 0.66 can zoom through up to 6x, but my VX-2000 doesn't have a limit. If there were a way
to limit the zoom, I'd go for that. The angelic halos are kinda white and wispy, and they're caused by direct overhead lighting and overexposure (as you'd guessed). They only seem to show up at the higher zooms. I've improved the lighting and understand how to avoid this. My main problem is that often,
I'm the subject ot the videos. I'll have to train my friends !

I'll check out full zoom through lenses, such as the WD-58.
I'll trade some vignetting for full zoom through.

Also, I seem to have some autofocus problems. I'm trying to
find the culprit. I'm not sure if my FL-W filter or the Raynox 0.66
are the causes.

There's no way you can limit how far the VX zoom ring goes Vince, but you can certainly turn off that dreadful digital zoom. The softness caused by the Raynox at long telephoto settings is very aperture dependant and wide apertures give big differences between centre and edge sharpness. Smaller apertures around f8 even up the frame but still there's this veiling flare look which can be very flattering to "ladies of a certain age".

It's one of the reasons I sold my Raynox, much as I liked the lack of distortion it produced. It really does cry out for a good lens hood and it's best to use it with any filter removed from the lens.

tom.

Tom,

Even though I read all of your postings, it's a bit difficult to figure out which 0.7x you use. Actually, if you don't mind, please list model info on your 0.3x a 0,4x, a 0.5x and a 0.7x.

I only need a bit of a wide angle extension. The Raynox 0.66 is too much for my application, which is taping martial arts sparring in a two car garage. I think I need something >= 0.75x .
If I back up any more, I'm outside the garage and have a very narrow field of view.

Thanks for your fine advice.

I don't actually have a 0.7x converter but I can understand your reasons for wanting one. There's no point in going wider than you need to but...

Why buy a 0.7x (say) rather than a 0.5X that you can set at the 0.7x point?

For a lot of folk the exaggerated perspective of the 0.5x zoom is just not needed, in the same way as 28mm wide-angles are more popular than 21mm lenses in 35mm photography. The latter are a lot more difficult to use creatively, and generally are bigger and heavier to boot.

It's the same with camcorder wide-angle converters. The more powerful the lens the more it's bending the light before passing on this light to the front element of your zoom lens. This means a 0.5x converter has to bend the light through much greater angles than a 0.66x or a milder 0.75x. And it's this bending of the light that's difficult to do without causing distortion or adding chromatic aberration or introducing flare or altering the flatness of field or reducing the aperture.

So a 0.5x converter will generally be heavier (more thick glass) bigger and more expensive than a lens of lesser power, especially if you want the same performance out of it.

But back to your post. I have a Schneider Kreuznach 0.65x which gives beautifully undistorted pictures but is uncoated so has to be used with great care (and great lens hoods) even indoors. I have a Kenko VTR MacroWide 0.6x which is a spherical element (non zoom through) but nicely coated. I have a 0.5x Tecpro that again is beautifully coated and very sharp. I hate the distortion at full wide though. And I have a home made 0.35x and a fisheye that gives cutoff to the circular image top and bottom of the frame.

tom.

Thanks for the info, Tom.

I'm interested in limiting the Zoom because I'm doing
dynamic zooming. I want a fixed zoom range in
a somewhat specialized application: recording
martial arts sparring in a 15'x20' two car garage.
Since I'm not always operating the camera (I
participate!), I really don't want a full
zoom-out because it includes too darn much of
the garage. One fellow, despite lots of coaching,
just zooms out and forgets to follow the action
because he's busy watching it. I'd like to
"fire" him, but he's a regular and thus I think
I'm better off trying to train him. I'm bummed
that all of the fights save *mine* are well-framed
and properly zoomed.

Without the wide angle adapter, I'm
not able to frame two moving fighters in scene.
The vx-2000 full zoom-in causes too much
fuzziness with my Raynox 0.66 . With all of the
comments, I think I'll be able to solve this problem.

I'm searching the best Wide Angle (58mm), the most sharp, with the less barrel distorsion as possible.

I know Optex and Century are very good, but which model?
I know also that 0.5 and 0.55 are not full zooming, but it's not a problem for me.

Thank in advance

Marc,

Please do a search on the subject. It has been discussed in many threads in this forum.

If after the search, you still have questions, please feel free to ask them.

In fact, there is a good thread on WA use with good pointers to further information at http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11474

Thanks

P.S. Except for the spelling of your first name, did you know you share your name with one of our more famous NASCAR drivers?

I own the Century 0.55x and can tell you to avoid it if you don't want barrel distortion. Its fairly noticeable too..

For what I use it for, the barrel distortion isn't really a problem (mostly used for an on-stage camera for concerts or for shooting landscapes)

To get "the most sharp with the least barrel distortion" you'll have to go for the Raynox 6600 Pro. It goes soft at full telephoto, but this is a wide-angle connverter, right?

It's cheaper than the Century 0.65x and it's not as heavy, as big or as well coated, but at wide it's just as sharp and it distorts straight lines a *lot* less.

tom.

I use the Canon WD-58. It is an excellent lens and not too costly. I recently purchased the Canon lens hood as well. Good investment for me.

Doesn't optex make a dual 0.7x combo lens that gets like 0.45x without any distortion? It uses a 72mm 0.7x lens, then uses a much larger one on top of that (one for ENG lenses...so probably like 95mm or so)

I've tried this (very expensive) combo on my VX2k Dave. Sad to report that even at that price they're spherical lenses and the distortions are very apparemnt indeed. I was dissappointed.

tom.

I'm debating between the Sony VCLHG0758 and the Canon WD-58H wide angle lenses for my pd-150 - please advise.

I am not familiar with either of those...

I picked up the Century Optics bayonet version... of which works well for me.

Please do a search for the term Wide Angle and you will see a lot of discussion about the topic.

Greetings,

I just got a VX2000 and it seems that I need a wide angle lens for the interviews I am planning to shoot. I simply know nothing about these machines and I have several very ignorant questions:

1- Do I absolutely need an adaptor to use a wide angle lens?

2- There are several lenses on ebay for $50-$60 or even less; like Crystal Vision, Digital Optics, Kenko, Opteka, Digital Pro, Titanium, Phoenix etc. Would you recommend any of these?

3- Can I directly attach a filter on a wide angle lens?

4- What do you think about Crystal Vision .5x and Phoenix .65x?

Thank you in advance.

You've bought a quality camera with very good optics. Why would you buy a wide angle adapter of lesser quality.

Stick with the Canon WD58, Optex or century WA adapters.

Some people have found the better Kenko and Raynox to be ok, I wouldn't even give the others a thought. (my opinion) even the most reasonable is a fair chunk more than the coke bottle glass that is available on Ebay.

The best overall deal seems to be the canon WD58. Do a search and some more reading, this subject has been very well covered.

The only adapter with a thread that I know of is the optex . The use of filter holders or matte boxes is another subject, but if you're balking art the price of a good quality adapter then a mattebox will give you heart failure.

First of all, search this forum for Tom Hardwick's posts on wide angle adapters. He did a few reviews on such lenses.

>2- There are several lenses on ebay for $50-$60 or even less; l>ike Crystal Vision, Digital Optics, Kenko, Opteka, Digital Pro, >Titanium, Phoenix etc. Would you recommend any of these?

Many people recommend the Canon WD-58H with a hood.
It sells for something between $150 and $200.
While I just started using this lens, I can't say if it's great.
I switched to that lens because some of my video opportunities
needed a wide-angle lens with full zoom through. It's totally
adequate for a subject standing four feet away.

I bought the Raynox HD-6600Pro58. Hey, I'll sell you mine !
It's a sharp lens with front filter threads, but it's not fully- zoom through. I need dynamic
zoom for martial arts footage. However, interviews don't
need that ability.

>3- Can I directly attach a filter on a wide angle lens?

It depends on the lens. My Raynox has front filter threads while the Canon WD58 does not. More layers of glass will cause more
distortion and increase the vignetting effect (dark corners).

I'm not saying the Kenko Pro (for the VX2000) is the best, but it certainly is a very good wide angle adaptor. In fact, Kenko makes this one for Sony; but the Sony version doesn't have the filter threads up front (though comes with the Sony name). The Kenko Pro is very solid, and does the job; and when you need a protective filter in dirty conditions, it's got that option---unlike some other brands. But personally, I'd re-read what Bryan wrote. He's done a lot of research for his beloved VX2000.

as I have said I am very ignorant and I need some very basic info: For example, if you search for wd58 in http://www.digitalfotoclub.com you get two options 1-Canon WD-58H 0.75x WideAngle Lens Adapter and 2- Canon WD-58 0.7x Wide Angle

Do I need both to get a wide angle view? If I get the lens only is it going to be useless by itself?

Thank you again,

Do I need both to get a wide angle view? If I get the lens only is it going to be useless by itself?

Most likely, you will not need a wide angle adaptor. Instead, buy a UV filter and leave it on the cam to keep the lens protected. That's basically all you need. However, for sunny days and where there is lots of glare, like with water (beach, or on the water), a linear or circular polarizer will make your video look much cleaner and fuller. Sometimes, a wide angle adaptor will come in handy, but you can usually live without it.

Get the Canon WD-58. It is the same quality (just as good) as the Sony full-zoom through wide angle adaptor but a lot cheaper.

Don't forget about Century Optics
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/2.htm

My favorite wide-angle adaptor for a 58mm front thread size camera is the Century Optics .55x Reversible
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/55x_wa_rev/55xr.htm# While not a full zoom-through, it is still a must-have accessory if you want a lot of wide-angle options in your bag at an affordable price. This is top quality glass.
Screw it on one way and you have a nice wide .55x wide. Zoom in past a certain point and it goes to a total wash of out of focus (can be used as a nice transition effect). Take it off and screw it on the other way and you have a cool fish-eye wide.

I would still get the Canon WD-58 though, in addition to the ,55x Reversible. Remember, it's all about the glass, so use high quality glass! Your "sharp as a tack" images will depend upon that.

- don

>http://www.digitalfotoclub.com you get two options 1-Canon >WD-58H 0.75x WideAngle Lens Adapter

I own the WD-58H. The H refers to the hood lens hood.
Apparently, Canon only sells the WD-58H as the WD-58 is
discontinued. So, I would guess that's old stock.

Here's more. You can get a slightly better price (although I don't
know about shipping) at B&H Photo:

Canon
WD-58H 58mm 0.7x Wide Angle Converter Lens with Lens Hood - for GL-2 DV Camcorder
More Info
Price $ 179.95

I'm using this lens on my Sony VX-2000.

Thank you all very much for your kind help

Based on Frank G's recommendation I bought the Kenko Pro before Christmas last year. I'm happy with the unit. It is a very hefty chunk of glass!

I'm told it's not quite as sharp as the Century, but it's less than half the price, has very little barrel distortion and does have the front threads. It also has a bayonet mount, which makes me a little less aprehensive about cross threading or wearing out the plastic threads on the VX2000.

I've not been able to find a hood for it yet, but I suspect one could be rigged or adapted.

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

$60 US for the plastic back mount. It has a rubber hood and a 105mm thread for a safety filter. You may need a $5 adapter C ring as well. It's good stuff, I own a shade as well as the bellows matte box. Buy the soft hood for the shade for $10, it protects the lens better than a standard cap.

Thanks Bryan,

I had done an extensive search when I bought the lens and had come up empty.

I bought the Phoenix WA from 47st Photo. It's also a hefty chunk of glass, good quality. I thought it was a good value.

Mark G

Hello, I was hoping that someone can tell me why there is such a big difference in price for the.65x wide angle lens. I would like to buy one for my Sony vx2000 and I think I wont the .65x but I don’t wont to buy one and could have paid less for the same thing.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I have both the Century Optics AND the Kenko PRO for my 150's. There are some differences such as; price-the CO is about $400 and the Kenko Pro about $170 or there abouts, the CO does not have front threads for filters or lens hood the Kenko Pro does, that means for filters you need a matte box and that can run a few hundred bucks. BOTH are bayonet mount, easy to put on and remove which I rarely do. I have not noticed an appreciable amount of difference in sharpness between the 2, yes the CO is sharper but IMHO not enough to make a $200 difference, at least not for the work I do which is weddings and events. I've been using them for 2 years and have never had a client complain or even be able to tell the difference.
Lastly and stupidly IF my camera should happen to kiss the floor lens first, I would rather bust up the less expensive of the 2, of course that doesn't take into consideration damage to the prime lens or camera itself, :-0

Sony and Canon also have very nice WA lens. I know quite a few folks using the Canon.

Pays your money, takes your choice!

Hope this info helps.
Don

Thanks Don
The Sunpak pro .65X wide angle lens I found it for $142. I was going to buy that one but just did not know what to ask them about it. Maybe the fact that the more expensive lens enables you to put on different filters drives the price up. I think I did see the Kenko pro the one I seen was around $250.00 I have never seen that cannon lens. Is it a 65X WA lens?