The Kenko Pro and the Sony wide for the VX2000 are the same lens. It's just that when Kenko makes them for Sony, they don't put threads in the front and stamp the Sony name on it.



--------------------------------------------
Der Schnurrbart meiner Katze ist schwarz, nicht weiss; und wenn ich sie strechle, schnurrt sie.


(My cat's whiskers are black, not white; and when I pet her, she purrs.)

I like my Optex WA. It has the front filter threads and is well coated. It also has a bayonet mount.

I believe the Canon is .65 and I didn't realize the Kenko Pro went up so much. I KNOW I paid less than $200 for it, oh well, inflation. I keep forgetting about the Optex, frankly, I've never seen the Sunpak.

Whichever you get, make sure it will work for you, no vignetting, zoomthru (if that's important to you) clear,sharp image.

Frank, the German saying at the bottom of your post, when translated does it mean, "GO CHICAGO CUBS! HEY HEY, LET'S PLAY 2"? ;-0

Don

Bryan,
I have the Optex, too. What, if any, lens hood do you use?

Have a look at the lens hoods made by cavision.com. They're rather good and clamp on to whatever outer diameter you happen to have.

tom.

I use a cavision soft rubber hood (Clamp on ) and a cavision 4x4 bellows mattebox. The cavision rubber hood is great when you don't really need to use filters or the deepprotrction of the bellows. it cost me $60 US plus $5 for the adapter ring. There are no vignetting problems.

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

they are very nice people to deal with . Speak with Catherine or John Anthony. Sarah is the receptionist. Nice person, but doesn't know cameras.

I've seen everthing they have to offer and the stuff keeps getting better.

You mean in the way of hoods and flags, right Bryan? The Cavision 0.5x wide-angle converter I had for a magazine test was (how shall I put it?) the least good of all the lenses under test.

tom.

Tom, wasn't it you who put the Optex .65X up against the Century .65X?

Not me Dave. I've tested the Century 0.65 bayonet and found it to be very good indeed but I've only bayonetted the Optex to my VX, never seriously tested it.

Tom and Bryan, I actually have the Optex lens hood that's made for the .65X, but I've thought about replacing it at times. For those who might be curious about it, it's made of a well-finished thin metal. It attaches with two hand-tightenable screws -- one on each side of the lens. As these are metal screws digging into the black painted surface of the lens, you do end up putting small scuffs into the lens (and silver shows through) but this really isn't any big deal. As the hood isn't a real tight slip fit onto the lens, and because the screws are on direct opposite sides of the lens,
and because the hood is metal, I have on occasion had the hood actually start making a tapping noise on the lens because it would "rock" on the screws. This noise would be picked up by an on-board mic; I solved this by putting a small piece of black electrical tape on the underneath where the lens and hood meet.
One thing that I havent seen mentioned before that *is* nice about the hood is that due its square shape and its dimensions, when it is mounted on a VX2000, the bottom surface of the hood sits almost flush with the surface that the VX is sitting on, and therefore the side-to-side stability is increased quite a bit. This comes in handy when you have a heavy mic or light on the camera. You could even then sit the cam/light/hood down on a couch without having to worry about it tipping over. However, when setting this combo down on a hard surface (e.g. a table top), I take care to set it down level or back end first. See, the VX is front heavy with a 16 ounce wide on there and it wants go down front end first, but due to the hood being metal, there would be a constant jarring of the lens elements -- and for that matter the entire camera -- as the front of the hood comes into contact with the surface.
The hood vignettes just a hair in one or two corners, but it's outside the TV safe area. With the .65X wide having a lot of glass up front, it needs a hood. Not so much that it has flare problems, but any little dust on the surface shows when light hits
it from the side.
Well there ya go. Everything and more than you've ever wanted to know about the Optex lens hood.

Tom
I didn't even bother with the cavision lens. (mainly because of your review). Their accessory line is well thought out and they are constantly improving it. Optics are something i don't take chances with.

I'd stay with century, optex or canon. that's just my opinion.

So far as their matte boxes and lens shades, they're a great bang for the buck . So is their line of audio accessories (boom poles and wind shields). I wouldn't touch their generic filters, but they do rep for Formatt filters. Formatt is fine stuff.

I notice there's no mention of it on the Sony America site. And the impression I get is that it won't be included with the VX2100.
From what I gather not many people use this lens now. I looked into getting it at one time. I know it's suppose to be pretty good- sized. [Heard a suggestion that it gives that "pro look" when combined with a matte box ;-)] I heard it goes soft at the long end. I'd rather have a Century Optics, but if it really will be included at no extra charge ...
Anyone here using this lens?

I guess none of the regulars here use this lens, Dave, so I'll give you my impressions of it, which I use on a regular basis with my PD150. This is a very good piece of glass, but somewhat expensive if you pay list for it. It is also physically quite large, and therefore heavy. The front element is almost four inches in diameter, which means four inch filters, if you want to use filters. There are no threads for filters, so you will have to use a matte box, or a more inexpensive lens shade with filter holder. Check with Cavision.

This lens is not an extreme wide angle; it will turn the standard lens into the 35mm equivalent of a 30.24mm-363mm lens. But since it is not extreme wide, it also does not distort as much as some other lenses. It is a complete zoom through lens, and remains sharp all the way to the end, contrary to what you remarked. Definitely much sharper than the less expensive Canon.

This is a great lens for doing "talking head" type interviews, where you approach your subject and do your own interviews. Tighten in just a few millimeters and you will have a nice size subject with no wide angle distortion. Add a good shotgun mic, and you will get excellent results with your subjects about three feet from the lens.

Would I buy this lens again? Tough call. I got a real good price on it, versus what the Century would have cost me. And it has been a great performer. But I do like the Century with the bayonet mount, and the smaller size. I bought the Cavision lens shade for mine, and it does make for a very pro looking package. But I also have my "flarebuster" handy, as these lenses will find flares inside a closet with the light turned out.

You pays your money, and you takes your choice.

Wayne Orr, SOC

I am looking for a fish eye and/or wide angle lense for my sony pd150 - do i need an adapter to mount these lenses and any suggestions on where i can find the lenses?? Thanks in advance for your help

You want a 58mm lens attachment. I prefer bayonet mount but some folks like screw mount, so you choose.
There are lots of brand names in WA not so many in fish eye. Try bhphoto.com to at least look around for the various lenses.

For my own use I have both a Century Optics and a Kenko Pro WA lens for my 150's and althought the Century is a bit sharper than the Kenko Pro, I use the Kenko more than the Century. Mainly because if anything happens to it, it's alot less expensive than the Kenko. But that's me. My brides don't see any difference as they are both zoom thru, don't vignette the corners and only hurt the iris about a stop.

Go to bhphoto and see whats out there. They're also a great place to buy from.

Good Luck,
Don

you might try centurys web page they have a 58 mm wa/ reversible to a fish eye which could get you both and I think its only around 350 at bh

m

Thanks guys - so the screw mount just simply screws on to the already existing lens?? And the Bayonet mount does what?? -- I guess i am asking what is the difference?? -- thanks again for your help!!!

The bayonet mount turns and locks onto the exsisting lens. I prefer it because IMHO its faster to put on and take off and less chance of cross threading. But thats me.
Don

But how do you bayonet mount on a PD-150? Is there an adapter for it?

So I take it if you can mount a bayonet adapter on a PD-150, the advantage, other then speed change, would be to pickup any lens types from any photo shops?

The bayonet mount attaches to the lens shade mounting lugs. The benifit is a more secure mount. I don't really trust a 1 lb lens on those cheezi threads. it's really easy to cross thread if you're in a hurry.

The mount is proprietory and the lens is an auxilary adapter so, no you can't use any old lens from a camera store.

I use an Optex bayonet mount. I think it's an excellent value for $300 US and it's available from one of our sponsors. It can be bought from Kingsway motion picture in Canada (Toronto) for about the same as the US price.

Optex UK isn't that cheezi camera accessory line that we see in canadian photo shops (Gentec). Optex are pretty big in Video lenses and originate in the UK.

http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/active/8AC99EF37C80586885256D3A00736F01

Howdy.

(I had my first case of lens flare over the weekend with me
Canon WD58)

Has anyone bought/used the bundled wide angle adaptor and
hood that is bundled with the new PD170? Is the hood an effective
shade and is it available for purchase on its own?

Rgds
Lee

Look at the cavision lens shade.

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

It's a clamp on and it works well. The shade is $60 US and the final fit to the lens barrel uses a split ring adapter ($5). It has a soft rubber shield on a plastic or metal back plate. The ABS backplate works just fine. It also has a 105mm filter thread.

Just had a look. $60US seems affordable but i'm wondering if that shade is deep enough to make a difference to what i already have (the CanonWD58 hood - too shallow). Anything deeper available? The cavision 3x3 mattebox looks like it'd do the trick but i'm afraid to ask how much that costs... (?)

Anything else affordable & effective out there, cavision or otherwise??

new PD170 lens/hood??

Sometimes you cannot shield the light source from the lens. If the light is in the scene, the shield is useless (as I"m certain you know). No shade will help in this case.

If it is a reflection from the interior of the shade and back to the lens you might try a flag. Flare Buster is a good tool as long as the camera is stationary (as it must for most flags to function correctly). About $30 US

The hood that's bundled with the PD170 doesn't fit the wide - which i'd been led to believe it did. The lens is a 0.7 - would have been nice if it had been a bit wider.

Anthony,
Sony's literature on the PD170 says it comes with two lens hoods: one that has a built-in lens cap and which is for the standard lens, and a second specifically for the WA. Were both of these lenses supplied with your camera?
-- Allen

Allen - you're quite right - my mistake. When I bought the camera the salesman said he'd been led to believe the camera came with a hood for the wide but that wasn't the case. However, I've just got out the manual and realised there IS a hood for the wide! You have to separate it into two bits - one before fitting the lens - and the other bit goes on afterwards. it's a bit fiddly and I can see why the salesman thought it was simply an alternative for the standard lens - which I thought at the time seemed a bit odd. Thanks for drawing it to my attention - I'm glad to have discovered there's a bit to the camera I hadn't realised. Still frustrating to find the audio problem though - see my other post!

Ant,
I saw your other post. Sounds like a manufacturing problem. Since apparently only some PD170s are affected, I would go back to the shop and ask them to exchange it for one without the hiss. They should be willing to do this, especially since Sony support has acknowledged the problem.
In any case, thanks for the reply and I hope Sony comes out with a fix for your problem quickly.
-- Allen

Thanks Allen - unfortunately Visual Impact say they won't do this - refering the matter to Sony Silver Service support... maybe I should push them but I'm not quite sure where I stand?

AAAAArghhh!

Yes the pd170 has a bundled hood for the wide angle adaptor. Any one got this?

Bryan Beasleigh,
1. how much is that nifty-looking mattebox from cavision?
2. How much better is the cavision sunshade compared to the petal-shade that came with the WD58 wide adaptor? ...and is it universal ie. able to use with/out other adaptors?

The lens hood we speak of available here:

http://www.expandore.com/e_shop/Sony/DSRPD150P_accessories.htm

(I assume thats only for use with the sony lens.)

I've been considering the TecPro 0.5X "S" model.
Does this one lose sharpness at full zoom.
They also make a 0.5X "Z". Anyone know anything
about the Z? How bad is the vignetting?
I have the Optex 0.65X and I'm wondering if
the TecPros would give a noticably wider
view.
Any other zoom-through wides I should
be looking at? How about Schneider?
Who distributes Schneiders?

http://www.camerafilters.co.uk/clients/slf/smoothsite.nsf/PageIndex/ID309/

Never heard of TecPro, I didn't know Schenider made lens attachments. Filters yes, attachments no, I didn't know.

I stated before that I have both the KenkoPro and the Century Optics .65 WA and honestly, I have never noticed any vignetteing with either lens attachment at either end of the zoom. What I have noticed lately though is the KenkoPro is going a little soft when I'm zoomed all the way in. This I believe has way more to do with the fact that it has taken a fall to the floor recently than quality of the product. AAMOF, for the last 2 years I have used that lens more than the CO as my primary WA and haven't had any problems. Now when I use it, I just don't zoom all the way in. Never really did anyway.

I'm sorry I can't help on the other products,
Good Luck,
Don

It should be noted that the linked distributor's
site is at odds with both the manufacturer's site
and also with what I've heard from a US distributor
regarding the "Z" model. The linked site says that
the Z is without "any vignetting".
The manufcturer's site says the Z has
"slight vignetting at widest".
A US distributor has related to me
that the Z vignetting "would be visible
on all TVs".
So I don't really know what to think. I'm
hoping someone with the Z will step forward.

Regarding the Schneider, it may -- from what
I can gather -- be just a single element lens,
which would mean it's not zoom through.
I'm looking for a zoom through.

Does anyone know the difference, if any, between the widest angle on a DVX100 to the wide angle lens that comes with the PD170? Which one is wider and how much?

Ray

Let's talk numbers Ray. Both cameras have 1/3" chips and so the focal lengths can be directly compared. The Sony has a minimum focal length of 6mm, whereas the Panasonic goes down to 4.5mm.

In 35mm still camera terms it's like having a 45mm lens or a 32.5mm lens on your camera - so the Panasonic sees a lot wider than the Sony.

tom.

OK Dave, if you're looking for a zoom-through, forget the single element widies. I have 4 of them, and you can zoom to very nearly half way on the VX2k - but if you want to go all the way you'll need a multi-element wide-angle converter.

I also have the Tecpro 0.5s and very good it is too. It's bitingly sharp at all focal lengths and very good value indeed. It comes apart to leave you with a very powerful close-up lens. The front element is well coated and is concave, which is unusual.

There's not the slightest hint of vignetting, even when screwed to my 58mm skylight filter, and when inspecting the full frame on the PC. The lens distorts straight lines pretty severly at the wide end, though this may bother you less than it does me. The 0.5X will give a noticeably wider view than your 0.65x.

If you go here:
http://www.fortvir.net/index.php
and click on tom's photo album you'll see the Tecpro in action against other lenses.

The vignetting on the other Tecpro 0.5x lens is only visible on the full frame, and on TVs it will never be seen. But it bothers me because all stills to memory stick have to be cropped - robbing you of wide-angle coverage for which you've paid.

tom.

Tom, how is it you know about the other TecPro, the
Z model? I wrote to the manufacturer but they
never did get back to me. Supposedly the Z has
less distortion than the S model. When I inquired
about the Z with the US distributor I was told
they only distribute the S because the Z will
show vignetting on all TVs and no videographer
would want that.
Also interesting to note is that the S is described
as giving a 49% increase in image view and the
Z is described as giving a 70% increase -- and
they are both called "0.5X" wides.
I'm tempted to take a chance with the Z.
Do you know from using the Z yourself
that the vignetting would not be seen on
a TV?
And could you tell me more about that Aspheron
with the VX? Is that the Schneider you've sometimes
referred to?

I have the Tecpro catalogue in front of me and it's chock full of mistakes and contradictions, so when I bought the lens I shot pictures through it first, opened them in Photoshop and then decided.

There's a lot of badge engineering goes on in this field, and the Tecpro 0.5 Z looks to me very like the Cavision 0.5x. I had one of those (in fact I had 4 looking for a good one) and they all vignetted the corners of the full frame. Not visible on TV at all, and my guess is the dealers are being paranoid.

Tell you more about the Aspheron? Well, it is without doubt the very best wide-angle converter you can buy. But it comes with an 85mm attachment thread, so you have to get converter rings made up. It's made by Bolex in Switzerland and costs a great deal of money. It's extremely powerful and has zero barrel distortion.

Yes, that's the Schneider UWL that I've referred to a few times. It's a poor man's Aspheron, because they were all uncoated. Almost useless out in the sunshine.

tom.

You're right, they do look identical.

http://www.exco.it/pagine/cavision/video/dwc05x58.htm

So what problems did you have with the 0.5X Cavisions?
Was there really a wider angle of view than the
Tecpro S? Would you recommend I just stick
with the S and forget about the Z?

I do know that Cavision changed their source after Tom tested them.

How long ago was this change, Bryan?

It looks like the only distributor is the
Cavision company, atleast outside of Europe.
I'm gonna try to get a price on that lens.
Probably isn't cheap.

I asked them about the lens last may. The price list is on it's way, check your email.

At the Video Forum in London in February I was told that Cavision no longer had a distributer in the UK, but I must admit that I haven't done a search to find out if it's true. I would suggest that the Tecpro 0.5s might very well suit you Dave. Two other guys have bought the lens on my recommendation and both were very pleased. Mind you - you have to rather like barrel distortion, and I'm not one of those.

Cavision do make some good lens hoods though (as shown on the link you posted Dave). Strange thing is I found the deeper and more efficient hood made for their 0.65x converter worked well on the 0.5x and didn't vignette the image at all.

tom.

So here's what I know.
Cavision never sent me the requested price list, but
Bryan sent a copy. The price on the 0.5X wide is
$200. With a lens hood it's $250. With a lens hood
and a pouch it's $300.
I did receive a correspondance from someone at
Cavision. I had asked if the vignetting would be viewable on a TV. Here's what I got:

"We have not had any problems with vignetting
with 0.5X w.a. adapter with the PD150. Could you
elaborate on vignetting on a TV screen?"

So I've heard about three different stories about
the vignetting with the "Z". What is appealing to
me is that the Z "0.5X" supposedly gives a much wider
angle of view than the S "0.5X", with less distortion.

Dave - although there are production tolerances at work here - if a lens calls itself a 0.5x converter then it should be just that. Maybe we can accept a + /- tolerance of (say) 0.05x, so a 0.5x lens could in fact be a 0.45x or a 0.55x and still be legally sold under the 0.5x label.

But unless the manufacturer is lying, all 0.5x converters will give viewfinder pictures that look the same. The Z and the S will ''see as wide'' but one may distort more that the other.

tom.

Anyone know a way I could get this lens? I'm in the USA.

Dave
The person you've been talking with at cavision is Jason. He has very little experience in video . The Company owners don't speak english very well either. John Anthony used to work there but he's gone on to bigger and better things. He was well versed in all segments of the industry.

I have the TecPro .5S lens here in the US. It does not vingette and is fully zoom through unless you put it on in addition to another filter between the lens and camera then it is slightly soft at the max zoomed in only. It most definately is not the same lens as the Cavision! It does not even look the same. Email me at AndysCam@aol.com if you are interested in obtaining one.