Well, I took the plunge and decided to go with the
0.5S.

I'm sure you'll like it Dave. For the money it's good and powerful and very sharp. Being a two element means there's less likelihood of internal flares, though it's still worth getting the Cavision LH-100P 3:4 lens hood for it, which fits a treat.

Unlike Bob (above) I've not seen the slight softness he refers to when using the Tecpro on top of my 58mm skylight filter. If you unscrew it to leave the powerful macro lens on your camera, be shure to shoot at pretty small apertures to bring the corners of the frame up to scratch.

tom.

So for you, Tom, it maintains sharpness on full zoom in?

Yes. Of course when fully zoomed in you're effectively shooting at a focal length of 36mm if you have the Tecpro in place. If you now remove the Tecpro and shoot at the same focal length (now in the middle of your 12x zoom's range) the pictures will be even better. Less distortion, chromatic aberation, flare and even greater sharpness. This is the same for all add-on lenses of course, and is not a criticism of the Tecpro alone.

tom.

How are the coatings on that S? Is the lens
prone to flare, or not too bad?

At the price point the coating isn't too bad, though not the best - which is why I stress the importance of using an efficient hood.

Ony the front element of my Tecpro is coated, whereas with more expensive lenses all the elements will be coated. But the exit pupil is working 'in the dark' so its coating is far less important.

When you get it I'll be interested to hear what you think of the barrel distortion.

tom.

Yer makin' me nervous, Tom. But I will let you know.
I was told by the distributor that, if you were to
zoom in to the same angle of view as the
Century wide, that the distortion is similar
percetage-wise.
I think I can live with some distortion.
Basically all wides distort -- even the
"highly regarded" ones -- from what
I gather. With maybe one or two
exceptions, but there you're dealing
with other trade offs such as sharpness
and price.

Yes, that's probably about right. If you fit the Tecpro and zoom up to the 0.65 position so as to equal the field of view of the Century the distortions will look about the same I'd guess. It's not a test I've done.

My Bolex Aspheron 0.52x doesn't distort but you're right about the price tradeoff. How nice to be without the distortions though. Just last week I was tracking backwards through all these rooms of a grand hotel as the bride and groom followed me. The door frames, the hanging pictures, the walls and windows were all composed of straight lines - just as they are in real life.

tom.

Tom, you are correct, It was not the lens cousing the softness at max zoom it was the combination with the filter I had on. I was curious after your post as the TecPro did not show that on my other 2000 or my DSR 250 - I have one on each cam. I changed the filter and it is verry sharp allthe way zommed in. My Bad! And I sell these lenses - I was thinking I was being 100% honest but instead I was just dumb! Oh well!

I have researched many forums for an answer or at least a clue as to what kind of 58mm wide angle lens I should buy for my VX2100 and I am confused. The battle rages between the:

Sony VCL-HG0758 for $269 at http://tinyurl.com/3x2u4

and the

Century Precision Optics DS-65CV-58 0.65x for $399.00 at http://tinyurl.com/3bxwp

From what I can piece together the Century is the best of the two. But by how much. I am just an amatuer videographer and do a couple of jobs here and there. Has anyone used either and had good or bad results? I am worried mainly about the amount of viginetting both in unzooomed mode and full zoom. I just want to get a feel for what people are using. I am leaning toward the Sony because of cost but do not want to make a $300 mistake. Any input is welcomed. Thank You

I got that Sony lens about 3 years ago for my VX-2000 and have been very happy with it. Seems to zoom through fine and I don't see much if any distortion. I believe I read that it's manufactured by someone else (Kenko?) and branded by Sony. This makes sense, because I discovered the band that says "Sony" and the model number is actually sort of a thin rubber band in a groove which comes off. The only downside is that it doesn't have filter threads.

For the money the Canon WD-58 works well. I have had no problems with full zoom thru at least with my eyes and little to no distortion. The only downside is its .7 and is screw on with no filter threads. You may also want to look at the Optex .65 bayonet mount. $299 from ZGC.

That's very interesting that the Sony lens is not done by Sony. Could that mean there is an equivilant that's cheaper in price?

I have heard alot about the Canon and did not even consider it until now. For now I think I will go with the Sony.

The closest thing I can come to to protecting the lens is this item:

http://tinyurl.com/3d6cl

But the $$$$$ are tooooo high. Thanks for the input

I think these (http://cavision.com/LensHood/sunshade.htm) are probably a lot less expensive...

the kenko pro .65x WA is supposed to be the same thing as the sony WA. what's nice about the kenko is the front filter threads. i tried to buy this a month ago but apparantly is discontinued. you can still find the bayonet mount version on B & H.

i ended up getting the canon wa for my vx2100 and it works great...plus it comes with a lense hood.

Do know how much this lens costs retail?

Does anyone know how much the included wide angle for the PD170 costs by itself. Thanks.

The lens costs about $270.00 at B&H Look on their site for the VCL HGO758
You can see it on my camera with a Cavision lens shade at http://www.digitalprods.com/flare.htm

I'd second Wayne's impressions. I have this lens for my VX-2000 and it is quite nice.

agree with wayne - have it on a 170 (came bundled). very nice, but never use it full wide, just slightly off....

I have the exact same lens and I noticed that when I zoom all the way to the end the picture gets slightly soft and little color distorted. When I lower the zoom the picture is as mentioned above wonderful. Is this a defect in my camera lens of am I zooming to far out? I was very interested in hearing how well the lens performed for others but am concerned I am not getting the same results with my 2100. Any input is welcomed.

About $300.

I have a Sony VCL-HG0758 58mm 0.7x High Grade Wide Angle lens attached to my VX-2100. I notice that when I zoom all the way to the end the picture gets slightly soft and little color distorted. When I lower the zoom the picture clears and returns to normal focus. I have done several experimements using all the manual controls available with the same resilts. Has anyone noticed the same symtoms or is this a defect in the wide able lens of zooming to far in? Without the wide angle lens the camera funtions and records very good. Any input is welcomed.

<<<-- Originally posted by Gabriel Selmi : I have a Sony VCL-HG0758 58mm 0.7x High Grade Wide Angle lens attached to my VX-2100. I notice that when I zoom all the way to the end the picture gets slightly soft and little color distorted. When I lower the zoom the picture clears and returns to normal focus. I have done several experimements using all the manual controls available with the same resilts. Has anyone noticed the same symtoms or is this a defect in the wide able lens of zooming to far in? Without the wide angle lens the camera funtions and records very good. Any input is welcomed. -->>>

Most wide angles and fisheyes get "soft" or even completely blurred when zoomed in to a certain point.
I've noticed too that it depends on the camera.
I've seen the same lens act differently on different cameras.

I think the point to bear in mind Gabriel is that you've bought a wide-angle converter for increasing your wide-angle coverage. If you can use it at other focal lengths that's a bonus, but I haven't found one yet (regardless of price) that doesn't degrade the image slightly. If you want to shoot at 30mm it's better to take the w/a converter off (though of course more hassle).

tom.

Thanks for the replies, I am more comfortable knowing these results are somewhat consistant. Could I have got something other than a convertor that would produce better results?

Unfortunately, only a pro camera with removable lenses. Then the very wide angle pro zoom lens can cost more than $25,000.

I find the widest angle of the VX2K to be insufficient for a lot of work so I've started using a Canon 0.7x wide converter with it.

Despite keeping everything nice and clean I'm noticing a lack of sharpness, particularly in subjects more than a few metres away. In fact it's such that I'm even considering using my old Panasonic DX100 for some shots as that has a wider angle than the VX2K without the lens. But I'd rather not!

Is this loss of sharpness to be expected? Is there anything I can do about it?

My Century does the same. I sent it back to them for evaluation. They said it is normal.

I use it only sparringly because of that.

Yeah, I noticed the same with my Canon 0.7x wide angle converter, which I bought after my Raynox 0.66x exhibited the same. The Raynox is pretty nice, but really goes soft when the VX2000 is at maximum zoom, regardless of focus. I've been experimenting with underexposure
by using f/stops around f/4 for my particular available light. I do not know what is the sharpest f-stop over the zoom range. Using a smaller aperture seems to yield better clarity with the Canon wide angle, although I have not quantified the results.

Both Mike and I were involved in another thread that's somewhat related :

VX2000 : best lens sharpness aperture?
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32105

In general, any auxiliary lens is going to negatively affect the image quality. Most aux lens are formulated to a general spec and not for a specific camera & lens combo. So they won't be as good as they can be and almost never as good as a prime lens at the same magnification.

Mike's right in that there's no free lunch. But my tests of the Century 0.65 bayonet and the Raynox 6600 PRO show them to be staggeringly close to the camera when used without them.

I set up the VX on a sturdy tripod and filmed perpendicular to a brick wall, sending the images to Memorystick. I used lots of different apertures and recorded all the results. I then attached the wide-angles and zoomed up so that the camera's view was the same. I then imported these images into Photoshop for a good A/B look-see.

This is an excellent test to find out what adding 3 extra elements to the Sony's line-up does for resolution, contrast, colour balance, vignetting and distortion. I was impressed by how subtle and small the changes were. Better to use slightly smaller apertures like f5.6 and 8 when you have the converter on I find.

Zoom to full wide with the converter on does harm chromatic aberations, but in general the sharpness holds up well, and I've been slightly surprised by the words I read above.

tom.

I found the Century 0.65 bayonet to be such a disappointment that I sent it back to Century for a quality check. I t performed similarly on both of my PD150's . . . such a noticable softening that I don't like to intercut footage from the same camera with and without the adapter. Century said it works normally.

I find it softens the image by an unacceptable amount and I only use it when I must.

>Better to use slightly smaller apertures like f5.6 and 8 when you have the converter on I find.


Thanks, Tom. I noticed a big gain in sharpness when opening to f/4. In the future, I'll try the settings you list above.

I had canon xm2 with canon 0,7x wide lens and didn't notice EVER lose of sharpness and resolutino on any disortion using wide lens attached in any situatin either using wide or tele. Now I've got PD-170 with this sony 0,7x lens (comes as a bundle) and must say that this is very irritating disortions and lose of sharpness using tele. It means that guys from sony must lern a lot about engineer a really good lens in their camera. It's not about the wide lens You have attached but about the original lens You have got in Your camera PD-170 or VX2100. It just can't work well with wide conversion lenses. Saying that: "You've got wide conversion lens to do wide shots" is really stupid - imagine taking it off every single time when you want do do some details close ups to achieve good quality picture. :)

"I had canon xm2 with canon 0,7x wide lens and didn't notice EVER lose of sharpness and resolutino on any disortion using wide lens attached"

Jakub,
I use the same setup and agree with you 100%.
In fact, the Canon wide adapter stays on the camera full-time (unless I should really need the tight end of the standard lens.)

Robin

<<<-- Saying that: "You've got wide conversion lens to do wide shots" is really stupid - imagine taking it off every single time when you want do do some details close ups to achieve good quality picture. :) -->>>

Well that's what I have to do. It's inconvenient but do-able.

My Telesor .5X wideangle lens, with a 58mm thread, gives sharp, undistorted images on any camcorder I have. There's no vignetting at any zoom setting. Although I bought it 17 years ago for
$160., it's as though it was made to order for my VX2100. I'd recommend it as
an excellent performer and great buy for the VX and PD-series cameras. If you have good luck and find someplace you can buy them nowadays, let me know, as I'd like to pick up another as a spare.

Steve McDonald

You claim to have a 0.5x zoom through wide-angle converter that doesn't suffer from distortion Steve? Sorry, but I simply don't believe you - much as I'd like to.

If you set up your camera + converter perpendicular to the side of a building, are you claiming that there's no distortion of any of the straight lines (windows, doors, brickwork)?

tom.

anyone know of any - mainly uv to protect lens....

leslie

There is always a way although I don't use one on the WA I use for my 150 since there is no filter thread on the beast.

An email to B&H Photovideo should get you an answer.

thanks mike,

neither does the sony supplied w/a with the 170 have any thread. my main concern is obviously protection rather than filtering.

was even thinking about a piece of optical perspex on the lends hood?

all the best,

leslie

I know you mean well Leslie, but unless you're going to (rough) sea in a sailing boat or photographing children's boisterous parties I'd not bother with a UV over the w/angle converter. And this from a man who advocates that you wear one at all times in front of your standard zoom lens, simply as mechanical insurance protection.

The Sony w/angle will be a three element converter and this adds to the flare on your film of course. Making it intop a 4 elemet only adds to the problem. On top of that the increased DOF means that added filters have to be kept spotlessly clean - a near impossibility - or the marks show up on film.

I use a good rubber hood from Cavision, and at least this keeps some of the rain and sticky fingers away.

tom.

I too use a rubber hood. The lens hood from my RB-67 6 by7 cm film camera fits perfectly.

Can anyone recommend the Century Precision Optics 0.65x converter lens for the PD-170 versus the Canon WD-58?
Is the bayonnet version preferable to the screw on?
Thanks for any advice.
Bob

Bob, there has been a ton of information on those WA adapters. Do a search on the term 'wide angle adapter,' and you will get 19 threads on the subject.

Bayonet mount is much stronger than filter-thread mount.

I've read and read, but I don't know if I need the Sony LSFS58 hood with the Sony VCLHG0758 wide angle lens.

It sounds like the hood is a replacement...

Do I need it?

Yes......to prevent flaring.

I'm not sure, I'm checking out that one and it sures looks like a replacement. I'm wondering if Lou just answered without actually checking that model out, it would be good to know as i could use on myself..

Not sure what hood the Sony LSFS58 hood is, but in purely photographic terms YES - you do need a lens hood, and doubly so when you're using a wide-angle. Your focal length has been reduced to 4.5 mm and if you focus close and use f8 or so, the depth of field can come inside the front element of the converter. Any dust or dirt - however slight - will come into sharp focus and become horribly apparent if direct (sun)light hits the front element.

Hooding the glass and shadowing it from the sun can dramatically improve your shots. It's very easy to prove - all you need is a sunny day, a TV as a monitor and a hood. Take it on and off and see what I mean.

The lens hood is the cheapest, lightest (here he goes again) best accessory you can buy for the money. Don't leave home without one. Remember too that the hood that came with your VX/PD is only efficient at the max wide-angle end of the zoom - for all other focal lengths it 'sort-of-helps', no more.

tom.