Is that a 0.3x? Seems like it would get very fish eyed looking video if you have that wide of a lense on a GL2. Bottom line is if you are getting video that you like, it works for you.

Yes, it is a .3x wide angle clip on lens by raynox. It seems to be getting good clips so I'm happy with it. Its just people were saying on this other skate related messageboard that the lens is horrible. Oh well, later on.

I also use the .3 raynox on my GL1 and I get great quality. Its not quite full fish-eye...maybe about say 150 degrees but it does the job for me. As you probably allready know its not a zoom through lens....after you zoom about 4x the focus drops. The clip on is nice becuase I have had several skateboards take it out and it just merely fell off. One hint that I would definitely do...there is a small hole on the lens...that is made to tie the lens to your camera. TRUST me this will save your fish-eye more than once. One more thing....there is some crazy lense flare when you are filming in the sun...be careful or you will get some whacky shots. Otherwise the clip on works just as good as the screw on. I have both and tend to use the clip on because its so easy to go long lense in a hurry. hope this helps

I was suspicious of the clip-on facility until I tried it. It may look ungainly but it shure holds on tight and the very best thing is the ease and *speed* of fitting and detaching the lens. This is an important aspect with any non zoom-through, and I think Raynox have a goodie here.

All the Raynox clip-ons have lots of barrel distortion though, and that's why I passed on owning one. Their 6600 PRO lens is so distortion free that I wonder why theu don't do a distortion-free single element aspheric in their line up. I'd certainly have one of those.

tom.

man oh man we seem to have similar products. I have the Raynox 6600 pro 52mm lens for my Nikon digital and it is great. And yes there is no noticeable barrel distortion.

The thing with the .3 raynox...its a semi-fisheye so barrel distortion is what we're looking for...........nearly every "line" done filming skateboarding, rollerblading, etc is done with a fish-eye. Granted most films use a 700 dollar century optics "death" lens. So the 100 dollar Raynox is an amazing fish-eye for the guy who just spent 1800-2500 on a GL1 or GL2.

HEHE, that would be me. I just got 2 more clips tonight, they looked amazing.... what is barrel distortion? I'm still new to the lens department, thanks, later.

Barrel distortion is the fisheye effect you see, the "bending" of the straight lines.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Woodland : ...what is barrel distortion? I'm still new to the lens department, thanks, later. -->>>

Image curvature typically most noticeable in vertical lines near the left and right edges of the frame.

the easiest way to see barrel distortion is film a normal size doorway with the door open. get close enough so it fills the frame horizontally and you will see the sides of the doorway bow out quite a bit. Its what tends to make that 4 foot gap you are jumping with your rollerblades look to be about 8 feet. Proper filming also gives you that effect. Besides the fact that it makes a skate "line" look more stable...less camera shake, allows you to get closer, and allows you to not have be looking into LCD all the time, the fish-eye makes it much eaiser to make skating look good. Long lense is damn hard to perfect, but if you want to see an awesome video using a lot of long lense buy or download
Es' Menikmati....its great.

Is that a skateboarding video? I can't stand to watch skateboarding videos for some reason. Mainly because I'm a rollerblader and I gap 25 stair sets like nothing since ive been fruitbooting for almost 7 years. I know the tricks are hard on a board but I'd rather watch people put their life at risk while doing a sport. later.

HAH...have you seen a skateBOARDING videos lately? They are throwing themselves down some crazy sets of stairs that would shake your lil' fruitboots right off you. And yes rollerblading is MUCH easier to begin with...just the basic gaps and handrails. But the stuff they are doing now...like crazy true-spin topside grinds and linking 2-3 grinds on one rail. Thats damn crazy. I have a few friends who do some stuff on rails that just blows my mind. And I respect that a lot more than when they just do a 3 down a huge set of stairs.

Switch ups are overated. I find myself doing new things people never think of. That is what seperates a person from the "trendy" side of any sport. Also, my sponsors are really appreciating the way I've been skating.

i'm shooting my second skate video this year. last year i used a single chipper and the kenko .43x fisheye which worked great for $59USD. i also had the raynox clip on for 28-37mm lenses which i didn't care for much at all.

i got my gl2 this spring and picked up the raynox .3x MX3000 semi fisheye. this is certainly a functional lens, and despite the poor reviews on the skate boards (no pun intended), it works quite well. one common complaint with this lens is that the clip-on mechanism lets light in through a small gap between the fisheye and the camera's thread, causing some extra glare. i didn't find this to be a problem, and i didn't find glare from other light sources in my shots ruin shots terribly. with the lens clipped straight onto the gl2, i found it similar to around .4x. however i read that if you put two uv filters on your camera, and then the lens, you get a wider angle. i did this, and ended up with something pretty close to .3x with relatively little vignetting.

raynox also makes a death lens competitor (model DCRFE180PRO). the problem is that it isn't bayonet mount and it weighs almost twice as much as the death, which might be risky for your lens threads if you go running/skating around with it. and it costs 300-400 bucks, so you'd be better off to save for the century anyway.

i bit the bullet recently and bought the century optics .3x lens. it is definitely wider than the raynox with zero vignetting as well. i still have my mx3000 as a backup. maybe if i have some time this week i'll do some comparison photos.

harry

With all the lenses floating around including Canon's own WD-58H at .75x, which is not too fisheye looking, which other brnads are good without paying so much???

Does anyone know or even have a .50/.65/.75 wide angle lens they can recommend that doesn't xost as much as Canon's?

I've seen some on Ebays that include a macro lens on it to, which seems nice. I don't want a fisheye look, but I do like a nice wide screen. I assume that would be .65x or .75x lens rather than a .50x or .45x.

Give me all the info if you can. I am looking to buy one ASAP.

I do like Canon's lens, but it's a bit much, but I don't want a lens that makes everything look soft because it's junk either.

ya I bet ur sponsers like what you're doing...LOL.

anyway, Harry...you have any sample footage from your videos? I would like to see some of your stuff!

from my research I learned that the less expensive options have a lot of image quality issues. You can get cheaper lenses but owners of GL2s prob won't be interested.The more expensive century optics lenses are quite good from what I've read but the consensus in my research essentially said the canon was the sweet spot in terms of price/quality. I have one on order myself.

Here are my findings. I tested both the $400 Century Optics .65x and Canon WD-58H wide angle adapters side-by-side.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10407&highlight=wd58h

Yea, I've seen that thread before before he revised it. I guess it's pretty much the Canon's or nothing I assume. I've seen a Kenko ProWide .65x which is said to be pretty good but it's almost as much as the Canon's lens.

I'm in the buying accessories mode right now. I've gotten the Glidacam 2000 Pro, 5 DV tape, a filter kit, and I ordered a tripod. It starts adding up and I don't even have a light.

I was thinking about getting the VL-10i video light because it doesn't require Canon's GL2's power source so I could move it around if I needed to.

I also don't have a carrying case/hard case. Oh woo is me.
It's a great camera but without accessories it's just that a camera.

Brendan,
This question is somewhat OT, but do you have any data/opinions on whether the Canon WA has a better image than the Century on a Sony VX-2000? In other words, would your tests apply to the Sony as well?
Thanks.
-- Allen

Yes, the adapters perform identically on the Sony (they are the same adapters). Also, the Canon WD-58 performs noticeably better than the more-expensive Sony 0.7x W/A adapter as well. I have the Sony adapter with the VX2000, but no longer use it because the Canon is superior.

I have read that the Optex anamorphic lens is better than the Century. Is it the same for the Wide angle?

It will be interesting to compare the WD-58 to the Optex to see if one is better than the other. Anyone has done this test?

Brendan,

My Raynox 0.66 wide angle is fully zoom through, so I'm thinking about other WA lenses. I can't distinguish the Canon WD-58 from the WD-58H. Which of these two fit on a VX-2000 ?
Are they fully zoom through ? Thank you .

http://www.promax.com/Products/Detail/16148

http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/products2/Canon_Canon_WD-58_0_7x_Wide_Angle_f_GL1_3107a002.html

Hi Brendan,

Thanks for the info. I would like to see those screen shots!

Cheers,

Dirk

<<<-- Originally posted by Gints Klimanis : My Raynox 0.66 wide angle is fully zoom through, so I'm thinking about other WA lenses. I can't distinguish the Canon WD-58 from the WD-58H. Which of these two fit on a VX-2000 ?

They are the same adapter. The "H" comes with the hood (which I believe is the only way they sell it now).

Both fit the 58mm screw mount of the GL2 and VX2000 and should perform much better then the Raynox.

Interesting that Brendan thinks the OIS is seriously degraded when using a zoom through wide-angle converter. If any of you other folk think so, try this. Fit your wide-angle converter and zoom to telephoto. Handholding the combo as still as you can, toggle between OIS on and off and see if you agree with him. I don't.

Oh, maybe at the wide end it doesn't work as well as the camera on its own, but why buy a zoom through then? OK, switch off the OIS if you've bought a non zoom through w/angle, but for all other occasions leave OIS turned on. It's an amazingly transparent technology that closes in on magic.

tom.

"I can't distinguish the Canon WD-58 from the WD-58H. "

D'yer know why? - there isn't - you're correct. The "H" is the model that "includes" the Sun Hood - simple as that!

Cheers,

Grazie

Tom, I agree with you. There is not a single reason why OIS would degrade if a WA is used. OIS is a angular camera motion correction system which is not influenced by a WA adapter lens.

<<<-- Originally posted by Andre De Clercq : Tom, I agree with you. There is not a single reason why OIS would degrade if a WA is used. OIS is a angular camera motion correction system which is not influenced by a WA adapter lens. -->>>


I'm sorry, but OIS is degraded when any adapter is added to the front -- in my experience. There is actually a very simple, viable explanation for it, but I have since forgotten it.

Try it for yourself. Both the W/A and TC adapters degrade IS effectiveness.

Brendan, can you explain what kind of degradation you did experience. Do you see other effects than motion stabilisation when OIS is on? On the effectiveness point, you should know that OIS is based on angular motion detection based on gyro sensors. The compensation degree is never 100% for the whole motion (shake) frequency spectrum, so you'll allways get some remaining motion effects or not fully compensated angles of motion. The remaining uncompensated angular components translate into image shifts which are lens focal length dependent. So tele will allways result in more shake residues than wide. WA adapters are just (together with the standard lens) optical systems with short overall focal length and don't change this compensation behavier.
B.t.w. I have VX2000 and WD-58. I never expirienced negative effects...

The adapter may change the calibration factors for the VAP action vs. sensed motion making it less effective.

Well, I decided on just getting the Canon's WD-58H lens int he end.

Cost $183 or something 1-day fedex.

I haven't had time to shoot with it yet. I'm floating the Chulitna river tomorrow (a med/small river in Alaska) and taking my Gl2. If I take the 58 I'll let you know what I thought of it. At first blush it's quite the imposing piece of glass. I doubt I'll be screwing it on while I'm floating; too many rocks to navigate and my pelican will be configured to have the 58 unmounted. But when we camp, if the weather will cooperate, I'll try to get some video. I don't have a rain jacket for it. We'll be out 5 days so I'm crossing my fingers for one good day since it's pretty rainy right now.

I recently bought the Kenko 0.65 bayonet from Tristate for $159. You can zoom through, but I wouldn't use a filter as well. BTW I didn't notice a perceptible degradation in my IS. My initial tests are very good, very sharp as far as I can tell. I'm real pleased with it. Thats my two cents.

Don, you think that the the adapter may change the calibration factors for the VAP action yet to all intents and purposes the VAP OIS is insensitive to the outside world. So much so that (unlike EIS systems) it'll work just as well in *total* darkness.

Work? Yes, all that's happening (as Andre points out) is that the camera is measuring the movement that is being applied to it. With these measurements on board it vibrates the front element of the VAP by pushing and pulling at the glass in two locations - bottom and side (90 degrees apart). So if you rock the camera in a vertical motion down at the back and up at the front (as you could by tilting on a tripod say) then the VAP will push the bottom of the front element in towards the camera body to compensate.

The OIS doesn't know or care that you have a wide-angle or a telephoto or a fishtank full of water attached to the camera - it vibrates that front element just as it always will with SSSS turned on.

It reacts with such amazing speed that it alters the prism's shape in sync with your camera shake, in time to bend the light that would be heading off to another part of the chip to be seen as shake. It is for this reason that I refer to it as the closest thing to magic that you or I posess.

tom.

go to www.neilslade.com/lens.html

This works perfectly fine, and by varying your zoom, you can adjust the wide angle degree.

Works for the GL1, GL2, and any other camera of this size.

neil@neilslade.com

$40 for an excellent lens you put together yourself in an hour.

The idea of zooming through the whole focal length using a WA makes no sense to me.

Just take off the WA !!

http://www.neilslade.com/lens.html

Many folks have successfully made this and were quite happy with it.

Neil

>The idea of zooming through the whole focal length using a WA makes no sense to me.

I'm a fellow that needs this ability. I'm regularly tape martial arts sparring in a 15' x 20' garage space using a tripod. I need the wide angle lens
to fit most of the action. I simply can not back up outside of the door!. When the guys are fighting in a corner, I need to be able to a nearly full zoom in on the action.

I use both a little .3 clip on for my Sony mini mini DV camera and used the bigger clip on .3 for my GL2

both were very satisfactory

barrel distortion is a part of extreme wide angle lenses. The only way to get rid of this-- if you really need to-- is expensive pro software.

But part of the lure of wide angle IS the distortion.

Zoom in a bit for less wide angle effect, obviously

Neil - you say that part of the lure of wide angle IS the distortion. Well it may be for some (skateboarding movies seem to demand it) but for others (Krubrick's The Shining) it sure isn't. I hate it. If I track through a house I do not want to see the door frames bowing outward as I walk through them - it screams 'amateur' and 'cheepie' to me. Horizons should be straight wherever they are in the frame and telegraph poles should be vertical. Maybe it's just me.

Which is why I love the aspheric wide-angles. The Schneider (0.65x) and the Bolex (both difficult to find) give you zero linear distortion, and I have test pictures to prove it.

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php

tom.

I ended up getting the Canon's own Wide angle lens with hood and it's a beautiful piece of glass indeed. Only downfall is that it adds some serious weight to the camera.

Neil,

Can you post a still image from some footage from your w/a lens. I'd like to see a side be side with the lens on and off.

Thanks in advance,

Tom

Just been kicking around the net recently and saw that Tiffen specifically makes 'wide' filters (I'm interested in UV and polarizer) that are slim (3 mm thick to be exact) so as to hug close to the camera so you can throw a wide angle in front and avoid vignetting. I've got a bone to pick however. At B&H I was reading the description and it read:

"...They do not have a front thread."

What?! If it's designed to go in front of your wide angle lens, then why on earth wouldn't it have threads in the front?

I'm semi interested in getting one, because I'd like to use a UV or polarizer with my wide angle whenever shooting landscapes and the sky. Vignetting is kinda unavoidable at this point with my current UV and polarizing filters. I got duped when ordering my GL1 into getting a 'pro filter set' (crystal vision to be exact) and it's quality is definately questionable.

I'd like to hear if anyone else around has these or has used them and what their take is on them. BTW - I'd be using it with a WD-58....well, thanks for your help/comments in advance!

Hi,

Yeah, you really have to be careful with filters and front threads.
I was sharp enough to look at the picture carefully before I ordered. I thought the B&H salesman should have caught this
because I mentioned I was ordering filters for the Canon WD-58H wide angle lens.

Well, guess what? The Canon WD-58 WA lens doesn't have front threads, either. My Raynox WA has front threads, so I'm able to
attach 72 mm filters.

>"What?! If it's designed to go in front of your wide angle lens, >then why on earth wouldn't it have threads in the front? "

Read your own words, my friend !

Yeah, the Crystal Optics filters sell for anything from $40-200.
The higher prices are reserved for the retail outlets that sell
the camcorders at a lower price, but only as part of a set that
includes the filters.

ahso. Since I know the WD-58 doesn't have front threads I never considered attaching any glass to the front of it. Thanks for the responses guys.

If you mean the Tiffen wide angle adaptors, yes they (all) have filter threads on the front. There's lots of misinformation on the B&H website, I find. Kenko adaptors also come with filter threads on the front; and the Raynox adaptors I've seen also have them.

Frank, we're talking about filters that are designed to go in front of or behind wide angle lenses (such as UV), not necessarily WA adapters. Just thought I'd clarify.

UV protection. Or would it cause too many abberations and flares with that much glass between the WA and the camera lens? I've never had any problems doing it that way (aside from vignetting). Explain why in front of the WA is better? I think I have an idea but I'd like to hear from others.

Frank, we're talking about filters that are designed to go in front of or behind wide angle lenses (such as UV), not necessarily WA adapters. Just thought I'd clarify.

front: vignetting most likely - the ultra slim ones work best, depending on the adaptor - but with "wides," now you know why Century and Sony (and Canon I believe) don't bother to put threads on in front.

back: same, but sometimes it works - not recommended

Either way, you want the strong slim ones, that would be...the brand that Bryan Beas bought. Hoya, I think---also multi-coated.

I use the Kenko wide angle .65 lens with the bayonet. It's very sharp, and it does have threads in the front but after I bought a UV filter for it I discovered that it adds a ton of excess flare and actually vignettes when its at its widest. Removing the UV filter solved the problem, and I use it all the time without any problems. I got it for $159 at Tristate photo.