Doesn't a wide angle lens/adapter negate or lessen the effect of camera shake simply by virtue of the wider field of view? I had the 3x lens for my XL1 and it did NOT have OIS built in. I'm guessing because this is not really needed with a wide angle.

rg

Most zoom through converters are three elements and some are four, so there is a slight light loss involved. It's not much, but if you're really struggling in the low light, then remove all filters and converter lenses.

The more wide-angle you go the less the apparent camera shake, but if you zoom to wide angle and switch Steady Shot on and off, you'll soon see that it's working hard for you if you track/walk as you film. The omission on the Canon 3x zoom was only to keep the price doiwn I reckon.

tom.

yes rollerblading is good and it aint all about busting out the switchups. Switchups are a nice little neccessity in your rollerblading skill but the factors also include improv, cess slides and other take a spot with nothing and turn it into something kinda of deal

and btw im purchasing a nice gl 2 in the next few weeks :)

Do I turn on the camera's wide screen setting, or do I just let the lense do all the work?

And, shall I crop the frame in post if I want a wide screen look?

Widescreen and wideangle are not the same thing. If you want anamorphic 16x9, you should use the widescreen function. If you want 4x3, use Normal. Either way, using the wide angle lens will give you a wider angle all around, independent of the aspect ratio.

If you use an anamoprhic adapter, however, then you stay in normal mode.

If you want widescreen created in post, then use normal mode.

If I'm using the wide angle lense and cropping the image (with black bars) in post, then is this my closest approximation of widescreen?

Also, do I go with a standard

Why would you use a wide angle lens and then crop the ALREADY wide image ?!

Wide angle lens which you paid so much for gives you widescreen image - just use the correct setting in NLE - that`s 16:9 mode - otherwise image will look elongated.

Ok, so I choose to go with a 16:9 project using the wide angle lense. Now, when I export to DVD, will it be in true wide screen?

Yes, but it'll be widescreen whether you use the wide-angle lens. The two have nothing to do with each other anymore.

Adam, yes, it will be a widescreen DVD if you encode it as "Anamorphic DVD" it`s the best kind of widescreen - where you don`t lose any resolution. Enjoy.

So, next question, HOW DO I ENCODE A DVD AS ANAMORPHIC?


Thanks for putting up with my ignorance, this is the last question, I promise.

I forgot, most (if not all) encoders don`t have "anamorphic" setting so you just encode it with whatever setting you want and that`s it. Then it depends on DVD player to interpret it as anamorphic.

Just ask if you don`t know something, I doubt anyone finds this bothering !

The encoding software must support anamoprhic widescreen for the DVD to display properly. If the software does not support the anamorphic flag (that's all it is, a simple flag in the VTS), then you can only use 4x3 letterboxed, which you specify in your video editing software. Encoders that do support 16x9 are Adobe Encore, Maestro, Sonic DVDIt Pro, etc.

I'm looking into buying a wide angle adaptor for my GL2 and plan to go with a bayonet mount Century Optics lens. I just have a few questions to ask before I decide which lens to go with (.55x or .65x)

Is the zoom through ability of the .65x really necessary? It seems as though I'll keep the camera zoomed all the way out in order to take advantage of the wide angle most of the time anyway.

How do the two lenses compare with regards to barrel distortion?

Does the stock GL2 lens hood work with the .55x? If so, that would be substantially less than the .65x with wide angle hood.

Right now, I'm leaning toward the .55x due to its cost and size, but still think the .65x sounds good too. Any advice will be appreciated.

Nicholi,
We have many existing posts and opinions on wide-angle adapters for the GL1/GL2. Here's one good thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10407) as an example.

Run a Search on "wide AND angle" in this forum to see many others.

Yeah, I searched quite a bit before posting and found a lot on wide angle lenses. Most compare Canon's WD-58 to Century's .65x zoom through, but very very few even mention Century's .55x, and only one post actually comments on its quality/characteristics. I was just hoping someone had a direct comparison between the .65x and the .55x adaptors.

I have the century .55x wide angle and love it. It has a bit more barrel distortion than the canon one but is also wider. The image quality is awesome. I've used both lenses and would take the century over the canon anyday. You can't zoom through it, but that would be pointless since a wide angle is meant for wide shots. And for the price you can't go wrong. You can also fit 72mm slim filters on it as well. You can't fit the canon lense hood on it either but i haven't really had any problems with lense flares anyway.

corey

Thanks Corey, very helpful.
I've kept up with the videos you've posted on your website. Are there any that used the .55x?

I don`t know how Canon`s WD58H compares to others, but I have it for quite some time now and I`m extremely satisfied with it. Barrel distorsion is (at least to my eye) hardly noticable, you would see it only if you`re looking for it :)

ive got a century optics wide angle/ reversible to fisheye.]
pretty cool. as i recall it was only $200-250 or so from b+h.
its been awhile, though. i think the model was WA-58 maybe /GL?

Hey Patrick,

Are you referring to the DS-55WA-GL from century optics? BH has it listed at $250. I didn't know you could reverse it to fisheye. How does it look as a fisheye?

thats the one. I just got my gl2 yesterday!I bought the lens when i thought i was getting the camera awhile ago, but all i did get was a lesson about trusting low prices over the internet!

It says its reversible, but i cant get it apart. The mounting ring is suppose to come off and flip around... any one have this lens? just holding it up to the front LOOKS cool but not very practical for shooting.

i just went and looked at b+hs web site. i think they sent me the wrong lens with the insructions for the reversable one!

There is a difference between the .55x for the GL2 and the reversible .55x. The one made specifically for GL2 bayonet mount is only the .55x wide angle lens (DS-55WA-GL). The reversible bayonet mount (DS-55WA-00) is made specifically for Sony cameras - VX1000, DSR-200. If you bought the bayonet mount that fits the GL2, then it isn't reversible, as far as I understand.
However, there is both regular and reversible 58mm thread mount. Technically, according to www.centuryoptics.com, the reversible is made for Sony and JVC cameras, but it will probably work on a GL2. 58mm works with 58mm right?
Personally, I would much rather have the reversible (kill two birds with one stone) but at the same time really like the security of the bayonet mount. The reversible bayonet mount (DS-55WA-00) wouldn't randomly happen to work on the GL2 would it?

Actually, after looking at the stats on Century's site, the reversible's "fisheye" configuration is no where near that of the .3x fisheye. Honestly, it doesn't seem to be much wider than the regular .55x (20 degrees horizontally), but just has more barrel distortion. I wasn't expecting the same .3x effect, but hoped for something.
I'm sticking with the GL2 bayonet mount .55x.

its probably to late to return the lens... over a year. like i said it gives a good fisheye effect by just holding it on backwards... if i ever find it absolutly required, ill duct-tape it on.

I'm considering buying the reversible .55x for the sony cameras, but I own a GL2. What's the advantage to the bayonet mount? More stable?

I realize the fish eye on the reversed lens isn't as good as a real fish eye, but I'd like to have the ability to give it a try, especially if the 58mm sony version of this lens will work with a GL2.

I sent an e-mail off to century optics about the difference between their reversible -58 lens and their non-reversible -GL wide angle lens. Hopefully, they'll get back to me soon. My principal concern is that the -GL glass may be specifically designed to work with the GL2 and the 58mm WA may not work as well for whatever reason.

Also, rather than post *another* one of these WA topics in the forum, I was wondering if anyone could help me choose which WA to get.

I'm looking at either the .55 Century optics or the Canon WD58h. I need the lens for shooting in tight spaces, like apartments and bedrooms. I wouldn't mind there being a little barrel distortion, but not too much. I've read that the .75 WD-58 really doesn't offer a whole lot of enlargement and that .65 or .55 lenses are better.

Personally, John, I really like Canon's WD58H wide angle adapter for the GL2. It's not too heavy, is very good in tight spaces, imposes very little barrel distortion, has no apparent chromatic aberration around the edges, and had a very good price. I actually leave it on my GL2 nearly all of the time.

I've not used any of the Century lenses but I do know they have an excellent rep, as well.

Thanks for the info Ken. I'm really torn between these two lenses. I wish I could buy them both!

I received a very quick response from Century Optics that read:

"Hello John,

The only difference between the two is the bayonet verses the 58mm thread mount and the design that the optic in the 58mm threaded version will reverse for a simi fisheye look. The optical element is the same in both units, you will not have a drop off in performance. Either version will work just fine on the Canon GL2."

So apparantly both lenses are exactly the same piece of glass, and the only difference is the mount.

I ended up purchasing the century optics -58 model for the time being. As soon as I make some more money I plan on getting the Canon WD58H as well.

I'll probably be taking this lens off and putting it on a lot, so I was wondering if anyone here has tried getting a UV filter to snap onto the front of it.

I measured the internal diameter of the snap on plastic cover which came with the lens, and it was around 75mm, so I think a 77mm UV lens with a little gaffer's tape around the WA lens might fit on front snugly. Has anyone tried this?

I really want to protect the lens, I'm almost too paranoid to even use my camera until I can get some glass in front of it. The thought of a speck of dust or an accidental fingerprint on it is driving me crazy!

Canon's 0.7X wide adaptor is not threaded on front, so whenever you need a filter, it has to be mounted on the 58mm filter between the lens. Now the question is, does this extra gap (thickness of the filter rim) affect optical quality no matter how minimal?
If the filter is a polarizer, how can you deal with it when the 0.7X hood comes in sight when you rotate the filter?

The reason why many wide angle adaptors don't come with filter threads in the front is because the adaptor makers know that most people know that filters cause vignetting on wide angle adaptors, or at least on "their" wide angle adapotors. :-))

But most people want the thread option anyway, so some makers do put on the threads. With threads, you can also screw on a hood, instead of being clamped on.

It's not a good idea to stick a filter in-between the cam's lens and adaptor.

So what should I do?
I have already bought the Canon 0.7X wide adaptor for my XM2. Will a matte box solve the problem whenever a polarizer is needed with wide adaptor on? Or if there is any alternatives?
Appreciate any advices!!

Get a matte box. Cokin might be the way to go because:

1) They work
2) They're inexpensive

Just to backup Franks recommendation. I put a filter between my old GL2 and the WD-58H, which ended up crossthreading on the wide angle. I finally got it off, but the threads on the wide angle were ruined.

Apart from possible crossthreading, which can be avoided with care, does anyone know of an optical reason why not to put a filter between the wide angle and the standard lens? I have the same setup and I don't want the bother of taking the UV filter off the camera lens every time I want to use the wideangle

I recently purchased a cheap kit with opteka wide angle and telephoto lenses and filter kit.

When I use the wide angle lens on the GL2 and it is zoomed out all the way, I can see the circle of the lens adapter on the frame? I figure this is because its a cheap lens, but I though I'd get everyone's opinion.

Is the lens a dead weight? If so, is the Canon WD-58 worth the money? Is this problem what everyone keeps talking about called vignetting?

You can download a screen shot taken with the lens on to see what I'm talking about:

http://homepage.mac.com/cwright3/FileSharing20.html

Thanks!

First of all, that's a lot of baseballs and one sleepy cat.

Now, first of all, regarding the WD-50H (which I use), I don't see any of the lens when at full wide angle. If I did, I wouldn't be happy, because there's little point in purchasing a wide-angle lens that you can use when in the full wide-angle position. Sometimes, however, I can see a little of the lens edges, but this is never visible inside the 'TV-safe' area that you will see on your TV.

Secondly, this is NOT vignetting, which is a pattern on your video caused by filters (usually) that are not being used properly.

Chris,
Are you sure you're seeing the Opteka's edges or could you actually be using, and seeing, your normal GL2 lens hood?

Hoods for wide-angle lenses must be shaped differently than for normal lens ranges. The hood on the WD58H is a good example, with cut-outs along the left and right edges.

I tried using the wide angle lens again without any lens hood at all, and still had the same problem, so it must be the opteka lens.

However, this "effect" disappears once I'm zoomed in about halfway. I guess its just a bad lens

Does your lens have a macro, I just got a century fisheye for my GL2 and I will throw some impressions in this thread. BTW just how wide is your lens?

The label on the lens is: "Digital Super Wide 0.5X AF Precision Optics" and apparently has a macro because it says "macro" in big red letters on it :)

This is NOT a fisheye lens... just a 0.5X wide angle

thanks for your help!

Are you sure you weren't in a submarine?
(sorry, slow shift at work, couldn't help it)

Any chance at a refund on the lens?

well the unit is brand new, but I bought it as part of a GL2 accessory kit on eBay from a store called 47st. Photo.

The whole kit was pretty cheap, so I wouldnt be surprised if this problem is just because they sent me a cheap lens. I'll send the store an email anyway and see what they say

Chris,
Yours is not atypical of a common problem video newcomers encounter: buying photo accessories for video cameras. I am not familiar, indeed I've never heard of, an "Opteka" lens. But there are dozens of accessory lenses and kits commonly sold by photo operations-turned-video-outlets. 47th Street Photo has been in the mail order business since Lincoln was shot (or at least its seems so). Over the years they have expanded into selling you-name-it but their heritage is deeply in still photography. So I would not be surprised to find that them inappropriately hawking photo accessories for video cameras.

I suspect that your wide angle adapter would work fine if mounted to a still camera lens that does not have a wider focal length than 50mm. But since the GL2's lens can pull out a bit wider, the Opteka's physical design is too thick to prevent its rim from encroaching.

That's part of why video-specific adapters like Canon's WD58H and Century's products are worth their prices. They're designed to be mounted on typical video camera zoom lenses.

I suggest trying to exchange the Opteka, although I'd be very surprised if 47th cooperates nicely.

I'm new to the forum and to the videography business. I'm still in the process of acquiring equipment and have many questions. This forum has been very helpful!
I'm looking for a wide angle lens for my GL2 and am considering the Canon WD-58 adapter vs Century Optics .65. I'll be doing weddings and other events. I'm also looking at the Century Optics 2X Tele Converter as I plan to do some sporting events.
Any feedback on these items would be appreciated!
Also, has anyone had any problems getting their rebate from Canon for their GL2? I'm considering a second GL2 but I'm really peeved with them now (6 months and I'm still waiting)!

Welcome aboard, and where the heck is Lutz? hehe...

As far as your wide angle, the WD 58 would be easier on the wallet, but most will tell you that Century is better. How much better? I don't know, but you can do a search for them at the top of the page, and find threads related to them.

As far as rebates, as a general rule, I avoid them. Sometimes they show, a lot of times they don't. I got mine from Canon after several months... after I had given up on it.

Thanks for your quick reponse! After searching, I'll most likely go with the Canon lens for wide angle. I'm still not sure about the tele or wether I need one or not.
By the way, beautiful, downtown Lutz is close to Tampa (Go Lightning!!).

I think I may have been there once... when I was lost on the west coast. That happens to me a lot ;)

Try doing a broader search here for your w/a... There have been a few brands recommended that are a little less than the WD58.

By the way... If that GL2 is like my GL1, you'll want the tele too. I just bought a cheapie off ebay, and hope to get it soon. I'll let y'all know how it works out.