Is there even a slight image degradation when using a wide lens? I've there is when using filters.

for what i was using my gl1 for i almost always had the wd-58 attatched and was always happy with the image quality

The potential for loss of lens resolution/sharpness is very real anytime you put more glass in front of a perfectly balanced (optically) lens. The GL2's 20x lens is superb and one of the main reason why I bought the camera. So when I decided to add a wide angle lens I went with the WD-58H.
I'am very pleased with the image quality of this lens and I love how solid it feels and enhences the look of my cammy.

Major thumbs up on the wd-58. A great piece of glass. Don't buy the cheaper off brand- it isn't worth it.

With lenses you generally get what you pay for. Cheap lenses generally give corresponding results and are really not suitable for profesional work - unlesss you are looking for a cheap lens effect.

The Century Precision Optics are top of the line, and Canon's product is also good.

I just bought recently Cokin Digi 0.5 wide adaptor. It works absolutely fine, but (off course) have some problems in 15-20x range. Otherwise, everything else is fine, They are cheap and fits into original lens hood of XM2.

Hi all,

I just recieved my Bower wide angle lens for my canon xm2 camera.
and i have question.

As you can see on http://www.bowerusa.com/Lens-WA.html --> near the end of page Lens: VL558 The lens has 2 parts, a bigger and a smaller one.
Now the smaller one is a macro lens and the bigger one is the wide angle is assume. I can connect the complete lens onto my camera, but here's the question isn't this stuppid ? Macro lens with wide angle, i seem to be confused cause i can't screw the bigger part on my camea without the macro.
Do you guys think that it is right to have wide angle with macro together? I also tryd holding it against my camera and i can see a much larger wide angle range, but the edge of the lens is clearly visible. I know this question is confusion but i hope somebody understands me!

Hope to get some help,

Greets Michaël

I would like to add, that i was placing the bigger part on its on against the camera, and so i saw the edges.

What price is this lens?

Cokin 0.5 /58mm is 55 Euros here, so very cheap compared to others.

Thx, i just have to search a dealere here, in Europe.
The 15-20x range problem is not a big problem, because why use the wide lens? Because i want a wider look than with the normal lens.
At widest zoom range everything is OK? No vignetting? No distorsion effect?
Smear?

thx

At widest zoom range there are very small portions of black at the edges of picture, but I can see those only on PC when editing. There is also very, very slight distorsion effect, which is normal thing in 0.5 wide and which i prefer in very wide shots. And no problems vith vignetting. Anyway for the price gap between WD58H, this is great "low budget" lens. I also like presence of the front filter thread. Here's the picture: http://www.praxis.hr/proizvodi/getImgXL.asp?ID=42

This advice will run counter to the conventional wisdom. I shot with a GL1 for 5 yrs., now have a GL2. I used a Kenko .7 wide angle adapter & am waiting delivery of one for GL2. It is a good piece of glass with no vignetting around the edges of the image. I saw no visible degradation of the images with the adapter as opposed to the GL's lens.

The best news is that the Kenko can be purchased for as low as $77-us. It is truly a bargain. Being the thrifty type I am not into spending $200- or more when it is not absolutely necessary. Bought mine from www.bluecraze.com.

Hope this helps.

Props to the WD58H. Great lens

Chris

Bill and Darko (or somebody, who have):

please could you send me some captured image, shooted with your Kenko/Cokin wide lens?
I cannot make a decision, which is better, you guys can help me a lot!

My email adress can be found on my homepage (ismerteto/elerhetoseg).
I dont want to write it here, because of the spam email.

Thank you!
Marton

I have a WD-58 Wide Angle Convertor that came with my GL1. Why is the WD-58 (or any other wide angle lens convertor) important? When is the best time to use a wide angle lens and when is it not appropriate to use one?

Hé Chris,

well a wide angle is very handy when you have to work in small places like in a car, small room, enc. You then have the ability to make wider images. With a wide angle you alsaw get more distance between front and background, so you can achieve a more dramatic look on close ups, ore get a person to step out of the background. The downfall of wide angle is that you get perspectif changes (a straight line will gecome a cerved one) near the edge of your picture, this is normal cause you pull light from a "wider angle" the less the wide angle lens/converter costs the more likely to have more perspectif changes.

greets,

Michael.

. . also, external, if you gotta get a whole load of a building! PLUS Landscape shots - oh yes! NOW try this with the camera's 16:9? I recently did a complete shot of the new Wembley Stadium. I got the whole shebang within frame from about 150 metres away .. Completely astonished me . .. !
WD58! It stays on all the time . . .

Don;t use? Well, at the edges you can get lampposts "bowing" in - looks as if they are praying! So as long as you are aware of this and just zoom in a tad and "move" inwards, I've found it's fine.

Grazie

Thanks Graham, thanks Michael. I'll keep you're suggestions in mind. Nice to see someone here from Belgium. Have a nice day.

I just purchased a WD-58 wide angle lens for my GL2. Would anyone recommend leaving it on the camera for a weddings? I've read other posts on leaving it on but didn't find one in regards to weddings.

thanks

Yes I would advise you to leave it on the camera for weddings. I think you wil like the results.

Thanks Bill

Well kinda.

You just gotta be sure that when you frame a church and you have the spire to one side, just be sure it aint bent too much. I am not joking. It WILL be the most important BIG shots where you are fully wide angled WI(DE that any peripheral IMPORTANT verticals will be noticed as bent. Otherwise I leave mine on all the time - I don't do weddings - but I do do big buildings. Any important verticals come away from the edge of the frame - oh yes!! And watch out for bowing/praying lampposts!!

Grazie

Nobody's have a wide lens?
The wedding season just begins, and i cannot make a decision which wide lens should i buy. Cokin/Kenko, etc..?
Please send me a picture!
I dont want to see outside a bended church.

Use your wide angle where it makes sense. There are noticably visible tradeoffs to using it so be aware that it has its place. For bridal preps it works great and is almost a must in tight quarters of dressing rooms. Reception halls also work good as they can be cramped for space as well. As Graham mentioned though, wide shots during the ceremony can be comprimised by barrel distortion. Bright spots from the ceiling can also reflect in the wide angle lens and create interesting, although unwanted effects. I've seen this several times before. My philosophy is the less glass you need to use the better.

John

I have been playing with the lens at the site of my next wedding and have seen some of the good and bad you all have described.

Thanks so much for your input

First, sorry Pretch for not posting or mailing for quite some time. I'm working hard abroad for the last 5 weeks and will be back at the end of this month. I am living near Hungarian border and often going to Pecs (very nice restaurants!) so if you are near I can bring you Cokin wide angle or if you aren't in hurry I will work in Budapest in the end of summer. BTW, nice pics on your website...Those lakes are gorgeous, aren't they? I recently worked with friends XM2 and he's got an WD58. It's really great piece of glass, but honestly I can't see any difference in pic quality compared to Cokin, except in 16-20x range, but, like I said I can live with it, especially considering price difference. I will also send you tommorow some pictures captured with wide angle.

I bought a used Century.65 wide angle lens off Ebay....They're $350 new at B&H....got it for $165....but I'm not really sure I'm noticing any greater picture quality than any other cheaper lens that I've had before....except the fact that you can still use the zoom with this lens on....
Len

I used a Canon 1014XLS Super 8 cine camera before going on to video with a Pal Canon XMI (GLI in america). I still have it and the Canon 0.5x wide angle and 1.4x Telephoto adaptors. I have found that with a 58mm to 67mm step-up ring (the cine camera had a 67mm filter size) they both work work well on the XMI.
It may be worth trying to get hold of used examples of these. As they are designed to fit on a lens with a larger front diameter they are not prone to vignetting.

Thanks Darko.
I dont' care the 16-20x range, just the widest range.
The pictures on my website, well, you know every place, right? :)
I'm waiting your email.

Marton

Darko Flajpan:
Can you send me some pics?
thx

I think the genuine Canon WD58 has got to be the safest bet, but there will be an increase in barrel distortion and you'll get 'bendy churches' Prech. But the lens is a zoom-through that you may find handy, and the multi-coating is superb.

If you want to avoid the barrel distortion yet get an even wider field of view then you'll need to fit an aspheric single element. You'll limit your zoom range to about 10x (still not bad) and you'll need to hood the lens carefully as some of these elements aren't coated.

Go here for a look-see.

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

You can see some of my lens tests using conventional sperical and unconventional aspherical wide-angles here:

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/v/tom-s-photo-album/

tom.

Tom!! - I didnt know about your site? Superb ideas you have there. I esp like the Velcro on the zoom/gear flat space area. I've got one of those on my XM2 . .. great idea. I just adore the MD and senni kit AND the Rycote to accessory shoe thing! Excellent!

Grazie

wd-58 is the an awesoem lens!

Glad you liked my pictures Graham - they really do show how awful barrel distortion can look. Yes, your XM2 has the same VAP OIS mechanism as my VX2k (the activating pistons for the prism are housed in that 'lens box'). It's an ideal place to attach the radio receiver.

Richard - I too have the Canon 1.4x telephoto (67 mm thread) and I use it on my Z1. It works beautifully, and helps claw back some of the telephoto reach lost when Sony changed their VX2000 12x zoom to a more wide-angle zoom for the Z1 and FX1. Shame the 1.4x Canon isn't coated at all, but even so, it's easy to hood effectively being a telephoto.

tom.

I have tested 2 wide lens for GL-2.
One Raynox 0,6x or 0,7x i dont rememeber:
http://www.relaxvideo.hu/raynox.jpg

There is a small vignetting, a small distorsion, the price is between the cheapest and the wd58h, about $200.

The other was the kenko 0,5/macro.
http://www.relaxvideo.hu/kenko-1.jpg

Macro: the cam was very near (1cm) to the subject:
http://www.relaxvideo.hu/kenko-2.jpg

There is more vignetting, more distorsion, and the price is fantastic:
about $100.

I do not buy, just tested.

TOM:
I see this Ultra Wide Lens Aspheric II (UWL II) 58mm.
Is this good for my xm2, and the price is only 100 EUR?
Do i need anything else? I will order one!

thx,
Marton

The Ultra Wide Lens Aspheric II (UWL II) 58mm will work very well on your XM2 Prech, and I have two of them. There are some points worth noting. These UWL II lenses are high pressure injection mouldings (like the Red Eye lenses) but they're not coated at all, so you'll have to be careful about hooding and flare spots.

You shouldn't use them with filters between the aspheric and your XM2's zoom. I was surprised to see the Kenko and Raynox vignetting in your shots - did you have a UV filter in place maybe?

If you do order one then you should make sure you can return it if you're unhappy, but I really like mine and for buildings and interiors it looks superb - no vignetting or barrel distortion.

tom.

Hi.

No, it wasnt any filter between xm2 and the wide lenses.
I dont use UV filter.
I see the vignetting only in pc when editing, and of course on the wall with a projector.

You say, carefully hooding. Did you mean these 20 EUR Sonnenblende?
Do you have in 58mm?
I want to use it in nature, landscapes.

What is the ratio? 0,5-0,7??
I dont want to make a quick decision because i'm afraid, when i buy it, and after a few month i have a new cam (hc-1, hc-3, or another cheap hd cam),
this lens will not fit on these. Or can i buy a step up ring, and for every camcorder that has less than 58mm diameter, i can use this lens?
That would be GOOD!

Yes, the 20 EUR Sonnenblende. But this may cause vignetting as the Schneider is a 0.6x so sees very wide. You can see the results of my test here:

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/v/tom-s-photo-album/Schneider_Kreuznach.jpg.html

And yes, with an adapter ring you can use it on any number of cameras - I use it on the Panasonic MX300 with a 43 mm thread.

tom.

And what about picture quality in high definition?
As i see, almost every brand has their wide angle lens in more expensive HD version. I dont want to degrade the resolution with "DV optics".

(sorry for my english)

You're believing the marketing department too much. These Schneider Kreutznach lenses were originally made for the Super-8 format, and a Super-8 frame is much more like an HDV chip than a DV chip. At 4.1 x 5.4 mm, it's also considerably bigger.

I have recently changed over from a VX2000 to a Z1. If I film with them both in the standard definition mode, I can tell you that the VX2k gives better picture quality. The Z1 has a 'Hi-Def' lens OK, but the camera itself is only backwards compatible for good solid marketing reasons.

So don't worry that Schneider made lo-def and hi-def versions of the UWII - they didn't. The injection moulding tools were very expensive to produce with their complex aspheric surface, and there's no point in 'degrading' that because it doesn't make any of the lenses any cheaper.


Nothing wrong with your English Prech.

tom.

So annoyed, I just about a WD58H lens off an Amazon seller, and despite the H, it shipped without the tulip lens hood. I'm waiting to hear back from him now, but I'm also looking online and having trouble finding anyone who sells it. I called Canon, and they have the part for $20 + shipping + tax...So I figure I must be able to buy it cheaper online. But I don't know much about lens hoods.

The part number from Canon is D52-0210-000.

Thanks!

Also, when the zoom is at full wide angle, I see rounded lines on the sides. I read that most people could use the full zoom with the lens in. Is this normal?

Best bet is to buy from Canon since they are the ones who make it. $20 is cheap compared to the $52 it cost me for a replacement lens hood on the 16X manual.

You likely won't find it anywhere else online.

-gb-

Thanks for the advice. $52??? That's highway robbery!

It's highway robbery only if you don't actually receive the item. Otherwise it's known as charging what the market will bear... which is a very common thing in this industry. $20 is a bargain.

It seems my white balance is a bit blue when I am using the Canon Wideangle lens.

I use the auto setting.
When I remove the wide angle lens, the white balance seems good.

Anyone else notice this?

How are you testing this? The WD will also reduce light levels, maybe this is what you are seeing too? It is a big piece of glass.

I can tell by the viewfinder and the resultant image on the screen.

I am new to DV cameras, but have used 35mm for years.
I agree that the lens might reduce the light available, but why would this shift the color on the white balance?

I can tell by the viewfinder and the resultant image on the screen. I understand. So you haven't put this through any Test & Measurement [T&M] software?


I am new to DV cameras, but have used 35mm for years. - I've only been with DV for 4 years. No 35mm experience here - so you have the "jump" on me in that dept!


I agree that the lens might reduce the light available, . . . - Well it does. Not a lot, but it is noticeable on the EXPOSURE scale. I got about 0.25 DOWN of one of the exposure "notches". That is a quarter OF a quarter!

. . . but why would this shift the color on the white balance? Well, maybe what you see on the screen is sensitive to the light levels and the actual LCD is reacting to that. See? The less light, the MORE of the BLUE spectrum you would see - yeah?

But anyway, I was making conjecture. What I really wanted to do was set up a T&M session.

OK, I just spent an interesting hour setting up HAMLET T&M software using my XM2 as the device and sent a signal WITH and WITHOUT the wide-angle.

In a controlled, artificially light environment I white balanced. I used my Pro White Cards for white balancing and executed the correct white balance procedure. White balanced locked and stayed locked.

Exposure was kept to the optimum setting of F4.4. All settings were MANUAL.

Using the RGB Parade manifest of HAMLET T&M, the results indicate that there is no "apparent" difference from WIDE to non-WIDE angle. Each of the Red, Green and Blue wave forms have the similar distribution - both "visually ( ie LOOKING at the curves weight and density!) AND the scalar values.

As it happens I DO have an opportunity to visit HAMLET very soon, and as I have "printed-off" a colour copy of the screens, I shall be quizzing the professional T&M specialist on our behalf.

Interesting, if only to have got me off my bum and do some empirical testing for once!

Grazie

when i attach a wd58h the whitebalance doesn't change.