Nobody? :-(

the 6600 is supposed to be a "high quality" lens, says "HD" right on the box, FWIW. I used it on an HV20 and with a 43-37 stepdown adapter for my Sonys - I don't use it anymore, but it's still in my kit. No noticeable barrelling, maybe a bit of CA towards the edges on bright lines (pretty common from my experience), never really had it under conditions where lens flare was an issue. HTH

Today i buy a 58mm 6600Pro, and a 37->58 step up ring, so my HV10 looks like a monster. But i'm not sure, i made a good deal..
The distorsion is really little on the edge, see the wardrobe on picture.
BUT.. There is a HUGE lensflare when there is a light on the picture.
On the 3rd pics, the lamp is even NOT visible on the screen, but the bad flares are there:( What can i do??
When i film a speaking people, and above the man is a lamp, i can see always those blue circles??
I haven't time to film outdoor, but i would like making nature videos where the sun is in the picture, so i guess, this horrible effect will visible.
This lens is not a multi coated one?
Wasnt so cheap, and nobody says from here: beware of spotlight!

help
i dont know, if i can return to shop, and when yes, what else can i buy

Contrary to some other experiences the Raynox 0.5 HD5050PRO does vignette on the HV10. It doesn't look like it in the view finder, but when you pull it into the computer it is there.

Also, the image is fairly sharp in the middle, but looses sharpness as you go to the edge by a factor of somewhere between 2 & 4- just eye balling it.

It has some barrel distortion, but I kind of liked the artsy look.

Also there was some previous discussion about removing the 37-37mm adapter ring. On the HV10 that is not a good idea because the lense will rub against the camera's front.

If you are sure you are going to use it in an overscan display then it might be OK, but I think I am going to have to return it. I am going to consider the Raynox 49mm which was previously suggested or maybe the Canon 0.7X.

Rick

I agree with Rick. It is a very bad lense. If Lee Wilson had not written that it is a good lense, I had not bought this lense. Without the adaptor ring, at full wide it still makes vignetting, the middle of the image is clear, but close to the edge, it is very fuzzy and unclear.

Prech, I too had the 6600 Pro on my TRV900. I really liked the lens but like you I found that the single (not multi) coating did mean that it was very prone to flare, as you've found out. However, I used it with a good 4:3 aspect ratio lens hood (see pic) and as long as you stop unwanted light hitting the front element, it works very well indeed. It certainly had a lot less barrel distortion than the 3x more expensive Century.

Johann - you say you're getting vignetting with the 5050 lens, but I certainly don't see that on your pictures here. It may well be slightly darker towards the picture corners, but it seems to be the least of your worries if you're not getting a sharp image all over.

tom.

Hi Tom

I need a hood for my 6600, just wondered where you got ours from and if it comes into view at full wide?

Cheers

That picture of me and the TRV900+hood. I had to lighten the hood in Photoshop as it's so matt black it just looked like a silhouette in the original photo. Anyway, it came from an old Chinon Super-8 ciné camera from the early 80s, and such excellent hoods are very hard to find now.

At full wide the hood did indeed vignette so I had to 'pull it rearwards' on the 6600 PRO. The design of the hood made this possible because it clamped around the outside of the 6600 - I didn't use the lens's 'filter' threads.

I don't use the hood any more as I shoot 16:9 exclusively now, and it's a 4:3 hood so not efficient enough for me.

tom.

Tom, thanks for answer.

A multi coating lens will not produce any lens flare?
And such a lens is very expensive?
6600 wasn't so cheap, so i guessed before purchase, it is a multi coated one.
But the seller says, only the professional category is, where lens flare doesnt exist (for exaple interchangeable lens, XL1, XH1, etc).
But in this category (camcorder original lens + wide lens) i will not find any, that doesnt do lens flare.

Yes, i need a good hood. But in 16:9.
Here in Hungary, i not find even a good 4:3 one, so i will do it myself.
Where shoud i began? (material, etc)

thx,
Marton

All lenses produce flare Marton. All pieces of plastic and glass (elements within the lens) bounce back a tiny amount of light rather than letting the light pass through, and it's this that lets you 'see' a piece of glass in your hands. If all the light passed through, the piece of glass would become effectively invisible.

Glass reflects back about 8 to 10% of the light that hits it. Coat the glass and that drops to 1%. Multi-coat and you can get this down to 0.3%. Fine, but when your lens consists of 18 elements (a typical 12x zoom with two NDs and three beam-splitting prisms between the world and the chips) these figures mount up.

All lenses flare - it's just that some do more than others. Zooms more than primes, unhooded ones more than hooded ones. Cheap ones more than expensive ones.

If you add a typical 3 element widie to your camcorder's zoom, that's another 6 air-2-glass surfaces you've added, and again, the flare levels rise. And flare is not just about shooting into the light. If you film a piece of white paper in a dark table you get exactly the same thing - flare within the lens.

Good man - make yourself an efficient hood in 16:9. Stiff, very black plastic and superglue maybe. Remember a 'shadowed' hood (like the PD150 has) is the very best design, where the front rectangular mask 'shadows' the interior of the hood, so that it's even less reflective.

And remember that with any zoom lens, your hood will only be efficient at full wide-angle. At all the other 100 focal lengths up to full zoom the hood gets less and less efficient, so think on this when you shoot into the light.

tom.

I bought the Merkury CL-52WB (.45x) mentioned in another thread. I'm happy with it, but would like something wider for filming my kids indoors. They usually ending up inside 5 feet of me, and I'm just not capturing all the action.

Any recommendations? My budget is $90.00

really? a 0,45x one isnt enough wide?
you need a fisheye lens, but this will distort the edge a lot!

I feel the same as Prech - 0.45x isn't wide enough? On a Canon HV? You'll just have to pan L & R to get all the kids in.

I read another thread (http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=101539) and learned it's not as wide as the specs would have you believe. See below:

Nathan - your Merkury isn't .45x - it's roughly .75x, even less wide than the Canon WD-H43. That's b/c of the macro lens that sits behind it. Take off (unscrew it) and you have a .45x semi-fisheye (hence the ".45x wide angle"). Problem is, there's no way to mount it on your HV20 without the macro lens.

I have the same lens (probably) as discussed earlier, which works fine as long as you don't zoom!!! But to get a wide angle for USD under $50? (I think actually it was a lot less) compared to Canons - and with reasonable optics as long as you're on wide - what a steal! Distortion is appalling of course on anything but the widest settings.

Unrelated - but maybe someone can help. I picked up an old Hasselblad bellows to use as a mattebox, 62mm, and even found the screw in for the bayonet mount (trying to 'professionalize' my HV20), but getting a macro ring for 62 to 62 (diameter of Mercury wide angle) so it can fit has proved impossible. This is an old-style Hass bellows.

The Merkury is fitted with a step up ring from 43-53mm of course - so am looking also for a solution to fit my Hass Bellows to the HV20 (inside) diameter of 43mm. Of course if my HV20 was working (see my post regarding Canon warranties....you've been warned before travelling!!) it would make things easier, considering I just received four 2400 mah batteries from best batteries.com!

I wound up removing the glass from the macro and use it as a
mounting ring for the .45x. Now I actually have a .45 wide angle.

Jim


Nathan - your Merkury isn't .45x - it's roughly .75x, even less wide than the Canon WD-H43. That's b/c of the macro lens that sits behind it. Take off (unscrew it) and you have a .45x semi-fisheye (hence the ".45x wide angle"). Problem is, there's no way to mount it on your HV20 without the macro lens.[/QUOTE]

I bet it barrel distorts like crazy, yes?

I intend to get an HV30 and will need a wide angle adaptor. The Raynox HD6600 has been well reviewed, but from an existing Sony TRV950, I have a
Sony HG0737X (x0.7). Would this be suitable? The Raynox appears to be a cheaper lens than my Sony. Would I really benefit from buying the Raynox? Am I missing something?

The Raynox 6600 PRO is a wide-converter that has amazingly little barrel distortion - far less than the Century of the same power. BUT, and it's quite a big but - the lens isn't very well coated and flare levels can be high if it's not well hooded. Also it can only be used as a half zoom-through, as it gets pretty soft at full tele. The softness is quite attractive on women of a certain age, but all in all I sold mine and went for something sharper.

The 0737 by Sony will distort straight lines more which doesn't look good in my view. It's also marginally less powerful, but you'll be able to zoom through it all day long. If your HV30 has a 37 mm filter thread, then I'd stick with the Sony lens - or at least till you get sick of bendy door frames and brides that are fatter in the middle.

tom.

Thanks Tom. I had read your earlier posts about barrel distortion and lens flare.
If I have to pick between the two evils, I would choose the least distortion.

I`m getting ancient and lightness is a priority; hence the intended HV30 and
possible Raynox 6600 PRO, the latter being relatively light. I would use the camcorder almost entirely to record the scenery and architecture on my travels, ultimately PC edited, burned to DVD and viewed on a domestic TV.

I note your warning about the tele. end of the zoom, but anticipate little need for that.

Regarding flare, I have seen, in another thread, the Canon XH A1 hood being used on an HV20m but this does not seem to be separately available and in any case, would it be superior to the alternative Cavision LH-77, which I can get? Am I right in thinking that the latter would be preferable to any circular hood (even though it`s not 16:9, but what is available that is?) (But, if I can get it, the Canon appears to be deeper (better?))

Do you think either hood would well reduce the risk of lens flare with the
6600PRO?

I am thinking that this combination is likely to be the most cost-effective consumer application.

any chance that canon will release the WD-H43 in black to match the hv30, I really hope so!!! Hopefully someone has some inside info...

You're right Harry - the 6600 PRO is very light, and I suspect there's a high pressure injection moulded aspheric element in the lens's lineup. This would explain the lack of barrel distortion and also the softness at full tele.

I used a 4:3 hood on my Raynox and yes, the longer the hood (and the blacker and matter) the better. In fact in an efficiency order there's shadowed aspect ratio hoods, then non-shadowed, then petal, then circular, then front element masking. Whatever you do hood it with though (even a French flag) will improve contrast and hide the fact that the front element isn't spotless.

The 6600 comes with a front thread. For hoods, not filters! And if you're shooting HDV on the HV30, I'd see if you can test out the 6600 on a posh 1080 telly before you clinch the deal simply because the 6600 is a fairly old design now. Hague might be party to this.

tom.

I bet it barrel distorts like crazy, yes?

Sorry for the delayed responses, Tom. Indeed it does barrel distort like crazy!

I consider it as more of a special effect that an everyday wide angle. I found the Merkury compromised the native HV20 image quality too much, so no way I was going to keep it on the camera for any length of time, and of course with the macro glass, we're no getting that much of a wide angle anyway.

Since it was so cheap, I had no qualms about converting to a true .45 "effects" lens.

Thanks again, Tom. If you are not already aware of them, I would like to direct your attention to the following postings on the HV20 Forum:

1. "Accessories & Equipment" - "The BIG wide angle lens adapter shootout"
Post by "zephyrnoid" 26.1.08 (02.28)and then on to the direction to his own web site;

2. "Accessories & Equipment" - "Raynox SRW-6600-58LE Test"
Post by "CycleWriter" 9.4.08.

All things are relative and coming through Hi8 and DV, I would be happy with the results shown, even at 10X. Part of this, I suppose, is due to the HV20 quality.
These tests, couple with your confirmatory comments decided me to get the
52mm+Raynox step up ring, as recommended by Raynox, and I already have them.

Also, I have found a source for the Canon XH-A1 hood and have this on order.
This needs no thread, as I understand it will fit snugly on the outside of the 6600. I would hope that this hood would come next to the top in your order of efficiency list.

That's right Harry - second to top. The VX2000's hood (note - not the barn-doors lens cap design of the VX2100) is a very good example of the shadowed hood - the internal shadow being caused by the rectangular mask at the front.

You may have to 'petal' cut the Canon hood when it arrives, depending on how you fit it to the 6600 PRO. Don't believe your overscanning v'finder, get to see the entire frame in your NLE's software.

In my arsenal of cameras I have an FX1. The top-screen's overscanning (ug!) is huge - far worse than on any of my CRT or LCD TVs.

tom.

I've just had a look at the zephyrnoid test. Interesting, as Canon's 0.7x wide is much admired, but it certainly barrel distorts more than the more powerful 6600Pro.

As others have said - the Raynox needs careful hooding and mine carried only single layered coating, I'm sure. Like my Tecpro 0.5x (I do have rather a lot of wide-angle converters) I suspect that to keep costs down Raynox only coat the front surface of the front element - the most important one to be sure.

tom.

If you're concerned about barrell distortion here's a link to a clip I shot using the Raynox WA mentioned previously.

http://vimeo.com/890157

With all the parallel lines it would be easy to spot any distortion from this lens. There's also some zooming going on and you can see that the PQ suffers almost imperceptibly.

Rick (aka CycleWriter)

Impressive, Rick. What camera is the 6600 bolted to?

Impressive, Rick. What camera is the 6600 bolted to?

HV20, of course. :)

just wanted to be sure ...

Here's a link to a little comparison I did using the Raynox SRW6600 and a cheap Ambico 0.5X Wide Angle lenses at various stages of Zoom-Through. I think you can see the differences between a cheap WA adapter and one like the Raynox that is used by so many in here. Although the Raynox does show some degradation of PQ towards the end of the zoom range, it is nowhere near as bad as the Ambico, which shows dramatic increases in both chromatic aberrations and edge blur very early on. All shots were taken on a tripod using Auto settings. Click on the full size pics to see the real differences.

http://www.sameteam.net/WA/index.html

Another interesting thing is that although the Ambico is labeled as 0.5X, the field of view is less than the Raynox's .66.

I have similar lens with HV10:
a 37mm 0,55x cheap Focus Optics wide angle
and a 58mm 0,66x Raynox 6600 Pro. (with 37->58 adaptor)

My experience is the same as yours.
The cheap lens have more distorsion on the edge, and shows vignetting even at full wide setting. But if i remove the macro part ot the lens, the viewing angle increase, and i think it is the 0,55x. But in this case the distorsion and vignetting is very BIG! useless.. only for special shots.

With the Raynox. We have the same lens? What is the SRW code?
It is too bad, not to have a full zoom capability. Because each time i need a very close view i have to pick off the lens, and when i want the widest view i have to put on. I dont have any vignetting, because the 37->58mm ring, but a little distorsion at edge. Liveable.

Can anybody recommend a good 0,5-0,6x WA in 37-43mm filter size, that doesnt show vignetting and make no more distorsion than the 6600?
I have another cam for stereo video, and i dont think a new 6600 is the best choice. What is with the 5050Pro? Or with other brand?

thx,
Marton

Prech - these people make a lens that satisfies your requirements for no barrel distortion and no vignetting:

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

the SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH Ultra Wide Lens Aspheric III (UWL III) Version C is the one you should look at I reckon.

It's not a full zoom through and you'll have to check to see if it's a coated optic, but it's powerful - and door frames won't bow outwards as you track room to room.

tom.

Tom, thank you for recommendation.
we have discussed this lens in email some months ago.
the price is a bit high for me, and there is also the lensflare issue.
i have to buy a good hood.
if someone here in hungary sell this lens, i can test it, and buy.

Marton

I just recieved my HV20 yesterday and was trying to purchace a wide angle lens.

Does anyone know what the difference between the WD-43 and the WD-H43?? B&H only stocks the WD-43 but other sites recommend the WD-H43 for the HV20.

Just curious if there was any difference between them.

Thanks,

Steve


EDIT: I might have answered my own question. Does the H stand for Hi-Def lens?

Hello Forum Members,
Has anyone purchased the Crystal Vision Limited Edition High Definition 58mm 0.5x Pro Wide Lens W/ Macro as a replacement for the unavailable 43mm Wide angle Lenses from Canon or Raynox? Distributor is New World Video Direct
http://www.newworldvideodirect.com/productdetail.asp?ProductID=2568
Saleman says it is on a promotional sale for $190 each including step ring???
Post your experiences with this lens please.
Cheers,
Christo

It sounds like a lot of money for a 'no-name' lens Christo, but might be worth a try if they say you can get a refund if you're unhappy. If they're not happy to sell under this proviso, it probably means it's a bit iffy. I'd stick to the known names if at all possible.

Anyone tried out Schneider's 43mm wide angle lens yet?

It's listed as a .5x, so it's not as wide as the Canon's WD-H43.

Best,

It sounds like a lot of money for a 'no-name' lens Christo, but might be worth a try if they say you can get a refund if you're unhappy. If they're not happy to sell under this proviso, it probably means it's a bit iffy. I'd stick to the known names if at all possible.
Tom,
Yes, you were correct,.. that was a bait-and-switch going down! I had just found this forum's sponsor listing for the "Century" WD glass, http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=127178 So, I just purchased (2). Has anyone done a field test and or side by side comparison, with the Canon and Ray WD lenses? I have yet seen anything from forum users, I had to trust on this for a Sunday excursion departure.
Cheers,
Christo

Hi Christo,

Which 2 Century items did you buy? And how is it with the HV20/30?

Best,

Hi Christo,

Which 2 Century items did you buy? And how is it with the HV20/30?

Best,

Hello Jeff,
I purchased Century .5X WD Angle HD 43 MM lenses for a new Canon HV-30 Cam. Also a 67E Clear UV Haze (010) filter lens screwed on the front of each Century WD. From the Cam out I have a Neutral Density filter first, then a Polarizer filter before the Century. I have not captured from tape yet, but I noticed that Wide Out give a barreling around the corners. That is just looking at the flip monitor. Is that normal for that lens configuration? If I touch the Tele just a tad, the corner distortion is eliminated. Has anyone else field test these (Century) lenses yet?
Cheers,
Christo

Thanks Christo.

I needed to buy a wide angle quickly (purchased from Zotz Digital), so I went ahead and bought the Canon WD-H43 instead. But the Century sounds like it has filter threads on the front (unlike the Canon). So far, the Canon wide has been working fine for me.

Best,

Christo, space your fingertips just 4.5 mm apart and see how minute such a focal length is. And when you're shooting at such focal lengths it very difficult indeed to avoid imperfections (dust and fingerprints that are all but invisible to the naked eye) from being within the depth of field and appearing pretty sharply on your image.

You've all seen the wide shot against the light spoilt by dirty filters.
Hooding a wideangle is difficult at the best of times and these imperfections I'm talking about are painfully obvious. Another point - adding but one filter adds two reflecting (and maybe dusty) surfaces.

Modern multicoatings are really hard these days and it takes a halfwit to scratch the front element by scrubbing. You can see that I'm not keen on 'protection' filters with camcorders.

Of course there are times when a clear UV is good mechanical insurance protection. Sticky-fingered children's parties, wind-swept beaches and so on. But when you don't need the protection, don't use them. If Canon thought that adding another element to the line-up of 12 would give you better pictures, you can bet the camera would come with one.

So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and remove them if you want the best picture quality.

tom.

The barrel distortion you notice is very common indeed with spherically ground supplementary lenses. You can (as you've found out) zoom in and you'll lessen the effect, and when you've zoomed in to such a position that you're back to your camcorder's normal wide-angle view the distortion will be at its minimum.

But this isn't why you bought such a lens - you wanted to see wider. The barrel distortion will always be there, barreling your windows, doors and brides. I keep well away from such lenses unless I'm filming under water, where the effect is all but invisible.

And Jeff - they're hood threads, not filter threads on the front of wide-angles.

tom.

Christo, space your fingertips just 4.5 mm apart and see how minute such a focal length is. And when you're shooting at such focal lengths it very difficult indeed to avoid imperfections (dust and fingerprints that are all but invisible to the naked eye) from being within the depth of field and appearing pretty sharply on your image.

You've all seen the wide shot against the light spoilt by dirty filters.
Hooding a wideangle is difficult at the best of times and these imperfections I'm talking about are painfully obvious. Another point - adding but one filter adds two reflecting (and maybe dusty) surfaces.

Modern multicoatings are really hard these days and it takes a halfwit to scratch the front element by scrubbing. You can see that I'm not keen on 'protection' filters with camcorders.

Of course there are times when a clear UV is good mechanical insurance protection. Sticky-fingered children's parties, wind-swept beaches and so on. But when you don't need the protection, don't use them. If Canon thought that adding another element to the line-up of 12 would give you better pictures, you can bet the camera would come with one.

So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and remove them if you want the best picture quality.

tom.


Thanks Tom,
I appreciate your perspective. If I had a crew..., could slow down time..., and multiple pre fitted cams to choose from..., it would be a more "perfect" shooters world. On my recent test shoot in the RMNP, Colorado, all I could hope for was best light available, some nice shadows, no flairs, and low winds to keep the shots steady on pans. Switching or removing extra lenses in the field seemed like too much practical effort to keep the lenses clean and tight. This was also in consideration that I had two duel cams side by side in Stereo, that needed identical filters/lenses and constant checks for alianment.
So, I wonder if what you say also holds true for high end HD pro cams as well as their pro filters/lenses ( WD Angle etc.)?
Cheers,
Christo

Hello Jeff,
I purchased Century .5X WD Angle HD 43 MM lenses for a new Canon HV-30 Cam. Also a 67E Clear UV Haze (010) filter lens screwed on the front of each Century WD. From the Cam out I have a Neutral Density filter first, then a Polarizer filter before the Century. I have not captured from tape yet, but I noticed that Wide Out give a barreling around the corners. That is just looking at the flip monitor. Is that normal for that lens configuration? If I touch the Tele just a tad, the corner distortion is eliminated. Has anyone else field test these (Century) lenses yet?
Cheers,
Christo

The barreling at the edges is normal for a lens this wide. We have tried to minimize this effect as much as possible but you have to go down to about .65x to really minimize the effect.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Anyone tried out Schneider's 43mm wide angle lens yet?

It's listed as a .5x, so it's not as wide as the Canon's WD-H43.

Best,

The .7x from Canon is 30% wider than your exiting lens and the Century .5x is 50% wider than your existing lens. Unless Canon announced a new wide angle lower than .5x that I haven't seen.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Hello Ryan, and Forum Members.
Because you are most familiar with this Century .5x WD Angle lens, I will address you first. I have captured footage from my HV-30. All filming was provided while this cam was attached to my helmet. The shots were fantastic, color was bright and we were completely soaked but loved it! We navigated seven miles of class 3 & 4 rapids on the Cache La Poudre river in Northern Colorado, and stayed in the raft. Here is my problem. I had no way to adjust a back off touch of WD Angle, from a full WD Angle adjustment. I couldn't see the flip LCD, to correct for the barreling. So, all footage was captured with barrel distortion. Now with the HD footage captured using FCP, I'm looking to somehow crop out the barreled corners. A specific degree of zoom perhaps? Have you, or anyone else successfully made similar editing to reduce these barreled effects?
Cheers,
Christo
The .7x from Canon is 30% wider than your exiting lens and the Century .5x is 50% wider than your existing lens. Unless Canon announced a new wide angle lower than .5x that I haven't seen.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

The .7x from Canon is 30% wider than your exiting lens and the Century .5x is 50% wider than your existing lens. Unless Canon announced a new wide angle lower than .5x that I haven't seen.

Ryan Avery
Schneider OpticsRyan,

Can you explain "partial zoom through" a little bit? I believe it means I can zoom (w/ autofocus enabled) from wide to about 1/3rd zoomed in w/o any problems. Is that correct?

What happens if I try to zoom past 1/3rd of the zoom range?

I believe Canon's adapter has full zoom through but it's not as wide.

Can you comment further on differences among your adapter and the Canon and Raynox HD-6600?

Thanks much!

All the partial zoom-throughs I've used in the last 18 years or so have allowed quite a lot of zoom. My Z1 with its 0.52x converter allows me to go from 0 to 65 on a 0 to 99 zoom scale, so it's still a very useful range.

If I film at the 65 setting and zoom into tele just a tiny bit the whole frame blurs instantly and very prettily - something I cannot replicate in post. I use this a lot for focus blur dissolves (from church flowers to bride's face, say). If you do this with the sun in frame the specular highlights are wonderful.

So single element non zoom-throughs are much to my liking. If they're aspherics they can give zero barrel distortion and they inherently give less flare simply because they use less elements. They're also lighter, smaller and generally cheaper than the full zoom-throughs, but the latter are useful for cameras that have poor wide-angle in the first place (PD170, V1 etc).

tom.

So after reading this entire thread front to finish I've decided on going with the Raynox 6600 Pro. I also read the entire thread, which is 3x as long, over at the HV20 forum about this same subject. However after reading all the questions and desiphering the answers, I wasn't able to conclude on the best choice for a lens hood.

I am also researching for a cheap matte box. My purpose mainly is to make my HV30 look less "amaturish" if you can understand..

Thanks,
Terry.

Know just what you mean Terry. Pop over to have a look at the Cavision hoods
Cavision Lens Hoods (http://www.cavision.com/LensHood/sunshade.htm)
remembering that you want a 16:9 one.

Also remember that the 6600PRO (I had one) isn't completely zoom-through (as Raynox are quick to admit). It softens noticably beyond the 60% zoom point, but that's probably a side-effect of it's barrel distortion control.

tom.