After two days of testing, I just bought the new Fujinon Th17 x 5BRMU lens for my HD100. Here are my initial observations:

Back focus: much easier, with a back focus ring that is machined much better than the one on the stock lens.

Focus tracking: if you get the back focus right, the focus tracks perfectly between telephoto and wide angle. (I had trouble setting back focus with the stock lens, perhaps due to lower resolution; whether a result of this or not, I but still had a lot of problems with focus tracking (or racking) with the stock lens.)

Resolution: Although I don't have a resolution chart to give you numbers, there was a noticable improvement in resolution over the stock lens; I saw this in the star chart, as well as looking at some recorded footage on my 24" progressive scan monitor. I also found the focus assist feature worked farther into the wide angle settings; with some scenes I could use it even at 40mm. Might be due to the better resolution providing more high frequency detail to work with as the lens is widened.

Speed or light: I also gained a solid stop of exposure, actually close to 2 stops. I will do more testing to verify this.

Color and contrast: the color was more saturated and rich than the stock lens; I also perceived slightly more contrast in the images; using the star chart I also noticed a slight improvment in contrast. Might have been the improved resolution.

Breathing: still has some; didn't do a comparison with the stock lens.

Chromatic Aberation: have not yet had a chance to create the conditions that cause it; I'll report back after I do some shooting next week. Have not noticed any yet.

Unfortunately I have not had a chance to compare it to the 13x wide angle lens, but I feel it is well worth the money, and a solid improvement over the stock lens.

The filter threads are 82mm, and the outer shade ring is 85mm, same as the stock lens; about 1/2" longer, and somewhat heavier. I would suggest a lens stabilizing rig, like a set of rods with the lens support piece at the end, to prevent flexing of the lens mount on the camera body, which results in focus changes; those of you with a good matt box already have this problem solved.

Keep the shiny side up.

Gary

Thank you, Gary. That's good news about the better image quality. I've been eyeing that lens since it was announced. $3k, right? Where did you purchased it from?

George,

A local reseller, Media Tools, in Bellevue Washington. E-mail me direct and I'll give you his phone, address etc.

Gary

Is the narrower focus a problem?

Joe,

Not sure what you mean by narrower focus?

Gary

Chromatic Aberation: have not yet had a chance to create the conditions that cause it; I'll report back after I do some shooting next week. Have not noticed any yet.


Shoot wide open, or anything from 2.8 - open, stay near the end of the telephoto, and rack focus a little, this will show more CA. Since you are trying to create the condition anyway. ;)

After working with the 13X just tonight for the first time, I'm real interested in what you found with the Fujinon 17X. I imagine the 17X might be better than the 16X simply due to better glass and it's higher price, but it's not going to be a cure for CA altogether. However, the other aspect's you mention make it a consideration.

If you don't mind me asking, about what was the price range you saw (or paid) for the 17X? We are convinced that we will upgrade our lens both for the 250 purchase, as well as our current HD100.

I think list is around $3300.

I'll have more to report after more shooting in the field. You might say I'll be outstanding in my field.

Sorry.

Gary

Gary, maybe I'm confused, but at full wide, I thought the 17x would be narrower than the 16x.

The 16x is 5.5mm at its wide end, the 17x is 5mm - hence the 17x is very slightly wider than the stock 16x lens.

Now that we're talking about its wide end.
How is barrel distortion on the 17X5 compared to the stock at wide?

Steven,

Barrell distortion, or what I've always called parallax error, at the same focal length (5.5mm), is just about the same in both lenses. It might be slightly more at 5mm, but I cant really tell for sure just checking against some doorways in the house. In either case it is not excessive enough to be an issue for me. Certainly a lot less than "Pro" level std def lenses I've used.

I've also just checked CA, and although still there, is noticeably less on the 17x than the stock lens.

Remember, these are my observations, and also based on the type of shooting I do. Yours may vary, so I suggest test, test, test.

Gary

Can someone possibly take a picture and "draw" in Photoshop the field of view comparison between the two lenses? I think Tim did something like this with the WA adapter, the 13x wide zoom and the stock lens. Pretty please...?

Is barrel distortion the fish eye effect?

OK, this is the last report of my testing on the 17x lens.

Earlier I reported I had gained a stop or two with the new lens over the stock lens. I was in error.

The light outside had changed some, and I took an erroneous reading on my light meter. I just did a controlled test indoors, with tungsten lighting, and both lenses are virtually identical, using the point where zebras just start to show as a reference point.

I know better! Sorry about that.

I am still happy with my purchase, and for the type of shooting I do, breathing is not an issue. Having a super wide angle is also not an issue; although the WCV-82 WA converter does not fit the 17x, I could always snap the stock lens back on with the converter to get that slight extra width.

I would assume if you do a lot of indoor or dramatic shooting, then the 13x or the coming 18x4.2 would be the answer.

Enough of my rambling for one night.

Gary

And how's the weight of the 17x5 compared to the 16x5.5 ?

On http://users.telenet.be/wespproductions/wesp-kiezen.htm you can see I'm doing a lot of hand-held shooting and even with 1 or 2 small IDX batteries the camera with standard lens isn't perfectly balanced, so I'm worried about a heavier lens...

Werner,

The stock lens weighs 1 Kg, or about 2.2 pounds. The 17x is 1/2 inch (about 12mm) longer, and weighs 2.75 pounds (1.25 Kg).

I also found the additional weight taxes the front plate/lens mount on the camera, and just laying my hand on the focus ring to pull focus caused focus problems from lens movement (the stock lens does this too, but the extra weight and length of the 17x exacerbates the problem). I made a lens support piece which solved the problem completely.

As a note, I do very little hand held work; mine is mostly tripod, jib, fixed mount etc. I'm 63 (just think of all that experience), and just standing straight up and still is a problem, let alone with a camera. Unless I'm dancing. Heh, heh.

Gary

I'm 63 (just think of all that experience), and just standing straight up and still is a problem, let alone with a camera. Unless I'm dancing. Heh, heh.

I can't help laughing, I'm sorry.... but I'm thinking of all the experience... :-)

You don't want to go there. Unless drinking beer. Or a single malt.

Gary

"I am still happy with my purchase, and for the type of shooting I do, breathing is not an issue. Having a super wide angle is also not an issue; although the WCV-82 WA converter does not fit the 17x, I could always snap the stock lens back on with the converter to get that slight extra width."

I'm wondering why the 17x lens doesn't work w/ the WCV-82 WA. It's a 82mm thread, no?

wide adapter for the 17x. I'm curious about this as well.... I have the 17x lens and assumend that the 82mm thread adapter for the 16x would fit - the lens brochure points to very expensive adapters (I've posted already on this)
I don't have a 16x on hand to compare feel, resultant frame effect between 5.5 and 5 etc, CA etc, but after looking at the 16x at shows, the 17x really seems to have a better build. I'm convinced that the lens is really critical on this camera, since they seem to be doing so well on the other elements in the chain!

Are there threads on the front of the lens? If there are, it should screw right on, no?

Are there threads on the front of the lens? If there are, it should screw right on, no?

Yes the lens has 82mm threads on the front. But Gary actually has the units, so he would know.... Maybe it mounts with the hood bayonet, maybe there is vignetting at the 17x 5mm setting... I'd like to know too.

Yep, I do know. The WA adapter is 82mm threads, and I got fooled.

The problem is, the 17x front lens element is closer to the threads than on the stock lens, and the adapter body protrudes beyond the threads to the point it interferes with the front lens element on the 17x.

So, when I have the need for the wide angle, I have to put the stock lens back on.

There is is.

Gary

I REALLY dislike the plastic lens barrel and, therefore, plastic threads on the 16x lens. I bought the 17x and am much happier with this lens. Even with a metal filter adapter ring, the clamp on my mattbox will distort the 16x plastic barrel enough to bind the focus ring.

What do you do if you want the wider angle? Did you have the WCV-82 WA before? How much more does the adapter give you than the 17x lens? Is there any way to get the WCV-82 WA to work with the 17x lens or do you have to go back to the stock lens?

That's a lot of questions. Sorry.

Thanks Gary,
Bill Parker: I think Gary answered your questions very directly - please reread his last post. The different focal lengths can be easilly calculated. The JVC (fujinon) adapter is a .82 adapter on a 5.5mm lens= 4.51mm. At the wide end, every fraction of a mm counts. Making a representation of the frame would be a bit more difficult.

I REALLY dislike the plastic lens barrel and, therefore, plastic threads on the 16x lens. I bought the 17x and am much happier with this lens. Even with a metal filter adapter ring, the clamp on my mattbox will distort the 16x plastic barrel enough to bind the focus ring.
Bill,
you are not using the right adapter ring. I used to use the same on my previous camera (DSR-500 with Fujinon) and it worked fine. With this lens the adapter ring has to be a screw-on type. It's a bit awkward to find the thread sometimes but it works and it doesn't squeeze the focusing ring. Your other option is, of course, rods.

Just think, if the converter would have worked on the 17x ..... that's .82 times 5, take away 4, add 4, let's see, that's, um, 4.1 mm. Very Wide.

You could almost get the front and back seats of a car, from inside! At the same time. Or even something in the men's room. From the seat. Like, when I pulled focus, I saw the words "For a good time ..... "

Oh, I'm getting silly again. Probably get kicked off this forum for this one.

Ain't bein' a cinematographer fun? Yesterday I couldn't even spell cinematographer, and now I are one.

Gary

Does anyone know if the rear focus and zoom controls currently being used on the stock 16x lens will work on the 17x?

The zoom control will work on both the 16x and 17x, but the focus control mounts differently on the lenses, they are not interchangeable.