(sorry if this has been reported here before)

Raynox is releasing a wideangle targeted at the V1U/FX7 coming in early May. I got the following information from the US Raynox rep (Charlie)

Here is the correct info regarding the requested lens. Sorry about the error. It is actually a 62mm.HD-7062PRO High Definition Wideangle conversion lens 0.7X

Specially designed for Sony HDR-FX7, FX7E/HVR-V1U, V1E, V1N Compatible with an entire zoom range Designed to broaden the angle of view, including 43% more area in the picture Designed with high resolution power of 540-line/mm at center (MTF30%)

Front filter size: 82mm/Rear filter size: 62mm

The shipment will become available in early May 2007

Schneider optics also recently listed several lenses for the V1 on their web page. http://www.schneideroptics.com/century/dv/hvr-v1u/hvr-v1u.htm

Schneider optics also recently listed several lenses for the V1 on their web page. http://www.schneideroptics.com/century/dv/hvr-v1u/hvr-v1u.htm

I'd be interested to see a side-by-side comparison with the Sony 0.8 vs Schneider's 0.8.

But there's a significant difference in price - both the Sony and Schneider lenses are $400 or more, the Raynox 0.7 will be $149.95

I have ordered the 0.8 Sony quite long ago - it does not help much in wide (but gives a head ache once you need a filter).
In the meantime bought many of the Raynox models (from tele to macros).

For me the 6600 model with stepring works fine, good wide, not too much CA, sharp. Surely gives much more wide vs the 7000 models - and it comes with a much nicer price tag.
Two things are important with this 6600 lens:
- dont zoom in (blur in the corners)
- remove UV filter before attach (otherwise vignetting will occur)

For tele, I am very satisfied with the 2020 lens of Raynox, although it tends to show CA in high contrast areas (only super bright parts with dark background).

Avoid the super wide or fish eye (mostly the 185 model). It is advertised as super wide combined with fish eye. That lens is entirelly useless, I cant figure the condition where it would become useful.
In fact the fish eye image will be in a funny circle in the middle of the screen and the super wide mode (by slightly zooming in) will give huge vignetting. By zooming in you cant get better wide (if you want to go w/o vignetting) vs the 6600 - but it produces a very pronounced barrel distorsion, that is missing from the 6600 image.

Zsolt;
I don't get it - if the 6600 diameter is smaller than the V1 lens, surely there's at least some minor vignetting with the 6600-V1 comination? Also, how sharp is sharp? the 6600 spec is for 350 lines/mm at the center, the HD-7062PRO is for 540 lines/mm. I need to get a reasonable wide angle for my work, and I'm not impressed with the Sony wide angle being a 0.8 or with the price tag.
Thanks
Greg

I have the .7x version of the Raynox lens and with a 58-62 step down adapter there is no viginetting. I've even gotten it to work with a low profile lens protector (hoya lpf digital pro) and a lower profile step down ring (there are some thinner than others). The Raynox glass is ok and small and lighter than the Sony's. I'd prefer a bayonet mount of course for speed. I'm finding I'm using the Raynox 180 semi-fisheye (NOT the 185 which I returned) more than the .7x. A huge piece of glass but quite versatile because you can zoom in quite a bit and the quality is good. Look for my posts and review of these Raynox lenses along with some screenshots.

I have a question that any of you guys who use wide converters surely know the answer to. Suppose that - because of the limited distance from a talent being filmed - I have to use the widest angle on the V1, which of course causes dof to be very big. Does using a wide converter, which allows to zoom in a bit from the same distance, giving the same framing as above, help obtain any shallower dof?

If so, this would be another reason for me to look for a good, zoom-through wide angle converter, apart of course from the main purpose of allowing wider shots! TIA.

Zsolt,

You have the Raynox 2020, I have a few questions about how you work with it:

1) Do you use a step down or step up adapter, do you use Raynox or another
2) How far away do you need to be from the subject to focus?
3) Can you use the full zoom from the V1 along with the Raynox?

Have you looked into the Raynox 1540Pro as well? Their sample images seem to have a lot less CA than the 2020.

Thanks.

Does using a wide converter, which allows to zoom in a bit from the same distance, giving the same framing as above, help obtain any shallower dof?No it'll actually give even greater DOF.

Zsolt,

You have the Raynox 2020, I have a few questions about how you work with it:

1) Do you use a step down or step up adapter, do you use Raynox or another
2) How far away do you need to be from the subject to focus?
3) Can you use the full zoom from the V1 along with the Raynox?

Have you looked into the Raynox 1540Pro as well? Their sample images seem to have a lot less CA than the 2020.

Thanks.

2020 has 62mm mounting thread, no stepring is necessary. The distance for focusing is from 4 meters and up.
2020 allows very limited zoom out, vignetting occurs or even a circle in the middle of the screen. Best using it in full zoom in.
1540Pro seems to be new model, I have no idea about it.

Zsolt;
I don't get it - if the 6600 diameter is smaller than the V1 lens, surely there's at least some minor vignetting with the 6600-V1 comination? Also, how sharp is sharp? the 6600 spec is for 350 lines/mm at the center, the HD-7062PRO is for 540 lines/mm. I need to get a reasonable wide angle for my work, and I'm not impressed with the Sony wide angle being a 0.8 or with the price tag.
Thanks
Greg

Greg, I have experienced vignetting with the 6600 but it was due to my own stupidity. When I used it I have left the UV filter on and attached the lens to that. The vignetting was not visible in the LCD, so I have noticed in the post only. Having the stepring only between the cam and the lens the result is ok.

I am not sure how to assess the lines/mm claims of Raynox. What i see on my monitor is similar sharpness when using 6600 vs V1 own lens.
This lens is wider than HD-7062PRO and its price is lower as well. Thats why I have chosen.
It is suitable only if you use it zoomed out. If you zoom in, the corners will get blur. But with the price tag of the 6600 I can live with that limitation.

The product info:
http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx7/index.htm

Here are some pictures.
http://www.raynox.co.jp/comparison/video/comp_hdrfx7.htm

Scroll about halfway down for the HD-7062PRO pictures and video on an FX7. Do click the "enlarged image with exif" buttons to see the big picture.

To me it looks quite acceptable, with some very slight barrel distortion at the edges when zoomed out, and pronounced edge softness when zoomed in (which doesn't matter to me - don't need to do cu/ecu when I have a converter mounted, YMMV).

The Raynox HD-7062Pro .7x 62mm WA converter is now in stock at several retailers. Mine will be here Friday, looking forward to testing it and will post.

Hmmm, for some reason I expected this lens to be approx $500. But B&H seem to be selling it for $150.

Does anyone know any Raynox dealers in Canada?

No it'll actually give even greater DOF.


Does using a wide converter, which allows to zoom in a bit from the same distance, giving the same framing as above, help obtain any shallower dof?

Stu, why is that - could you elaborate?

Hmmm, for some reason I expected this lens to be approx $500. But B&H seem to be selling it for $150.

Does anyone know any Raynox dealers in Canada?
$150 US is the list price.

The Canadian distributor is http://www.edmamarketing.com/, no doubt they can refer you to a dealer.

My only experience with W/A lenses is on my old SD TRV900.

Well got my Raynox 7062 lens last night. Only had time to do a non moving fixed image indoor test. My 1st impressions are minimal barrel distortions, but a very noticeable drop in resolution. Image with camcorder looked tack sharp. With the Raynox attached, everything looked like it had a slight haze. The lens did have full zoom through, with an increase in haze with more zoom, especially around the edges.

I did the test 2x. Once 10" away and once 20" away. I think this was a tough test as most of the time I will not be that close to the subject and the detail/resolution loss will not be as noticeable. I think a moving image will also help hide the lens weakneses. I'll have to do some more testing closer to how I actually intend to use the lens to see if I will buy the much more expensive Century Optics.

The resolution drop was noticed on a Sony Bravia 26" HDTV. Camcorder lcd and viewfinder could not see the res drop.

...With the Raynox attached, everything looked like it had a slight haze. The lens did have full zoom through, with an increase in haze with more zoom, especially around the edges...
Did some benchmarking last night. I don't have a large HD display, and didn't see a general haze/reduced resolution on small (17") display. On a smaller display it is very evident that when you zoom in, certain highlight areas will develop a distinct, and objectionable glow/haze around them. Seems to occur when a highlight is over a dark background, and is masked (or maybe isn't there) when a highlight is over medium to light tones. I was zoomed in pretty far.

With SD wide angle adaptors I often left them on the lens for general shooting. I don't think I'll be doing that with the 7062, only putting it on when I need the WA. Given that my immediate use will be for SD DVD, I'm going to keep on using the 7062.

Still in the hunt for a decent .5x as well (these are never zoom-through).

Seth,
Do you per chance have a rez chart you can shoot? I'm on the hunt for a wide as well, outside the very large Schneider that's supposed to be shipping soon.

Seth,
Do you per chance have a rez chart you can shoot? I'm on the hunt for a wide as well, outside the very large Schneider that's supposed to be shipping soon.

Do you mean the 0HD-65CV-SH6 .65X WIDE ANGLE CONVRT HD SONY?

Here is link to a raw clip shot with the Raynox 7062

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KKJV4MHI

It's a big file and I know people hate megaupload, but I can't complain about free file sharing.

I've also attached some screen captures done in vegas.

For $150, I can't complain. I will do some more testing to see if I feel a need to make the $ jump to the Century. Anyone have experience with the Redeye ?

Seth,
Do you per chance have a rez chart you can shoot? ...
I don't. Is there something I can download/print that would be worthwhile at all? Perhaps I can borrow one from a friend, I'll check.

I do need to do more benchmarking this weekend, the training wheels need to come off for a shoot next week.

This lens certainly looks likes its worth the money. I can't seem to find the proper hood for it though, any recomendations on where to look?

Don't know if the more experienced people have had a chance to look at my sample video and/or pics.

Although, I think the Raynox works well for a $150 lens, I would like something with better detail and resolution. The Century lens is not out yet, but for the additional $, what kind of improvement should I expect ?

Will the sharpness be the same between the Century non zoom through vs. the zoom through ?

Some points.

Piotr - a focal length of 15 mm (say) is 15 mm however you get there. You can use your naked zoom or you can attach your wide-angle converter and zoom to 15 mm to give the same framing. If you're shooting at the same aperture you'll get exactly the same DoF, so Stu is incorrect.

Not only that but you'll actually get very slightly less DoF as the three elements of the wide converter will soak some light, making your camera's iris open up a small fraction of a stop with the converter in place.

Greg - you say ''I don't get it - if the 6600 diameter is smaller than the V1 lens, surely there's at least some minor vignetting with the 6600-V1 comination?''. The thing to remember is that the front element of the zoom has very little to do with the diameter of the filter thread chosen by the designers, and so too the exit pupil of the wide converter has no bearing on the fitting thread diameter.

Also - always best to check for vignetting in underscan mode - or on a PC screen.

The Raynox 6600PRO has very little barrel distortion - the trade being that you can't zoom past the mid-way point or it softens noticeably. Raynox are very up front about this, but do you want door frames to bow outwards as you track through them? Not for me, thanks.

tom.

Seth,
Do you per chance have a rez chart you can shoot? ...
My buddy with a chart is out of town right now (sunshine!), but I could easily shoot on Monday afternoon, as I'll be at his shop anyways.


Attached is a vegas framegrab that shows the fringing around my son's right ear. Doesn't show up in other areas, just where there is a mid-to-highlight bordering a dark area.

***this is only when zoomed in***

Don't know if the more experienced people have had a chance to look at my sample video and/or pics.

Although, I think the Raynox works well for a $150 lens, I would like something with better detail and resolution. The Century lens is not out yet, but for the additional $, what kind of improvement should I expect ?

Will the sharpness be the same between the Century non zoom through vs. the zoom through ?

Maybe you could use the $500 Raynox HDP-6000EX then? It's 640 lines at center and zooms thru from 1x-20x. It's slightly less wide, but seems to be impressive for the money. 4-elements in 3 groups.

Maybe someone reading this has used this lens already? I didn't search...

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx7/index.htm

Guys, avoid MX-3062PRO at any cost! It is a ridiculously low res lens, the pic it produces is unbelievably soft and blurred, entirely useless.
I can't imagine how was it possible to place it on the page offering lenses for high def cameras.
Well, it is 62mm thread, maybe thats why.
I am very disappointed with it, although it was not that expensive.

So far I only have positive experience with the 6600 wide and the 2020 tele lens. Both have CA in contrasty situations and have zooming limitations, but in the range they operate, the pic quality is pretty ok.

I will save up for Century...*sigh*...anyone can suggest an online shop selling them in Europe?

From the Raynox site:

HD-7062PRO High Definition
Wideangle Conversion Lens 0.7X
The model HD-7062PRO high definition Wideangle conversion lens is made of the high index optical glass elements with new concept of lens designing using a three-group/three-element lens formula. This new concept in designing the lens made it possible to achieve an amazing high definition wideangle lens of 540 lines/mm resolution power at center (MTF30%).
It's compatible with whole zoom area and stays in focus**.

**The lens is made compatible in using with a 20X zoom lens. However, when zoomed up to the end of the telephoto with the lens on, the image quality of the picture will be lowered except the center area, and the deterioration of resolution power at corners will occur.
This model is 62mm direct mounting size.
Magnification :
Nominal 0.7X Actual 0.7X Diagonal, 0.7X Horizontal
Lens construction : 3-group/3-element, all surfaces fully coated
Front Filter thread : 82mm, Mounting thread: 62mm
Dimension/Weight : 43mm x 86mm, Weight: 313g(11oz)
Zooming capability : 1X - 20X**,
Minimum focusing distance with HD-7062PRO : 1cm
Accessories included : Lens caps, Lens porch, Instructions.
Specifications

Available in mid April 2007.

From the Raynox site:

HD-7062PRO High Definition
Wideangle Conversion Lens 0.7X
The model HD-7062PRO high definition Wideangle conversion lens is made of the high index optical glass elements with new concept of lens designing using a three-group/three-element lens formula. This new concept in designing the lens made it possible to achieve an amazing high definition wideangle lens of 540 lines/mm resolution power at center (MTF30%).
It's compatible with whole zoom area and stays in focus**.

**The lens is made compatible in using with a 20X zoom lens. However, when zoomed up to the end of the telephoto with the lens on, the image quality of the picture will be lowered except the center area, and the deterioration of resolution power at corners will occur.
This model is 62mm direct mounting size.
Magnification :
Nominal 0.7X Actual 0.7X Diagonal, 0.7X Horizontal
Lens construction : 3-group/3-element, all surfaces fully coated
Front Filter thread : 82mm, Mounting thread: 62mm
Dimension/Weight : 43mm x 86mm, Weight: 313g(11oz)
Zooming capability : 1X - 20X**,
Minimum focusing distance with HD-7062PRO : 1cm
Accessories included : Lens caps, Lens porch, Instructions.
Specifications

Available in mid April 2007.

We've got one coming from BH, so we'll see if it really is usable. I'm not real happy about the loss of resolution (compared to the 6000 EX), but ... price certainly is right, especially when money is tight.

Usually you get what you pay for, but sometimes...just sometimes...it's worth trying these out.

The Raynox 6000ex is only .8x and will need a step ring.

I'm interested to hear what you guys think about the 7062.

Ideally, I'd like a .7x or stronger with better detail and resolution, but I really can't complain much. I like the minimal barrel distortion and the low price.

The Century .7 zoom through is $490, the .65x non zoom is $340. I wouldn't mind paying the extra money as long as the barrel distortion is minimal and they have a usable increase in resolution over the 7062.

Well, my engineer buddy did not have a full rez chart stuck on his wall, but this combo chart.

Interpret as you will, here are several caps at native resolution. I'm interested to know what more experienced eyes make of them, as I flew in and out of my friend's shop (got a little overextended today...)

Note that most of these were at Zoom 66, one at Zoom 25 (100 = full tele).

***edit***
Note that the WA zoom 25 file's distortion was produced because we couldn't get the darn camera close enough to fill the frame. Had to go off the bench on a pile of apple boxes, and the height wasn't quite right, so the perspective is slightly off.

And Raynox has done more than most manufacturers to try and combat barrel distortion in their converter lenses. The 6600PRO is a prime example of this, but in controlling the distortion there seems to be a price to pay - loss of image quality at the telephoto end.

But you've bought a wideangle converter to give you more wide angle, and you certainly shouldn't shoot at 15mm (say) with the converter lens in place when your normal zoom will do a much better job at that focal length.

tom.

Hmm... I was following this thread with great interest, as I'm after a wa adapter for my V1E as well. Having read about all the advantages and disadvantages of different models, I tend to think that - after all - I'd be best off to buy the Sony's own VCL-HG-0826K. Yes, .8x is not quite enough, but at least it seems to not add excessive distorsion and is fully zoom-through; plus this great lens hood with barn cover. What do you think?

With the Z1 and the V1 alongside one another the extra long zoom of the V1 was quite an eye-opener on our testing day. The V1's 35 mm still-camera equivalent wide angle is 37.4 mm, compared to the Z1's 32.5 mm, but Sony supplied us testers with their bayonet-on 0.8x wide-angle converter for the V1, and this takes the V1 down to 30 mm. This is a beautifully coated, full zoom-through optic, giving very sharp results.

I must say the size and weight of the converter lens didn't seem fair-trade for the extra wide-angle coverage it gives. This extra coverage is pretty darn feeble - there's no polite way to say it. The converter also adds to the barrel distortion; a no-no. It comes with it's own 16:9 hood that looks exactly like the stock hood only much bigger, and it too has barn-door shutters. Trouble is the hood/converter lens combo is now a very bulky affair, and all three of us testers gave it the thumbs down. Even if it was supplied free you'd still have to carry it about.

tom.

Tom, how is the barrel distortion and resolution of the Sony W/A lens compared to what you see on the Raynox 7062 clips we've provided ?

I'm also very interested in an answer to this question. The barrel distorsion on Canon A1 (which natively has the wide angle similar to that of the V1 with the 0.8x Sony wa adapter) is quite substantial; should I expect anything worse than that, and would the Raynox be better in this regard?

I'd class the barrel distortion on the Sony 0.8x as slight, but then the lens is so mild I'd not expect otherwise. It's certainly evident on window and door frames, but for a lot of work it would go un-noticed.

Unless you do a side-by-side comparison you can never tell which lens is worse. My 3 chip Panasonic's 12x zoom has godawful barrel distortion. The VX2000 is ok, but the Z1 has most noticeable barrel distortion. So most cameras start out with a disadvantage - a wide-angle converter tends to exagerate the inherrent distortion, making it even more obvious - even if the converter lens itself has zero distortion.

It's a suck-it-and-see situation, but generally the rules are this:

1) If you want zoom through you'll have to accept distortion
2) If you want more power you'll accept more distortion
3) If you buy an aspheric you'll have less distortion

But beware - some lenses such as RedEye are aspherics, but still distort heavily. Look here as the aspherics:

http://www.lenswvl.com/
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php
http://www.bolex.ch/NEW/?p=1

tom.

I guess we all have different acceptance levels when it comes to barrel distortion and resolution.

That's why I like to post and see people's sample pics and/or videos.

For $150, I'm happy with my Raynox. However, I would like better resolution and a wider angle, so despite Tom's bad experiences, I just ordered a .5x Redeye. It's not zoom through, so I will still keep the Raynox.

My eye's and needs are not as critical as many on this board, so hopefully I will be happy with the Redeye.

Either way, I'll be posting sample clips when I receive it.

Yes, let us know how you get on with the Redeye. I tested the 0.7x and the 0.5x versions in 58mm fitting, neither of which are now available I hear. They are beautifully slim and light (high pressure plastic injection mouldings), have superb multi-coating and are sharp into the corners.

The big problem comes with the barrel distortion on the 0.5x, and even shots taken in the garden show it up. They do indeed have one aspherical surface, but it's nowhere near aspherical enough to cancel the distortion. Still - they're not too dear and come with a beautifully padded case with a belt loop.

tom.

Hi I have a Sony FX7 camera and in 10 days I have to buy a wide angle lens. In your opinon is it better Raynox HD7062Pro or Sony VCL-HG0862?
I look for better image quality over all.
thanks

Adriano, between the two you mention, I'd definitely choose the Raynox (more effective). But add the "K" to the VCL-HG0862, and I have a dilemma - the "K" version of the Sony converter has this nice lens hood/shutter, which is so functional (and looks impressive, too:))

Adriano, between the two you mention, I'd definitely choose the Raynox (more effective). But add the "K" to the VCL-HG0862, and I have a dilemma - the "K" version of the Sony converter has this nice lens hood/shutter, which is so functional (and looks impressive, too:))

Thanks a lot for your advice. Bur have you seen some clips taken with Sony VCL-HG0862? Are you sure Raynox gives a better image quality than VCL-HG0862 over all about definition?
thanks again

Thanks a lot for your advice. Bur have you seen some clips taken with Sony VCL-HG0862? Are you sure Raynox gives a better image quality than VCL-HG0862 over all about definition?
thanks again

Never said anything about quality - only mentioned better effectiveness of Raynox (0.7x vs 0.8x with Sony's).

Never said anything about quality - only mentioned better effectiveness of Raynox (0.7x vs 0.8x with Sony's).

But my first question was about image quality. ;)

But my first question was about image quality. ;)

I guess they are comparable, with a little bit more barrel distorsion on the Reynox (a trade-off for wider angle).

My only quibble with Sony's 0.8x is that it's just too feeble. The FX7 starts out with less wide angle than the FX1, the HVX200, the Canon A1 and so on, so really does cry out for something more powerful than a 0.8x.

The Sony lens is a good one though, and I had no complaints from a picture quality POV - though it does barrel distort slightly. What did bother me was the size and weight of the thing - especially with that huge hood with its barn doors.

The size/weight is probably ok if you fit the lens and leave it there (as Sony did on their trade stand at London's Video Forum), but it's a huge lump in your kit bag for a very mild wide-angle increase.

tom.

I took Tom's advice and used a brick wall for testing.

Raynox or Redeye, Ron? I'm guessing Raynox, but leaving us to guess doesn't help much.

Uh, I guess you didn't notice the file names.

"Standard.jpg" is just the camcorder lens.

"raynox.jpg" is with the raynox lens attached.