Hello!

Yesterday I bought a Raynox HD-5050PRO lens for my Canon HV-10 camcorder.

As the wide angel of the HV-10 ist not really great, I thought this issue might be interesting for some of you guys. So - here are my impressions. ;-) Please note, that I have no comparision to other conversion lenses.

The Raynox HD-5050PRO lens comes in a plastic casing that can also be used to store the lens while it is not in use.

http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/box.jpg


The lens itself, as well as the accessories, like the lens cover, don't look too high-quality and pretty much 'plastic'.

http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/cover.jpg


As the first lens on the camcorder side is a little bit higher than the filter thread, it can't be mounted directly to the HV-10.

http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/filter_thread.jpg


A 37mm / 37mm adapter has to be used to bring the lens a few millimeters away from the camcorder. On the sample pictures you will see that this adapter causes vignetting. :-( There are also adapter included that allow to mount the conversion lens to 43, 34, 30.5, 30 and 27mm filter threads.

http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/adapter_ring.jpg


Here are the sample pictures in full resolution:

Standard lens, widest setting (http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/standard_lens_wide.jpg)

Standard lens, fully zoomed in (http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/standard_lens_zoomed_in.jpg)

Raynox HD-5050PRO, widest setting (http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/raynox_lens_wide.jpg)

Raynox HD-5050PRO, fully zoomed in (http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/raynox_lens_zoomed.jpg)

Raynox HD-5050PRO, zoomed in to about the same angle as the widest position of the standard lens (http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/raynox_zoomed_in_to_standard_widest_setting.jpg)

I am interested, what you think about the quality of conversion lens. I find the vignetting (black corners), as well as the loss in sharpness and resolution very obvious and not really acceptable. My personal conclusion is, that I have wasted 135 Euros (78 Euros for the lens + 57 Euros for a Hoya polarizing filter) yesterday. :-(

However I don't know if the quality of the Canon conversion lens is any better. The Canon lens also provides just a 0.7 wide angel conversion. The other thing is that I will travel to China and Japan on Sunday for 14 days, where I definately need a wide angel lens and there is no time left to buy and test another one, so that I have to keep the Raynox. ;-(

Regards,

Oliver

As far as I know, no wide lens adaptor let you full zoom in without a noticeable sharpness loss.

Vigneting could be better, but still didn't make footage unusable. Don't get obsesed with that, and keep in mind that most of screens don't show 100% of the area, so the vigneting is probably not showing.

Thanks a bunch for submitting this great report, Oliver -- sure appreciate all the pictures!

I'm not quite clear why it is you have to extend the lens away from your zoom's front elemet with a 37>37 adapter. Can you not fit the lens without this? It's a 0.7x so is very mild and should be as sharp as your standard zoom. And there should be *no* vignetting of the frame.

I've used and tested Raynox lenses in the past and found them to be good. It's important (at very short focal lengths) to stay well away from small apertures - shoot around f/4 if possible.

The Canon one will be little different I suspect. And contary to Javier's comment, I've found many wide converters that let you use the full zoom range with no appreciable loss of sharpness. All will give you more flare and most will increase the barrel distortion though.

You're not using a poloriser at the same time are you? That could well be causing the vignetting.

tom.

I am using an HC7, but followed the recommendations from previous HV10 users. They were able to use the lens without the 37-37 ring and viganetting was minimal. I can use it without the adapter. Without the adapter, you can put a Tiffen UV 62mm filter on the Raynox and it will fit in the plastic box. I like the box as it provides better protection than the cloth bag most lens come with, even if it is Poly-Ethylene with a foam block.

I will shot footage over the next couple of days for comparison.

I have a Sony .7 economy WA for my SD 37mm camera. The Raynox is a much better quality look and feel.

I own a HD-5005 Pro (same lens than the HD-5050 Pro), and I've the occasion to compare with some other WAs.

The lens itself, as well as the accessories, like the lens cover, don't look too high-quality and pretty much 'plastic'.
The cover lens, yes, looks very 'plastic', but not the lens itself: it looks much better than cheap WAs (like kenko ones). I'd in hands the Canon WD43 (the SD version, not the WD-H43) and both look the same in term of quality.
At this range of prices, the quality seems good/very good for me.

As the first lens on the camcorder side is a little bit higher than the filter thread, it can't be mounted directly to the HV-10..../...A 37mm / 37mm adapter has to be used to bring the lens a few millimeters away from the camcorder. On the sample pictures you will see that this adapter causes vignetting. :-( There are also adapter included that allow to mount the conversion lens to 43, 34, 30.5, 30 and 27mm filter threads.You MUST put an adapter ring: the 37mm thread on the lens is there to screw on it the right adapter, even if the right adapter is 37mm too. BTW, due to the optical laws, the image coming outside the WA and inside the lens of the camcorder is 'parallel' (sorry for my bad english... its certainly not the more appropriate technical term) and the optical rules of the WA are calculated at a distance including the ring adapter: if you not put the ring adapter, the image outside the lens will be not more 'parallel', and you will be not able to use it correctly on all your zoom range (lost of focus and more CA).

I use everyday this Raynox WA on my Sony HC1: the vignetting is only visible on the photo mode at full 'wide', and not in the video mode even at full 'wide' (because less surface on the sensor is used in video mode). Have you tried only the photo mode of your HV10? How is it in video mode ? If you have still some vignetting, I thing you must change the WA for an another model/brand.

I am interested, what you think about the quality of conversion lens. I find the vignetting (black corners), as well as the loss in sharpness and resolution very obvious and not really acceptable. My personal conclusion is, that I have wasted 135 Euros (78 Euros for the lens + 57 Euros for a Hoya polarizing filter) yesterday. :-(All the WA reduce the sharpness, the quantity of light coming on the sensor, and add more 'barrel' distorsion; some ones more, some ones less: the glass size, its quality, and so the resulting price, make the difference. The other WA on the same range will provide the same, or less, quality; I've not tested yet the Canon WA (HD model), but I thing that the result will be quite the same.

You can try some 'bigger' WA in 37mm, like the Sony one (VCL-HG0737Y) but at 320g --2.5 times the weight of the Raynox, and half the weight of the HV10 itself--, you will feel the difference on your hands, everyday, every minute. It's why I consider this Raynox HD-5005/HD-5050 as a good compromise for its price.

If you plan to invest in an another WA, they are usually x0.6 or x0.7: don't forget to get a picture of the Raynox at this same range of power to be able to make a comparison (espacially a comparison of the 'barrel' effect')..

Hi!

Thank you very much for your replies!

I know that I am a kind of picky. ;-) However I would have prefered to spend some more money, let's say something like 150 to 200 Euros, to buy a lens without vignetting, while in use with a HV-10, and better sharpness and resolution. Sadly in Germany is only the eBay crap, the Raynox conversion lensens and those manufactured by the Camcorder brands available. Probably there is no market for high-quality accessories for consumer camcorders!?

@Javier Gallen:

I find the loss in sharpness and resolution very noticable throughout the entire zoom range, as well as at the widest setting.

@Tom Hardwick:

The vignetting is caused by the 37 / 37mm adapter that has to be used to bring the conversion lens a few mm away from the automatic lens cover of the HV-10. If I mount the conversion lens without this adapter, there is no vignetting. However this is not recommended. If I do so, the lens at the backside of the HD-5050PRO touches the front lens cover of the HV-10 before it is fully screwed in. The filter thread of the HV-10 is already pretty short. Without using the 37 / 37mm adapter, I can only screw it in for about 1.5 turns, I can't tighten it and I think it is not got for the lens cover of the HV-10 nor for the Raynox conversion lens if they touch.


The thread at the Raynox with the overlaping lens

http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/filter_thread.jpg


The short filter thread at the HV-10 with the lens cover

http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/filter_thread_hv10.jpg


The space between the HV-10 casing and the Raynox:

http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/space.jpg


Sample picture without the 37 - 37mm adapter, widest setting:

http://www.freedive.de/tmp/raynox_hv10/raynox_lens_wide_without_37mm_adapter.jpg


Regards, Oliver

does anybody have a before & after shot of WD-H43 on HV20/10?

i suppose there would be no barrel distortion on the original lens???

Show me a zoom lens on a prosumer/consumer camcorder that doesn't barrel distort down the wide end. Adding a zoom-through wide converter will add to the distortion - i. e. make it worse.

tom.

If it's any consolation, you're not the only one who's disappointed with the image quality of the wide angle adapters on the market. I bought a Century Optics 0.65x for my HV10 thinking that its Schneider optics will yield good results but at its widest setting, it's got the same issues as other less costly units: barrel distortion, poor corner sharpness, & optical vignetting. Mechanically, it's ok: it's fairly compact, has filter threads, it fits directly on the HV10 and has zoom through capability. Canon should consider extending the wide range of the built-in lens, many of us are willing to pay a little more for the feature...

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2084/century0653gn1.jpg

Max wide setting:

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/3058/century0655qp2.jpg

Max zoom-in setting:

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7723/century0656ek8.jpg

My personal conclusion is, that I have wasted 135 Euros (78 Euros for the lens + 57 Euros for a Hoya polarizing filter) yesterday. :-(

For the money spent, I am happy with my Raynox 5050 and how it performs with my HV10.

Looking at the pictures from the Century Optics lens, I definitely prefer the Raynox.

Here in NYC, the Raynox costs $90, the Century $200.

That's not a happy combination you have there Bert, and it may be that you have grounds for a refund. In my group test of wide-angle converters (I used a VX2000) the Century .65x came out tops. I said:

And the winner is…

The Century 0.65x. At just under £400 it’s the most expensive lens on test but it comes with proper lens caps that stay put, it has the best multi-coating and is the sharpest on test, regardless of the aperture used. Wide open it’s at its best in the centre but at smaller apertures the edges catch up. It doesn’t vignette the image at wide angle. There’s no filter thread but the breech lock bayonet is beautifully engineered, smooth as silk and makes the fitting and removal of the lens a quick and secure operation. Note that this only applies to the Sony VX2000, the Canon XM2 and the XL1s, the TRV900 and the DVCAM versions. There is a screw thread version available and a choice of three lens hoods.

It’s the heaviest lens on test at 325g, there’s just noticeable pincushion distortion at telephoto but overall it’s the winner. My only gripe is this. For a lens that isn’t very powerful it distorts straight lines too much. If I fit the 0.5x Cavision and zoom up to match the Century’s field of view I have a less distorting combination. And look at the Raynox – this lens has a lot less distortion for a quarter the price. For a look at the entire range of Century lenses, visit www.centuryoptics.com

tom.

Tom -- Unfortunately, returning the adapter is no longer an open option for me, so I share the feeling you described in this earlier post: http://dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=673647&postcount=36. I'll just have to lower my expectations when I use it...

I am uploading now. The file will be 77MB. The Raynox is on starting at 1:06. The last last frame finishes with a inline captured still. I dumped MPEG 720p out and converted to WMV.

www.versatilemediasolutions.com/assets/video/720export.wmv
If you are reading this at 2:51p on 5/19 - it may need a couple of more minutes to upload

This is on a HC7.

Oh, the footage on the house has bad lighting (the sun is just behind it.) I picked it just to get the detail and the vertical lines.

Here is a link to a sample clip showing before and after, HV10 and Raynox 5050.

http://rapidshare.com/files/32443243/hv10raynox.m2t

If it's any consolation, you're not the only one who's disappointed with the image quality of the wide angle adapters on the market. I bought a Century Optics 0.65x for my HV10 thinking that its Schneider optics will yield good results but at its widest setting, it's got the same issues as other less costly units: barrel distortion, poor corner sharpness, & optical vignetting. Mechanically, it's ok: it's fairly compact, has filter threads, it fits directly on the HV10 and has zoom through capability. Canon should consider extending the wide range of the built-in lens, many of us are willing to pay a little more for the feature...

Bert - It appears that you have a filter of some type in front of the WA converter - did you try things with this off to see if the sharpness/CA in the corners improves?

- John

I've never known a filter to reduce sharpness (unless it was smeared with vaselene for that express purpose) but I have seen them vignette the image corners and I have seen them add considerably to the lens flare.

tom.

I always use high grade filters with my lenses, in this case a low profile B+W filter, and never had a problem. In any case, I took a couple of shots with the filter removed, and it made no difference: The center region, roughly 60%, is sharp but the rest of the image is blurred. Could someone post some samples shot with a Canon wide angle adapter?

http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/8829/nofilter1lf9.jpg

http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/1769/nofilter2xa6.jpg

Bert - I've just had a thought. Are you using the camera /widie combo in the auto-focus mode? I'll take a guess and say yes, because I see the same 'whoosh' edge effects with some of my converter lenses.

Might be worth trying this. Place your camcorder/widie combo in the auto-focus mode about 3 feet from something contrasty and then lock the focus at that distance. At all apertures and at wide-angle you may well find the image quality improves noticeably, the DoF covering everything from element front to infinity

If you zoom in things will deterioriate of course, but then I've always maintained a wide-converter is for wide shots, and anything else should be done by your unaided zoom.

tom.

Oh-oh. I've had another think. Your second shot is just that right? A 3 foot close-up of the get-fit notice, yet the edges are quite poor. And the barrel distortion is nothing short of horrible. Doesn't look like a good combo to me.

Do you think it's just a bad/defective WA converter or would ALL of these models perform poorly? The Century optics web site specifically lists the HV10 for this converter (but perhaps only because it shares a 37mm filter thread) and some other threads have indicated that Century optics are typically best in their class (mayber they are in the low class though).

- John

There is another older post in the FX1 section with sample pics of the Century non zoom through. It was either a .5x or .6x, I don't remember. But I do remember the pic. Big time barrel distortion.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=417468&postcount=10

From what I've seen online, barrel distortion may be a common problem with wide angle adapters: Pana DVX100 with Century Optics WA adapter (http://vidled.com/sample_movies.html), how about this sample with the 0.55x Century Optics adapter (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=161038&postcount=11). Edge sharpness seems to be a common problem too, although the poster of this sample of a Tiffen 0.56x WA converter (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=160963&postcount=10) says that he finds no edge sharpness issues with the lens, the loss of resolution at the edges looks pretty obvious to me.

Barrel distortion is indeed a common problem with wide-angle converters. In fact most camcorder zoom lenses barrel distort pretty horribly down the wide end on their own, and a converter lens only adds to this.

Simple test. Stand a few feet from your flat-screen TV, zoom your camcorder to full wide and move so that the TV frame (either 16:9 or 4:3) fills your v'finder. See the curvy edges? It's your cheap camcorder lens doing that.

The only way to combat this barrelling is to abandon all thoughts of zoom through converter lenses and fit a single element aspheric.

tom.

Tom - Do you have any suggestions for a single element aspheric? Is this what you mean: http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1069&IID=1754

- John

That looks to be a very interesting lens John, especially so if their claim that it is ''without noticeable distortion''. Trouble is they don't mention anywhere that it has an aspherical surface, and that makes me suspicious of their claim. Very suspicious. Aspherical elements are very much more expensive to grind and every single sperical element I've used has increased my barrel distortion - regardless of the camera I've used.

Still, I'm not one to make claims without having made tests, so all I can say is that someone (you?) should. But I'd want a water-tight returns policy in case it did just happen to add barrel distortion.

These people make proper aspherics:

http://www.lenswvl.com/
http://cinematechnic.com/products/zeiss/Mutar_f=6mm_Zeiss.html
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php

I have the Bolex Aspheron. It's big, powerful (0.52x) beautifully T* coated and takes my Z1 down to a non distorted 17 mm (35 mm equiv). Now that's a focal length to make Krubrick sit up and take notice.

tom.

John - I see on that Schneider site there's an 'ask a question' box. So I've asked:

Your .55x wide adapter 37mm.

1) Is it glass?
2) Does it have an aspherical surface?
3) Is it available in other thread sizes?
4) Is it multi-coated?

Kind regards,

tom.

Tom -

Thanks for asking Schneider those questions. On a related note to one of my other threads - is there an advantage to using a WA adapter that is larger than you need so that you aren't using "all" the glass? I've read a few posts where people have reportedly used, for instance, a 49mm WA adapter when all they needed was a 37mm and claimed improved corner sharpness.

- John

BTW John - my 'is it glass?' question comes about because aspherical surfaces lend themselves to plastic high pressure injection moulding techniques, and Schneider they call their 0.55x a 'lightweight'.

I can't see any reason whatsoever to use the 'centre of the element', unless of course the edge is scratched, not coated, unpolished or dirty. My guess is these people are seeing better definition because they think they should, and because they're shooting at better apertures and focused distances.

When you've got a wide-angle on it's imperative you avoid small apertures as diffraction losses are far more obvious at short focal lengths.

tom.

This is one of the lenses that I found a posted sample image. Its barrel distortion is certainly nothing to get excited about...

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/attachment.php?attachmentid=917&stc=1

Tom - Do you have any suggestions for a single element aspheric? Is this what you mean: http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1069&IID=1754

- John

Bert - What thread was this (the link only is the image) and what lens is this?
- John

John - It's the Century Optics 0.55x fixed lens. I posted the link to the thread earlier but here is is again: <link (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=161038&postcount=11)>

Thanks Bert - I wish the photo example was a little better. I'm not so concerned about the barrel distortion (after all it would be about a 24mm equivalent FL for 35mm film), but rather the corner sharpness and CA. Even my 20/2.8 Nikor has barrel distortion, but it's really wide so I'm not dissapointed. - John

I agree John, the posted sample is too small but the poster did say that there is some loss of sharpness at the edges, although it doesn't look as bad as my lens. I just ordered a Sony 0.7x adapter that's supposedly designed for their HD camcorders, but I have tempered expectations at this point... This will be my last and final attempt at getting a WA adapter.

Bert - There's this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=75774&page=2) where Haywood Giles used a Raynox HD-6600PRO49 49mm on his HV10 and the pictures actually look pretty good. His picture with the zoom + WA appears to be the wrong one (same as the zoom without the WA). The 43mm version may be just as good.

I'm considering going this route as this lens is $119 @ B&H and is a mm or so wider than the Canon 0.7x and is a zoom through. Another option would be to get the Raynox 5050Pro and just not use it at the widest angle. It would be good if someone took some picts at various zoom/aperature settings to see where the corners get soft on the 5050Pro.
- John

Well - you would get excited about it if that was what you were after. The thing that bothers me about barrel distortion (apart from the obvious bowing of door frames as you track room to room) is that it barrels *everything* you photograph. In my case that includes the bride and her mother, and that 'thickening in the middle' is not an attractive trait.

If you shoot the side of a house with a barrel distorting lens you'll know what I mean - it appears as if the building is full of compressed air, and is about to burst. So too with people.

tom.

The Raynox 6600PRO is one of the least barrel distorting converter lenses I know, but Raynox are quick to point out that the image does soften noticeably beyond the half-way mark. So if you have a 12x zoom, consider it a 6X with the 6600 in place.

I suspect it's because one of the three elements used in its construction is an aspheric. The 6600 I had a couple of years back only seemed to have a single coating rather than the multi-coaring of much more expensive lenses, so it's best kept well hooded when you're out there in the sunshine.

So you want to see how much your camera+attachment lens distorts? Simple. Attach the wide-converter, zoom to wide angle, leave in auto focus and auto exposure and approach your flat screen TV. Go close enough so the TV's mask is just inside your v'finder frame, and what do you see?

tom.

Well, I'm going to order the Raynox HD-6600PRO43 (I see no reason to go with the 49mm threaded version as it is the same lens as the 43 - same external dimensions and front element diameter and weight) as soon as B&H opens up for business today. I'll shoot some stills and try to share some samples. I may get a HD-5050Pro later on just for the extra wide capability and not use it wide open to limit the corner problems.

- John

Hi!

[...] I may get a HD-5050Pro later on just for the extra wide capability and not use it wide open to limit the corner problems. [...]

Zooming in does not have as much effect on the corner problem as you might think. Closing the shutter as fas as possible reduces the effect pretty much, but to make it totally disappear, you have to almost zoom in as far as the widest postion of the standard lens.

Maybe I can take tomorrow some sample shots, where I zoom in little steps.

Right now I help myself by simply not using the 37/37mm spacer. However this is a solution I am not really happy with - I can't even screw the filter in for more than a 4/5 of a single turn before it heavily touches the lens cover of the HV-10. I also think the coating of the lens will pretty soon suffer because of this treatment. :-(

Right now I am in Tokyo - tomorrow I want to go to Akihabara, what is something like electronic-shoppers-paradise. I hope to find a 37/37 spacer that is slim enough to solve the problem or I would go for a Raynox 6600PRO or a Sony or Canon WA lens.

Regards, Oliver

Hi!

I have just bought a Canon WD-H37C.
As I thought the comparision between the WD-H43C and the Raynox HD-5050PRO might also be interesting for others, I have started a new thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=687043


Regards,

Oliver

I have just bought a Canon WD-H43C.You say that you have bought a WD-H37C in the referenced thread!
Please, confirm which one you have finally bought...

The flowers are very nice... but not usefull to appreciate the barrel distortion of the Canon WA: may I ask you some photos of buildings, or something else permitting to see vertical and horizontal lines?

Hi Bruno!

[QUOTE=Bruno Donnet;687090]You say that you have bought a WD-H37C in the referenced thread!
Please, confirm which one you have finally bought...
[...] [QUOTE]

I am sorry - I bought a WD-H37C after having a look at the 43mm HD-6600PRO with a 43/37mm dowconverter... ;-)

I can also add some pictures of buildings, but I can't tell when I have the time to do this. I might get next weekend until I find the time.

Regards,

Oliver

I would expect that the Canon will do fine in terms of barrel distortion thanks to its smaller wide angle factor, 0.7x compared to 0.5x for the Raynox. The sample shots show that both converters yield comparable quality, the next question is whether 0.7x provides sufficient wide angle coverage.

@Bert:

I will answer your post in the other thread to keep it straight. Otherwise it willl get confusing.

Regards, Oliver

Regarding the Raynox HD-6600Pro - I bought the 43mm thread version last night from B&H and should get it some time this week. I'll try to post some stills next weekend. If this is too soft in the corners I'll probably get the WD-H37c and then get a Raynox 5050 or try the single element Century optics that will only be on for wide shots.

You don't need to shoot a building to check out the barrel distortion - your TV will do perfectly. See:

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/v/tom-s-photo-album/Barrel+distortion+test+.jpg.html

This thread might interest you you wide-angle freaks:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80666&page=4

tom.

So, in conclusion:

If you fit a Raynox HD-5050 to a Sony HC7 without the 37mm-to-37mm adapter, does the back of the HD-5050 touch the front of the HC7's lens? Or does it just touch the HC7's lens *cover*? Or does the HD-5050 fit perfectly on the HC7 without the 37mm-to-37mm adapter?

Thanks,
Jack

Is it feasible to leave the 5050Pro WA adapter on the HV10 at all times? I'll be traveling to China in a month and I want to know if I can leave it on or do I have to go thru the hassel of mounting/unmounting constantly?

You can leave it on all the time Yang but then you can leave your pyjamas on all the time too. If you're shooting at 50 mm (say) then the HV20 will give better performance (less flare and distortions and greater sharpness) if you take the 5050 off. It is after all an extra 3 elements (6 surfaces) of very slightly de-centred glass.

tom.

If it's any consolation, you're not the only one who's disappointed with the image quality of the wide angle adapters on the market. I bought a Century Optics 0.65x for my HV10 thinking that its Schneider optics will yield good results but at its widest setting, it's got the same issues as other less costly units: barrel distortion, poor corner sharpness, & optical vignetting. Mechanically, it's ok: it's fairly compact, has filter threads, it fits directly on the HV10 and has zoom through capability. Canon should consider extending the wide range of the built-in lens, many of us are willing to pay a little more for the feature...

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2084/century0653gn1.jpg

Max wide setting:

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/3058/century0655qp2.jpg

Max zoom-in setting:

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7723/century0656ek8.jpg

Bert,

We here at Schneider have experienced a few of the HV10 cameras with the same problems you have had. The quality on your sample images is the worst I've seen by far. I would reccomend that you send the lens into our service department for a check up. On the whole, we have not had many issues compared to the number of these lenses being used on the HV10. The major issue is also related to the placement of the CCD in this camera. Canon has about a 5% variable in placement of the CCD on this camera. This means that performance of our lens varies from camera to camera.

Please send in your adapter and we will fix or replace it.

Ryan Avery
Regional Sales Representative
Schneider Optics