Okay, like everyone else, I've been curious about using a wide-angle lens. I stumbled upon a great deal in getting my foot in the door with a 52mm Merkury High-Definition Wide-Angle lens for $32.00. I know this is a very non-name brand and there just isn't any info about the lenses online. But you know what...I LOVE this lens.

I'm so impressed with this lens that I'm probably just going to leave it on all the time because I really like what it does with the image...but this is just personal preference in developing my own visual style. I went to the botanical gardens in town and the footage I captured looked downright astounding viewing the footage from the HDMI connected to my HDTV. Everything was sharp, clear, and in-focus. This lens seems to work well with the HV20 - at least that's my conclusion.

I've put together a few animated gifs so that you can see the difference the lens makes and also a few full-size images to show that there is very little blur around the outermost edges. I think this has to do with the fact that the lens is so large 52mm.

Another interesting aspect is that the MACRO lens that's part of the wide-angle lens can be used on its own as well. It's not a super strong macro - but it's another option to use. In addition, if I could find a 53mm adapter (which is the thread-size that screws into the macro) it appears I could also use the wide-angle lens by itself for super-duper wide angle. I say this because I held just the wide-angle part of the lens in front of the camera and it was able to focus through the lens - so this is something I'm going to experiment with further.

Below is the webpage I put together to show this wide-angle lens.

http://vettaville.com/canon_hv20_wideangle_lens.htm

Looks very sharp from your photo's. Were these shot with the HV20's zoom at full wide? Does it stay in focus throughout the zoom's range? I had a Raynox on my Sony HC-1. It looked very sharp at full wide and it was advertised to be full zoom capable, but as you zoomed it became noticiable soft. Where did you puchase this lens at? Thanks - pk

Nathan, you say nothing about the quality along the zoom range...

I've found more info on the company: they sell many accessoiries or small products and not only in the photo/video area. It's clear that they don't produce any product: they import them (from Asia) and sell them under their name... So, the real manufacturer of this WA is still an anonymous one...

Their name is not Merkury Optics but Merkury Innovations. Look at the Logo on their main site, it's the same than the one viewable on the sticker of the WA on the link provided by Nathan: http://www.merkuryinnovations.com

Does the original Canon WA for the HV20 looks worse than this or was it just a budget decision? I can clearly see the image goes considerably softer with this WA.

Michael, I think that many people try too find a good alternative depending on what is their own priority:
- could be a problem of budget and they want something less expensive,
- the WD-H43 is very heavy (330g) compared to the weight of the camera itself (760g), a lighter WA can be seen as more 'practical' for an everyday use,
- the WD-H43 is big too, and the IAF sensor works less well because it is hidden by the big size of the lens: a smaller (in size) WA can compensate a little the problem,
- the WD-H43 is only x0.7, someone can want to have a more wide angle (x0.65, x0.45...),
- the WD-H43 has no front filter thread: not highly a problem, but is a supplemental drawback that have not some other WA...

So, at the end, all the story is to know what is the limit between 'your own priority' and the final quality of the picture.

To answer your questions...since I don't know what the return policy is for buying camera lenses you decide you don't like (which seems like you could spend a lot of money and be very unhappy) - I wanted to get an inexpensive lens that would at least give me a wide-angle lens to play around with. Yes, I had already researched that Merkuray Innovations just seems like they are an importer of many different products, so I didn't know what to expect - but was more than pleased with the results.

Since this is my first ever wide-angle lens - I have nothing else to compare it to, nor do I know what a wide-angle lens is and is not supposed to be able to do. But I was able to get sharp focus throughout the entire zoom range. I went to the Ft.Worth Gardens Saturday afternoon and shot all kinds of footage zooming in and out, moving the camera around subject matter, with the lens on at all times. When I got home and viewed the footage via the HDMI connection - I was floored at how sharp the image looked across the entire picture. On the HDTV, everything across the entire image looks as sharp as I saw it with my own eyes. At the gardens - I set the camera for 24p, white-balance for outdoors, and used P for auto-exposure. If I would have changed anything in retrospect, I would have set the camera for cinemode to give the footage a little less video appearance...but some of the footage I captured looks just as good as stuff I watch on Discovery HD Theater - so I've got no complaints about this lens.

Like I said, I didn't know what to expect from the lens - but I didn't have any issues - other than it needs a lens hood because of the sunlight would get into the lens at some angles. I'll see about posting some of the video footage in the days to come to try and let everyone see. I promise you that if we could all get together and watch the footage I captured with this lens on an HDTV - everyone would also be floored at many (if not all) of the shots. I purchased this lens at Microcenter (which is a computer store) that just happened to have only one of these lenses on their bargin-basement table. I had been aware of the lens sitting there for about two months and this weekend it was further discounted to $32.00 - so I couldn't pass that low price up as a way to at least tryout wide-angle lenses.

Here's my take home on this whole lens issue - I've been reading all the online forums, online articles, and have been frustrated at wanting to try a wide-angle lens...but then getting all caught up in the entire analytical process mentally of which lens would be the right one. Then there is the whole money issue that plays into the equation and not wanting to feel like I threw away good money on a lens I really dislike. I'm just as hyper-critical about image quality, sharpness, and visual details as I'm sure most of you are. Like I said, I knew this lens was sitting there in the store for a couple months, but kept dismissing it simply because I had never heard of its no-name brand. But I took a chance and threw away all my technical thinking and just decided to buy this lens because it was very inexpensive and would finally open up that doorway of wide-angle to try out finally. I really expected to dislike the lens because of the price and no-name brand...but I was proven wrong. I really do like this lens and felt like I somehow got very lucky in getting a lens that made me more than happy.

for $32.00 I would take that chance as well. Where can you find it?

for $32.00 I would take that chance as well. Where can you find it?

I'm not sure how easy it will be for anyone to find this lens in their area. It originally had a price tag of $49.00 marked down the $32.00 and this is not an item that is typically stocked at the computer store I bought it at. IMHO it looks like that computer store ordered some Merkury Innovations/Optics items just to have something to put on their store shelf - but those items have been sitting there forever. They have some Merkury 52mm Tele-Photo lenses on the shelf as well, but this was the only wide-angle lens they had and it had been moved to their bargain table.

I know that Fry's Electronics carries the Merkury brand batteries/chargers for cameras/camcorders - but I've never seen them carry any of their lenses. In fact, I bought a Merkury battery for my HV20 for $20.00 and a car-charger for $15.00 at Fry's.

Ive got the Canon WD myself but am interested in this too

Hey everyone...I just thought of an idea to put together a test shot that has plenty of horizontal and vertical lines and subject matter - then I will record a complete zoom range (using the HV20's slowest zoom setting) with this lens in hopes that the entire zoom range will remain in complete focus, then upload the entire M2T file for download. That would be a pretty good test I'd think. It will have to be much later this evening though. Actually, it may be better to zoom and pause, zoom and pause, etc. I just don't want the m2t file to be too large of a download.

In the meantime...I just uploaded three unedited .m2t files taken directly from this weekends shoot with the wide-angle lens. Windows Media Player doesn't seem to like playing these files correctly - so you will need to import these into an editing program to look their best or use one of the other media players that support .m2t files.

(to download Right-Click and Save Link As)

http://vettaville.com/videos/clip130.m2t - 44MB

http://vettaville.com/videos/clip163.m2t - 28MB

http://vettaville.com/videos/clip187.m2t - 35MB

Some test shots of the Raynox HD6600 0.6x wide angel ($120 street)

In order:

Raynox Wide
Raynox Tele
Raynox Macro Wide

No Raynox Wide
No Raynox Tele
No Raynox Macro Wide

Michael, I think that many people try too find a good alternative depending on what is their own priority:
- could be a problem of budget and they want something less expensive,
- the WD-H43 is very heavy (330g) compared to the weight of the camera itself (760g), a lighter WA can be seen as more 'practical' for an everyday use,
- the WD-H43 is big too, and the IAF sensor works less well because it is hidden by the big size of the lens: a smaller (in size) WA can compensate a little the problem,
- the WD-H43 is only x0.7, someone can want to have a more wide angle (x0.65, x0.45...),
- the WD-H43 has no front filter thread: not highly a problem, but is a supplemental drawback that have not some other WA...

So, at the end, all the story is to know what is the limit between 'your own priority' and the final quality of the picture.



My point was, does the Canon looks better or worse?

My point was, does the Canon looks better or worse?

I wish I had the Canon lens to be able to do a comparison, unfortunately, I do not.

Some test shots of the Raynox HD6600 0.6x wide angel ($120 street)

In order:

Raynox Wide
Raynox Tele
Raynox Macro Wide

No Raynox Wide
No Raynox Tele
No Raynox Macro Wide

I have a very similar problem with red fringing when I zoom all the way with my Sony 1.7 teleconvertor lens, as you did with the Raynox Tele...

Anyway you can post the full-res 1920x1080 pics of tree foilage against sky with the Merkury at wide and zoom to compare?

Okay, like everyone else, I've been curious about using a wide-angle lens. I stumbled upon a great deal in getting my foot in the door with a 52mm Merkury High-Definition Wide-Angle lens for $32.00. I know this is a very non-name brand and there just isn't any info about the lenses online. But you know what...I LOVE this lens.

I'm so impressed with this lens that I'm probably just going to leave it on all the time because I really like what it does with the image...but this is just personal preference in developing my own visual style. I went to the botanical gardens in town and the footage I captured looked downright astounding viewing the footage from the HDMI connected to my HDTV. Everything was sharp, clear, and in-focus. This lens seems to work well with the HV20 - at least that's my conclusion.

I've put together a few animated gifs so that you can see the difference the lens makes and also a few full-size images to show that there is very little blur around the outermost edges. I think this has to do with the fact that the lens is so large 52mm.

Another interesting aspect is that the MACRO lens that's part of the wide-angle lens can be used on its own as well. It's not a super strong macro - but it's another option to use. In addition, if I could find a 53mm adapter (which is the thread-size that screws into the macro) it appears I could also use the wide-angle lens by itself for super-duper wide angle. I say this because I held just the wide-angle part of the lens in front of the camera and it was able to focus through the lens - so this is something I'm going to experiment with further.

Below is the webpage I put together to show this wide-angle lens.

http://vettaville.com/canon_hv20_wideangle_lens.htm

I have a very similar problem with red fringing when I zoom all the way with my Sony 1.7 teleconvertor lens, as you did with the Raynox Tele...Chris, I think that when Ario says "Raynox Tele", he means "The Wide-angle Raynox HD-6600 at full zoom", and not a test with an another Raynox Tele lens...

But the result is the same: it's well known that the HD-6600 becomes a little soft and has some color fringing at full zoom. From full wide to x6 /x7 zoom ii's a very good lens with quite no barrel distortion and not too much soft corners). Raynox sells this lens under 3 versions 55mm, 52mm and 43mm: that means that, on the HV20 which has a 43mm thread, you use the quality of a 55/52mm wide-angle.

Anyway you can post the full-res 1920x1080 pics of tree foilage against sky with the Merkury at wide and zoom to compare?

I'll try to do this later today when I have time.

Why would you use the 55/52mm instead of the 43mm version?

Chris, I think that when Ario says "Raynox Tele", he means "The Wide-angle Raynox HD-6600 at full zoom", and not a test with an another Raynox Tele lens...

But the result is the same: it's well known that the HD-6600 becomes a little soft and has some color fringing at full zoom. From full wide to x6 /x7 zoom ii's a very good lens 5quite no barrel distortion and not to much soft corners). Raynox sells this lens under 3 versions 55mm, 52mm and 43mm: that means that, on the HV20 which is has a 43mm thread, you use the quality of a 55/52mm wide-angle.

Chris, I think that when Ario says "Raynox Tele", he means "The Wide-angle Raynox HD-6600 at full zoom", and not a test with an another Raynox Tele lens...

But the result is the same: it's well known that the HD-6600 becomes a little soft and has some color fringing at full zoom. From full wide to x6 /x7 zoom ii's a very good lens with quite no barrel distortion and not too much soft corners). Raynox sells this lens under 3 versions 55mm, 52mm and 43mm: that means that, on the HV20 which has a 43mm thread, you use the quality of a 55/52mm wide-angle.

Yeah, after I posted, I realized what was going on. I have a 58 mm Kenko Pro II .65 x that I've used that does not show that fringing at any zoom.

As to the Sony tele, it occurs at max zoom, and appears mostly on the edges- and no wonder with all that glass in front of the senser...:)

Why would you use the 55/52mm instead of the 43mm version?My remark was not there: Raynox sells exactly the same optics (with the same name HD-6600pro) but with different threads (BTW, I've forgotten the 58mm version in my previous post...): that means that when you buy the 43mm, you have in hands an optics build for bigger cameras.

I think it's one of the reasons why the borners are not bad with this optics in 43mm. I'm not sure that the result is so good using the HD-6600pro on a 55mm or 58mm camera (or videocamera). Some vignetting would appear.

It's maybe why you can found different returns of information on Internet depending on which HD-6600/camera combination is reviewed.

So I wonder how the Merkury performs zoomed in? Also - how the edges are vs. the 6600?

Anyway you can post the full-res 1920x1080 pics of tree foliage against sky with the Merkury at wide and zoom to compare?

Ario...I've now posted several sets of images with tree foliage against the sky for you to check out. Please go back to my original webpage.

http://vettaville.com/canon_hv20_wideangle_lens.htm

I would say there is more fringing and blurriness on the Raynox at zoom, but less loss off detail on the sides at wide vs. the Merkury. But the $90 price difference is something to keep in mind...

Wow that cleared up how to get into macro as I too had no clue that my wide angle is made up of two seperate lens. Thanks for that website, Nathan, that really helped.

Hmmm....might pick one up...Ebay has them for $14.95.

Thanks for posting re your purchase, Nathan! The price point is definitely intriguing.

Like every other HV20 owner, it appears, I've been mulling acquiring a HD WA. I just haven't been convinced to shell out the precious Washingtons.

I would appreciate any enlightenment, but Nathan's captures look a bit on the soft side. The Raynox as well.

The 52mm seems barely WA, I see they also have a 58mm. Why, Nathan, did you get the 52 and not the 58?

Does the Mercury's smaller WA compared to the Raynox account for its similar results?

Thanks again for posting!

but Nathan's captures look a bit on the soft side. The Raynox as well. The 52mm seems barely WA, I see they also have a 58mm. Why, Nathan, did you get the 52 and not the 58?

I believe there is an inherent problem in viewing photo stills taken with the HV20 and viewing frame grabs. The HV20 does not even come close to having enough pixel resolution for still images. 1920 x 1080 only gives you a 2.07 MP image - and that's barely decent at best. So that goes into why the images look as soft and unsharp as they do. That's poor image quality compared to a Canon 8.0 MP camera with 3264 x 2448 pixel resolution. What I'm saying here is that the video footage captured on the HV20 is far superior than the still photos it is capable of capturing.

I'm telling you - the ONLY way that anyone would be able to truly see how sharp and detailed the video quality can be with this Merkury WD lens (or any lens for that matter) is to own it, try it, and view the footage on an HDTV.

I got a 52mm because that is all they had. And yes, it is a much less noticable wideangle - which is exactly why I love it. The image looks very natural through all the zoom range...meaning it doesn't looked warped or bent much at all. In fact, with most footage you'd not initially realize I was using a wideangle lens because of how un-wideangle the 52mm looks. While it may not look like much more image area is being captured, it really is and I'm able to fit subject matter into the entire frame that would not have fit otherwise for a given distance from the subject.

It's all about finding what works best to your eye and style. For the price that the Merkury lens is selling on ebay - you're not losing much money at all to buy and try. And as I said, all comments are subjective at best until you get to try for yourself and convince your own eye if a specific lens will or will not work for you. The Merkury was my first step into wideangle lenses and I found that I love it - but I would certainly like to own other wideangle lenses for comparison purposes.

I wanted to add some additional comments about wideangle footage. If you have the opportunity to sit a really watch an HD channel, such as Discovery HD Theater. If you start viewing all the programs with an analytical eye - especially the nature and scenic programs, you'll start to recognize wideangle footage.

Some footage is very subtle wideangle with just an ever so minimal curvature to the video that compliments the overall capture and makes it a little less static and more interesting than just very flat non-wideangle footage.

Then some footage can be more than mild to extreme wideangle (without looking fisheye) but is noticably curved looking. This footage can work well given the right subject matter and not work as well other times. It all depends upon the shooters eye and what they think looks good - which could actually look like bad cinematography. But that will always be a topic of subjective debate. :o)

Anyone try the 37mm Merkury Wide Angle with an HV10?

-Ed

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-MERKURY-OPTICS-0-45-x-WIDE-ANGLE-LENS-52MM-52-JAPAN_W0QQitemZ320134378640QQihZ011QQcategoryZ106877QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem

Does this come with the macro lens too? Is the macro lens necessary for the wide angle to work?

Cheers

Does this come with the macro lens too? Is the macro lens necessary for the wide angle to work?
I just checked out the posting and if you look towards to top of the description text, it says comes with the macro lens. The macro lens is necessary to use because it scales down the wideangle lens' image and brings it closer looking into the camera. Otherwise, with just the wideangle lens only (minus macro lens) the image looks really wide and really far away. I'll see about posting some pics with and without the macro.

Okay...here's an assembled picture that lets you see the wideangle lens without the macro lens attached.

http://vettaville.com/photos/CanonHV20/hv20_wideangle_macro.jpg

The three images you see posted help you to understand why there is a macro lens that is used as part of the Merkury 52mm Wide Angle lens. The macro lens is necessary to use because it scales down the wideangle lens' image and brings it closer looking into the camera. Otherwise, with just the wideangle lens only (minus macro lens) the image looks really wide and really far away. I suppose one could try using just the wideangle lens alone without the macro - but the HV20 has a much more difficult time trying to focus through the lens and is very slow in doing so. The macro lens is needed - but then again rules were made to be broken.

even though I have the Canon WD-H43, I went ahead and ordered the 52mm Merkury lens from eBay for $35 including shipping. I ordered the step up adapter from B&H photo. When I get everything in, I'd like to shoot identical scenes in the highest resolution for stills and do a comparison of the two lenses.

Any suggestions for subjects to shoot (and approx. distances) that will objectively show the differeneces. I was thinking of one zoomed to the fullest and one not zoomed at all with each lens plus without either lens for a total of 6 photos.

Any suggestions for subjects to shoot (and approx. distances) that will objectively show the differeneces. I was thinking of one zoomed to the fullest and one not zoomed at all with each lens plus without either lens for a total of 6 photos.

John, here's something you may be able to confirm. I've noticed that it seems when doing a full zoom in with the Merkury 52mm - the image becomes a little soft from being ever so slightly unfocused (and I mean EVER SO SLIGHTLY). Backing up on the zoom just a hair seems to correct this issue. It's something that you can actually see in the LCD. If the image looks sharp and focused in the LCD - then it is. If it looks ever so slightly unsharp and unfocused - then it is.

I bought the Merkury charger for $14.95 from Fry's Electronics - and the great thing about it is that it is dual purpose, being able to be plugged into a wall socket as well as coming with the car adapter for charging on the road. I leave mine in the car at all times so I can charge when needed.

And the Merkury battery was only $19.95 at Fry's as well. Both items are well worth the money and cost far less than other comparable items.

John, here's something you may be able to confirm. I've noticed that it seems when doing a full zoom in with the Merkury 52mm - the image becomes a little soft from being ever so slightly unfocused (and I mean EVER SO SLIGHTLY). Backing up on the zoom just a hair seems to correct this issue. It's something that you can actually see in the LCD. If the image looks sharp and focused in the LCD - then it is. If it looks ever so slightly unsharp and unfocused - then it is.

Good idea to check. I think I'll actually do some visuals like that with my camera connected up to my hi def 32" LCD. It should really show abnomalties that way but I still want to shoot some 1920 rez comparisons to post.

While there is some loss of image quality (there always is with extra glass), I am just amazed at how little barrel distortion is evident in the m2t clips on your website. With a 0.45x lens, I would have expected a lot more. I went ahead and ordered one from Amazon to try it. Its worth a shot at $28, and the WD-H43 (which is hard to find right now) won't fit in my underwater housing.

Edit: I noticed the one that I ordered (and the one linked earlier in the thread for $14.95) are not the "Titanium Professional Series" that Nathan has. I wonder if the optics are the same.

$32 is an amazingly affordable price for a cake, let alone a wide-angle converter. A few points:

You don't say, but I'd suggest the multi-coating isn't. Maybe a single coating on the front element only? If you unscrew the macro attachment, is that coated? I ask, because my Tecpro lens is the same construction, and to save money only the front element is coated.

I'd suggest you don't use a filter on the front of the widie. It's just adding two more glass surfaces, adding to the flare and what are you protecting? A $32 investment? Much better you hood it than filter it.

The barrel distortion you see is very common. Straight lines passing through the centre of your frame (that white post, for instance) won't bend, but put it at the edge of your frame and what happens?

I'd suggest you screw it to the Canon when you need it. At all other times shoot without it. There are vast quality losses - in sharpness, flare, distortion and chromatic aberations. But then it's a great price!

tom.

You don't say, but I'd suggest the multi-coating isn't. Maybe a single coating on the front element only? If you unscrew the macro attachment, is that coated? Owning an additional lens is all new to me, but the macro certainly doesn't look coated. I'm not sure I would know what coating looks like - but the macro is very clear looking glass and very smooth, so I presume it has no coating.

I'd suggest you don't use a filter on the front of the widie. It's just adding two more glass surfaces, adding to the flare and what are you protecting? A $32 investment? Much better you hood it than filter it.I completely agree with your points. The lens flare can rear its ugly head at times without a hood - and therefore I have to be very mindful of certain angles I capture from so as to avoid the issue. The main reason I haven't stuck a hood on this wideangle is because of it blocking out the iAF and making focusing a much more slower process. Now...if I can find a straight extension tube (not sure about the technical name of it - which I've already seen) to use as a hood, then I'll be doing that so that it will not block out the iAF. In fact, this has always been my intent to use a extension tube and get rid of the UV filter protecting the lens. As you say, one less piece of glass. But then I'll have to consider vignetting issues, so this is another area of experimentation with gear (or customizing gear).

I'd suggest you screw it to the Canon when you need it. At all other times shoot without it. There are vast quality losses - in sharpness, flare, distortion and chromatic aberations. But then it's a great price!Once again, I agree with you - it has it's time and place. However, as far as developing my own style of cinematography, I love having it on all the time for what it does offer. Personally I prefer shooting with it doing close-up work - I prefer seeing close-up shots rather than distance shots. And yes, I know one would not typically need a wideangle for close-ups, but as I said it's part of me developing my own visual style. I'm judging the final product on HDTV and there are many moments that are jaw-dropping sharp with detail (for the close-up work).

I wish I owned two HV20 shooting side-by-side, one with and one without the wideangle to see exactly what image details are truly affected and the differences. Unfortunately, I have to make a choice to use the lens or not. My next plan of action is to actually take the time to go out and shoot identical footage with and without the lens and do a visual comparison of the same subject matter and learn to recognize exactly "how much" this wideangle is affecting the overall image quality - looking for the points you bring up. I like watching Discovery HD Theater and also buying some of their shows on DVD (not HD-DVD) such as Discovery Atlas: China Revealed. The cinematography in these shows and DVD's are my examples of what to strive for, even though I know they are using truly professional gear. However, as I have said here already - there are many moments that I capture footage that looks equally as good as the examples I'm learning from. So I have high praise for the HV20 and this wideangle lens in combination with it, they seem to be a good match (especially for the price).

Another point I wanted to mention - I prefer the "visual" look of using the wideangle lens on most shots because it takes away from what I consider to be the flat and static appearance of using a regular lens and gives it more of a visual style all it's own (bear in mind I'm a huge Terry Gilliam cinematography fan). And granted, this also falls into the subjective catagory about "over-using" a particular visual effect and giving the viewing audience a variety of cinematography. I'm sure I'll learn/develop to better balance between the two in time.

However, as far as developing my own style of cinematography, I love having it on all the time for what it does offer. Personally I prefer shooting with it doing close-up work - I prefer seeing close-up shots rather than distance shots.

You're on the right track, because what you're discovering is that wide-angles are not about 'getting it all in', they're about using powerful perspective control to force the viewer to see what you want him to see, from the angle you've chosen and at the distance you judged was perfect.

tom.

There are vast quality losses - in sharpness, flare, distortion and chromatic aberations. Thanks for mentioning chromatic aberation - I've never known what that was (I'm no video pro, but I am a tech-head. LOL!!!) and just read articles online about it. Now this issue does hit home with me as being a negative in using additional lenses. Thanks for teaching me something new.

My question is this though - do the HV20 (and other similar cameras) have lenses that are fairly free of this issue in their design? In other words, does the HV20 produce little to no chromatic aberation on its own?

You're on the right track, because what you're discovering is that wide-angles are not about 'getting it all in', they're about using powerful perspective control to force the viewer to see what you want him to see, from the angle you've chosen and at the distance you judged was perfect.Bingo...you said it best by saying "at the distance you judged as perfect" - because there is definitely a zone of distance that I personally prefer to capture with and without any wide-angle lens. I think this is part of learning to develop an eye towards better cinematography and considering the subject matter vs. captured distance vs. captured angle. It's a form of art all unto itself. Anyone can setup a camera and shoot away, capturing some really great footage. But then there is some footage that can become more than just great captured footage - it becomes great cinematography. All still subjective but then not. Because like all things visual or auditory, music, art, video...some are very well-done technically while others rise to the surface as being more than they are because they possess many extra qualities that make them so much more than average or very well done.

The lens that Canon fit to their HV20 is the cheapest lens they can get away with. This means it has the fewest elements necessary, some of which are plastic (the aspherics) and the widest aperture will only be at wide-angle. I'll will exhibit barrel distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberations to be sure, but to a degree that you'll find acceptable for $950. Mind you, the internet means there's no place to hide if it's a stinker, and comperition from Sony is raging-furnace-fierce. Sony is the Terminator; it absolutely will not stop.

This means in effect that the lens on the 20 is pretty darn good, as it is on the HC7, for instance. Sony's street cred meant that they have to pay a German firm to allow them to engrave 'Zeiss' around the lens barrel, but Canon are not shy about the fact that their lenses have earned their position on quality of results alone.

But if Canon thought that adding an extra three elements (or four as you had a filter as well) was going to improve the sales of their 20, they'd have done so. Every added element brings with it the risk of de-centering. Every element lowers the T stop, every extra element ups the cost, the weight and the size.

You'll get the best performance out of your Canon if you bolt it to a ton of concrete, select the middle of the zoom range, stay on the default shutter speed, apply no gain or ND filtration and shoot two stops down from max aperture. Your films will be yawn a mile dull, but boy, will they be sharp.

tom.

I've posted a short clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNBi1XaEdtQ

showing how you can force the viewer to see in wide-angle.

You'll get the best performance out of your Canon if you bolt it to a ton of concrete, select the middle of the zoom range, stay on the default shutter speed, apply no gain or ND filtration and shoot two stops down from max aperture. Your films will be yawn a mile dull, but boy, will they be sharp.

Make this a sticky-post. Well, said and to the primal point.

Hey fellow tech-heads...could some of you please chime in on my tech-thoughts about using this larger 52mm lens on a 43mm camera.

My thoughts about the corners of the image NOT being degraded in quality:

As I wrote previously in the forum, if the image looks sharp and focused in the LCD, then it is, if it looks somewhat soft and slightly out of focus, then it is.

The corners do not degrade badly, in fact I would say there is very little to no degradation "you will take notice of". I think the reason for that is the fact that the lens is 52mm covering a 43mm camera. In actuality, the HV20 lens isn't what is 43mm, that's the width of the outside threaded portion of the camera. The lens area itself is much smaller in width/surface area. I'm no expert, but my technical thoughts on this are that if there are degraded edges to the image caused by this wide-angle lens, then the camera is not seeing them because they are physically outside of the view of the HV20's lens since the Merkury is a larger 52mm lens - so my thoughts are that the HV20 is only seeing through the middle section of the wide-angle lens where the image is its best. And that is also why there is very little barrel distortion (image bending) as well, because its not seeing the more curved part of the image at the outer edges.

Does this sound like a good tech-explanation???

Nathan,
That's got to be part of it. The sensor is imaging more of the "sweet spot" and less of the marginal area of the adapter.

Not really Nathan. The manufacturer (Raynox, for instance) designs a lens such as the 6600PRO and sells this with a 43 mm, 52 mm, and a 58 mm attachment thread. The thread he puts on the back bears little relationship to the diameter of the entry and exit pupil.

It's a bit like the filter thread on camcorders. The DVX100A has a 72 mm filter thread whereas the MX300 has a 43 mm thread. Yet the smaller camera has a longer zoom and they're both f/1.6 to f.2.8.

All you've got to worry about is vignetting at the widest angle setting of the zoom. If your image vignettes (as seen on the computer, not on the camera's v'finder which is hugely masked down) then your wide-angle converter has elements that are either too small or it's spaced too far away from your front element.

tom.

Sorry to bring this thread from the grave, but I was wondering if I would notice any difference in quality from the Merkury 52mm and 58mm lenses?

Ben: Not likely.
All: I got this lens and was quite disappointed with it. Pretty severe loss of resolution, IMHO.