Wide Angle Lens Converter for GL / XM

Val Rodriguez · May 18th, 2003, 11:14 PM

Hi Miles,
Very interesting stuff. let us know when you have the xm2/gl2 working.

Ken Tanaka · May 18th, 2003, 11:29 PM

Brad's original question related to DOF using the WD58H adapter on his GL2. If anyone has anything to add specifically to this subject, please do so.

Otherwise, please start a new thread if you really have something new to add to the general, and enormous, body of depth-of-field information we already have on the boards.

Brad Higerd · May 20th, 2003, 10:12 PM

Thanks again to you all, especially Jeff for summarizing the necessary steps to get the most DOF from the GL2. With no photography background, as many of you obviously have, the DOF that I have seen from the GL2 is impressive. Perhaps writers set the bar a little lower, or maybe ignorance truly is bliss.

Thanks again,

Brad

Val Rodriguez · May 20th, 2003, 10:29 PM

Brad,

it's apparent you are happy with the DOF you are achieving. Besides implementing Jeff's suggestions, are you using ND filters or polarizer?

Brad Higerd · May 23rd, 2003, 06:50 AM

Val,

I just received two ND filters, and our polarizer has been great. The DOF appears to be good when we take the time to work for it. My only major complaint is that I like the image stabilizer when used with the WD-58H, and I am a little disappointed that shallow DOF is achieved better without the adaptor attached.

I look forward to using the ND filters in the days ahead.

Brad

Brendan Getchel · June 2nd, 2003, 04:06 PM

For those of you looking to save a few bucks, but still get good quality, I'm sure this is one of the points where we all ask ourselves -- "Is it really worth that much more?!"

In a nutshell, the answer is no. I shot identical video last week using my GL2 with both the Century Optics' $400 .65x bayonet W/A adapter and Canon's $170 0.7x screw-mount W/A adapter. The only difference was that the Century was imperceptibly wider and had a hair more barrel distortion all the way out (both have noticeable distortion, there's no getting around it).

The Canon was just as sharp all the way through to max zoom. There is a slight, but noticeable, drop-off in sharpness when zoomed all the way in while using the adapters as well. I reviewed the video on my new Sony HDTV monitor and the video was of the same subject using the same settings.

Best of all -- the Canon will used the same Century accessories! I am using the Century matte box fastened to the Canon WD-58 and it fits PERFECTLY! I will post a link to a photo later. Also, if you won't be using filters the Canon comes with a very nice, very usable HOOD that is an absolute necessity as both W/A adapters are HIGHLY flare-prone without adequate shading.

Just a quick FYI for those interested. Naturally, if you need a teleconverter/extender, a 16:9 adapter, or fisheye Canon has no options and you'll need either the Century or Optex, but in this case feel absolutely safe and free to save $200 and get the Canon over the Century. I went in thinking I was going to buy the Century and almost didn't even bother to test the WD-58, but I'm glad I did as it is a really impressive adapter -- regardless of price.

PS. I can post screen shots of each zoomed all the way in if any wish them. It'll take me a few days as I'm still reviewing the video we shot at the Rain Forest in Olympic Nat'l Park, Ruby and Second Beaches, Eagle Creek, Punch Bowl, and Cape Flattery.

==========
REVISED
==========

I thought I would add a couple of important notes. The first would be regarding the use of the optical image stabilizer and any W/A adapter. The use of any W/A adapter on either the GL2 or the VX2000 seriously degrades the stabilizer's performance in either of these cameras. I have the Sony 0.7x W/A adapter on the VX2000 and both the Canon WD-58H and Century 0.65x with the GL2. Using the adapters renders the IS on both cameras virtually ineffective, so be aware and take this into account if you're shooting handheld.

The second point is to emphasize the optical abberations that all of these adapters introduce. No matter how good the optics of the adapter are you're still putting a lot more glass in front of the stock lens. Not only is the barrel distortion pronounced and readily visible when zoomed all the way out (widest), but when shooting either horizontal or vertical lines they really advertise the distortion to even the untrained eye. It's not fisheye, by any mean, but as the old saying goes "you need to give a little to get a little." Also, all of these adapters visibly reduce sharpness at the long end (max zoom) -- there's just no avoiding it. If you don't have anything to directly compare it to, then it looks pretty sharp, but if you compare identical, full-zoom shots with and without an adapter you can see some image softening. It's not dramatic, but if you're a stickler for ultimate sharpness you need to know that there is degradation.

Joe Sacher · June 2nd, 2003, 09:17 PM

Thanks for the info. I was looking at that choice for the next month or so. I'll save my money.

Mark Tant · June 21st, 2003, 05:16 AM

I have this wide angle lens, but when I got it there was not the small hood that I was told that comes with it now. Has anybody picked this lens up with the hood, and where did you get it. I would like to see if I can get just the hood.

Mark

David Hurdon · June 21st, 2003, 05:26 AM

Just did that myself, through B&H in NYC (I bought on-line). It was about $39USD and I had to phone to get a part # to search with as I couldn't find the item offered anywhere on the site.
I'm probably the only poor sap who would do this but I'll mention that while it fits in any position there's only one right way to mount it. Viewing my footage after first using it I discovered I had caught edges both left and right in full wide, because I had it at 90 degrees to the correct position. The tightening screw should be at 3 o'clock, like the hood that comes with the camera - I should have seen that as a clue.

David Hurdon

Chris Fangio · June 21st, 2003, 06:38 AM

Mark,

if you bought it as "WD-58H" the hood should definititely be in the package. Otherwise you bought the "older" version, the WD-58 and you'll have to order the hood seperately.

Chris

Mark Tant · June 21st, 2003, 09:54 AM

I bought the lens about a year ago and it did not have the "H"on it, so unless I hear back from someone else with a better place to get the hood, I'll just contact Canon.

Kind regards,

Mark

Chris Hurd · June 21st, 2003, 11:34 AM

A year ago the hood wasn't available. It wasn't introduced until the GL2 came out last July. The hood is always available as a separate item from any authorized Canon dealer. I urge you to consider purchasing from any of our DV Info Net Community Sponsors, as you'll be supporting this message board when you buy from them. Hope this helps,

David Hurdon · June 21st, 2003, 12:15 PM

Chris, what happened to Lyle Pendy's post with the B&H URL for buying the WD-58 lens hood? I no sooner read it than it disappeared, when yours arrived with the comment about forum sponsors.

David Hurdon

Chris Hurd · June 21st, 2003, 10:05 PM

David, it's my policy to point readers to our sponsors. I removed the B&H link because it's detrimental to the folks who are paying for these boards... our site sponsors, who are dealers every bit as good as the "Big & Huge." I promote small businesses because I myself am a small business. Many of our members are small business people. B&H is not going to suffer in the interim. Meanwhile, our site sponsors have the same item in stock at the same price. I've stated before many times, and will state once again now, that as the owner of the boards, I reserve the right of having the final say on all where-to-buy questions. Hope this helps,

David Woodland · June 25th, 2003, 09:36 AM

Recently, I purchased a .3 Raynox wide angle clip on lens for my Gl2 for $100. I could of gotten a more expensive one but recently, all I have been shooting is shots for my upcoming rollerblading video and I really don't need the "best". Anyway, people have been saying that the clip on is a bad lens but I really don't see a problem with it. I just found out they made a screw on .3. I had heard about it a while ago but I just found it a few days after I got my clip on. What is better about the screw on then the clip on. Since I will be getting closer shots, I think its good to have the clip on incase someone hits my camera, that way only the lens would come off. Reply back, thank you. :)

May 18th, 2003, 11:14 PM	#136
Val Rodriguez Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 35	Hi Miles, Very interesting stuff. let us know when you have the xm2/gl2 working. __________________ Val Rod

May 18th, 2003, 11:29 PM	#137
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	We're Wandering A Bit... Brad's original question related to DOF using the WD58H adapter on his GL2. If anyone has anything to add specifically to this subject, please do so. Otherwise, please start a new thread if you really have something new to add to the general, and enormous, body of depth-of-field information we already have on the boards. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

May 20th, 2003, 10:29 PM	#139
Val Rodriguez Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 35	Brad, it's apparent you are happy with the DOF you are achieving. Besides implementing Jeff's suggestions, are you using ND filters or polarizer? __________________ Val Rod

June 2nd, 2003, 04:06 PM	#141
Brendan Getchel Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Waterbury, CT Posts: 101	My WD-58H vs. Century .65x Tests -- Updated For those of you looking to save a few bucks, but still get good quality, I'm sure this is one of the points where we all ask ourselves -- "Is it really worth that much more?!" In a nutshell, the answer is no. I shot identical video last week using my GL2 with both the Century Optics' $400 .65x bayonet W/A adapter and Canon's $170 0.7x screw-mount W/A adapter. The only difference was that the Century was imperceptibly wider and had a hair more barrel distortion all the way out (both have noticeable distortion, there's no getting around it). The Canon was just as sharp all the way through to max zoom. There is a slight, but noticeable, drop-off in sharpness when zoomed all the way in while using the adapters as well. I reviewed the video on my new Sony HDTV monitor and the video was of the same subject using the same settings. Best of all -- the Canon will used the same Century accessories! I am using the Century matte box fastened to the Canon WD-58 and it fits PERFECTLY! I will post a link to a photo later. Also, if you won't be using filters the Canon comes with a very nice, very usable HOOD that is an absolute necessity as both W/A adapters are HIGHLY flare-prone without adequate shading. Just a quick FYI for those interested. Naturally, if you need a teleconverter/extender, a 16:9 adapter, or fisheye Canon has no options and you'll need either the Century or Optex, but in this case feel absolutely safe and free to save $200 and get the Canon over the Century. I went in thinking I was going to buy the Century and almost didn't even bother to test the WD-58, but I'm glad I did as it is a really impressive adapter -- regardless of price. PS. I can post screen shots of each zoomed all the way in if any wish them. It'll take me a few days as I'm still reviewing the video we shot at the Rain Forest in Olympic Nat'l Park, Ruby and Second Beaches, Eagle Creek, Punch Bowl, and Cape Flattery. ========== REVISED ========== I thought I would add a couple of important notes. The first would be regarding the use of the optical image stabilizer and any W/A adapter. The use of any W/A adapter on either the GL2 or the VX2000 seriously degrades the stabilizer's performance in either of these cameras. I have the Sony 0.7x W/A adapter on the VX2000 and both the Canon WD-58H and Century 0.65x with the GL2. Using the adapters renders the IS on both cameras virtually ineffective, so be aware and take this into account if you're shooting handheld. The second point is to emphasize the optical abberations that all of these adapters introduce. No matter how good the optics of the adapter are you're still putting a lot more glass in front of the stock lens. Not only is the barrel distortion pronounced and readily visible when zoomed all the way out (widest), but when shooting either horizontal or vertical lines they really advertise the distortion to even the untrained eye. It's not fisheye, by any mean, but as the old saying goes "you need to give a little to get a little." Also, all of these adapters visibly reduce sharpness at the long end (max zoom) -- there's just no avoiding it. If you don't have anything to directly compare it to, then it looks pretty sharp, but if you compare identical, full-zoom shots with and without an adapter you can see some image softening. It's not dramatic, but if you're a stickler for ultimate sharpness you need to know that there is degradation. __________________ Dumb Guy.

June 21st, 2003, 05:16 AM	#143
Mark Tant Tourist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Ringgold, Georgia Posts: 2	WD-58H Wide Angle Lens I have this wide angle lens, but when I got it there was not the small hood that I was told that comes with it now. Has anybody picked this lens up with the hood, and where did you get it. I would like to see if I can get just the hood. Mark __________________ Moving Memories

May 20th, 2003, 10:12 PM	#138
Brad Higerd Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 186	Thanks again to you all, especially Jeff for summarizing the necessary steps to get the most DOF from the GL2. With no photography background, as many of you obviously have, the DOF that I have seen from the GL2 is impressive. Perhaps writers set the bar a little lower, or maybe ignorance truly is bliss. Thanks again, Brad

May 23rd, 2003, 06:50 AM	#140
Brad Higerd Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 186	Val, I just received two ND filters, and our polarizer has been great. The DOF appears to be good when we take the time to work for it. My only major complaint is that I like the image stabilizer when used with the WD-58H, and I am a little disappointed that shallow DOF is achieved better without the adaptor attached. I look forward to using the ND filters in the days ahead. Brad

June 2nd, 2003, 09:17 PM	#142
Joe Sacher Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 177	Thanks for the info. I was looking at that choice for the next month or so. I'll save my money.

June 21st, 2003, 05:26 AM	#144
David Hurdon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 484	Just did that myself, through B&H in NYC (I bought on-line). It was about $39USD and I had to phone to get a part # to search with as I couldn't find the item offered anywhere on the site. I'm probably the only poor sap who would do this but I'll mention that while it fits in any position there's only one right way to mount it. Viewing my footage after first using it I discovered I had caught edges both left and right in full wide, because I had it at 90 degrees to the correct position. The tightening screw should be at 3 o'clock, like the hood that comes with the camera - I should have seen that as a clue. David Hurdon __________________ Site:http://www.faceliftmarketing.ca Blog:http://www.websitevideo.blogspot.com

June 21st, 2003, 06:38 AM	#145
Chris Fangio Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Koblenz, Germany Posts: 70	Mark, if you bought it as "WD-58H" the hood should definititely be in the package. Otherwise you bought the "older" version, the WD-58 and you'll have to order the hood seperately. Chris

June 21st, 2003, 09:54 AM	#146
Mark Tant Tourist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Ringgold, Georgia Posts: 2	Thanks Chris I bought the lens about a year ago and it did not have the "H"on it, so unless I hear back from someone else with a better place to get the hood, I'll just contact Canon. Kind regards, Mark __________________ Moving Memories

June 21st, 2003, 11:34 AM	#147
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	A year ago the hood wasn't available. It wasn't introduced until the GL2 came out last July. The hood is always available as a separate item from any authorized Canon dealer. I urge you to consider purchasing from any of our DV Info Net Community Sponsors, as you'll be supporting this message board when you buy from them. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

June 21st, 2003, 12:15 PM	#148
David Hurdon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 484	Chris, what happened to Lyle Pendy's post with the B&H URL for buying the WD-58 lens hood? I no sooner read it than it disappeared, when yours arrived with the comment about forum sponsors. David Hurdon __________________ Site:http://www.faceliftmarketing.ca Blog:http://www.websitevideo.blogspot.com

June 21st, 2003, 10:05 PM	#149
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	David, it's my policy to point readers to our sponsors. I removed the B&H link because it's detrimental to the folks who are paying for these boards... our site sponsors, who are dealers every bit as good as the "Big & Huge." I promote small businesses because I myself am a small business. Many of our members are small business people. B&H is not going to suffer in the interim. Meanwhile, our site sponsors have the same item in stock at the same price. I've stated before many times, and will state once again now, that as the owner of the boards, I reserve the right of having the final say on all where-to-buy questions. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

June 25th, 2003, 09:36 AM	#150
David Woodland Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ky Posts: 54	Raynox .3 wide angle clip on lens. Good or bad? Recently, I purchased a .3 Raynox wide angle clip on lens for my Gl2 for $100. I could of gotten a more expensive one but recently, all I have been shooting is shots for my upcoming rollerblading video and I really don't need the "best". Anyway, people have been saying that the clip on is a bad lens but I really don't see a problem with it. I just found out they made a screw on .3. I had heard about it a while ago but I just found it a few days after I got my clip on. What is better about the screw on then the clip on. Since I will be getting closer shots, I think its good to have the clip on incase someone hits my camera, that way only the lens would come off. Reply back, thank you. :)