Wide Angle Lens Converter for GL / XM

Tom Hardwick · January 13th, 2005, 12:59 PM

I have a Kenko 0.7x single element non zoom-through and it works well. Being a spherical element means it barrel distorts, but it's nicely coated and is a lot more compact and is considerably lighter than my zoom-through w'angle converters.

I tend to prefer non zoom-through as generally you can go to about half way before the image blurrs out, and anyway, the camera's zoom lens always works better without any added chunnks of glass placed in front of it.

tom.

Stephen Sobel · February 5th, 2005, 02:55 PM

What is the best wide angle lens for the GL2 camcorder - in terms of quality of picture, guality glass, etc.

Chris Hurd · February 5th, 2005, 08:45 PM

Your top two choices are the Canon WD-58H wide-angle adapter, and a comparable model or two from Century Optics. These adapters have been discussed frequently on this forum... try a search using those terms and browse through the results; you'll find a lot of feedback about both.

Stephen Sobel · February 6th, 2005, 08:38 AM

From what I have gleaned from the other threads, it seems like the choice is between the Canon WD-58H and the Century Optics .65. What is not clear to me is whether or not the Century Optics is worth the extra cost. I've seen one thread where one person appears to have used both, but that's the only actual "real life" comparison I could find.

I am trying to get some sense from folk who have used both how much of a difference there is. For example, do they both give the same field of vision, or is one different? Does one have more distortion, or are they the same. If there are differences, how noticeable are they?

Patrick Smith · February 6th, 2005, 12:05 PM

just for general questions: what is the best way to clean my wide angle?

Todd Kivimaki · February 6th, 2005, 01:07 PM

Stephen, What are you going to use the wide angle lens for. I have the Century Optics .3 fisheye which is very distorted, but shows from ceiling to floor.

I also have the .55 Century Optics, shows quite a bit, just about no distortion.

I film house tours, and have a need for both, in post I can correct for the distortion caused by the fisheye. But the .55 is much more convinent.

Stephen Sobel · February 6th, 2005, 05:02 PM

I will use it for video taping school concerts, and other inside events where I need to get a wide angle. I'm trying to get a comparison of the Canon WD-58H and the Century Optics .65 (if there is another Century Optics that is a better option that the .65, I'd like that comparison as well).

Zack Birlew · February 7th, 2005, 03:12 PM

From what I've seen, the WD-58H is probably your best bet. It is full zoom through and there is no distortion/vignetting. I wouldn't imagine that the Century Optics wide angle lense would be too much better.

Stephen Sobel · February 8th, 2005, 05:32 PM

I would still like to hear from anyone who has actual real life experience with both lens - is there anyone out there who has used both? Or had a chance to compare them in a store?

Bob Benkosky · February 17th, 2005, 06:09 PM

I use the Canon and it's got excellent optics. I can't imagine the Century Optics being better enough to justify the cost. It's a very good wide angle lens.

Alexander McLeod · February 18th, 2005, 04:50 PM

I use the Canon and find it excellent. I certainly agree with Bob, Jack, et al about cost justification and the quality of the lens.

Sandy

Viktor Carlquist · February 19th, 2005, 01:56 PM

I use the Raynox.

REALLY worth the money!!!

http://www.raynox.co.jp/

Tom Hardwick · February 24th, 2005, 03:49 PM

I've tested the Century 0.65 (bayonet mount on a VX2000) against a Raynox, Kenko, Cavision and others. Not the Canon though. Of all the zoom-throughs the Century was the best. Mind you, it was the heaviest, most expensive, best coated and sharpest at all apertures and focal lengths. I was impressed.

But one sadness was the barrel distortion. At the price I just felt it distorted too much, and the Bolex Aspheron I now use is much better in taht department. But then again, all converter lenses have their pros as well as cons, and the Aspheron is only a half zoom-through.

tom.

Joe Mobic · March 19th, 2005, 07:25 PM

so I have the UV filter and polarizer filter and the tiffen filter which is 58mm, however when using the wide angle lens, there is nothing one can place over the wide angle lens.

when I placed the tiffen filter soft fx3 over the canan gl2 lens and then the wide angle lens, one can see the small dark "spots" of the tiffen filter on the LCD screen.

any advice on what ya'll do with your filters and wide angle lens?

K. Forman · March 19th, 2005, 08:36 PM

So far, it's been one or the other. Try to get the best footage you can, and apply the filters in post as needed.

February 5th, 2005, 02:55 PM	#332
Stephen Sobel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 408	Wide angle lens for GL-2 camcorder What is the best wide angle lens for the GL2 camcorder - in terms of quality of picture, guality glass, etc.

February 5th, 2005, 08:45 PM	#333
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Your top two choices are the Canon WD-58H wide-angle adapter, and a comparable model or two from Century Optics. These adapters have been discussed frequently on this forum... try a search using those terms and browse through the results; you'll find a lot of feedback about both. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

February 6th, 2005, 12:05 PM	#335
Patrick Smith Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Utah Posts: 208	just for general questions: what is the best way to clean my wide angle? __________________ patricksmith04@hotmail.com

February 7th, 2005, 03:12 PM	#338
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	From what I've seen, the WD-58H is probably your best bet. It is full zoom through and there is no distortion/vignetting. I wouldn't imagine that the Century Optics wide angle lense would be too much better. __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

February 17th, 2005, 06:09 PM	#340
Bob Benkosky Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Lake Park, Florida Posts: 202	I use the Canon and it's got excellent optics. I can't imagine the Century Optics being better enough to justify the cost. It's a very good wide angle lens. __________________ http://www.veoh.com/channels/filmmaker My clips and films.

January 13th, 2005, 12:59 PM	#331
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I have a Kenko 0.7x single element non zoom-through and it works well. Being a spherical element means it barrel distorts, but it's nicely coated and is a lot more compact and is considerably lighter than my zoom-through w'angle converters. I tend to prefer non zoom-through as generally you can go to about half way before the image blurrs out, and anyway, the camera's zoom lens always works better without any added chunnks of glass placed in front of it. tom.

February 6th, 2005, 08:38 AM	#334
Stephen Sobel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 408	From what I have gleaned from the other threads, it seems like the choice is between the Canon WD-58H and the Century Optics .65. What is not clear to me is whether or not the Century Optics is worth the extra cost. I've seen one thread where one person appears to have used both, but that's the only actual "real life" comparison I could find. I am trying to get some sense from folk who have used both how much of a difference there is. For example, do they both give the same field of vision, or is one different? Does one have more distortion, or are they the same. If there are differences, how noticeable are they?

February 6th, 2005, 01:07 PM	#336
Todd Kivimaki Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Elida Ohio Posts: 217	Stephen, What are you going to use the wide angle lens for. I have the Century Optics .3 fisheye which is very distorted, but shows from ceiling to floor. I also have the .55 Century Optics, shows quite a bit, just about no distortion. I film house tours, and have a need for both, in post I can correct for the distortion caused by the fisheye. But the .55 is much more convinent.

February 6th, 2005, 05:02 PM	#337
Stephen Sobel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 408	I will use it for video taping school concerts, and other inside events where I need to get a wide angle. I'm trying to get a comparison of the Canon WD-58H and the Century Optics .65 (if there is another Century Optics that is a better option that the .65, I'd like that comparison as well).

February 8th, 2005, 05:32 PM	#339
Stephen Sobel Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 408	I would still like to hear from anyone who has actual real life experience with both lens - is there anyone out there who has used both? Or had a chance to compare them in a store?

February 18th, 2005, 04:50 PM	#341
Alexander McLeod Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Posts: 90	I use the Canon and find it excellent. I certainly agree with Bob, Jack, et al about cost justification and the quality of the lens. Sandy

February 19th, 2005, 01:56 PM	#342
Viktor Carlquist Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Stockholm (Sweden) Posts: 30	I use the Raynox. REALLY worth the money!!! http://www.raynox.co.jp/ __________________ Canon EOS 7D, Canon XM2, MA-300, Azden SGM-1x

February 24th, 2005, 03:49 PM	#343
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I've tested the Century 0.65 (bayonet mount on a VX2000) against a Raynox, Kenko, Cavision and others. Not the Canon though. Of all the zoom-throughs the Century was the best. Mind you, it was the heaviest, most expensive, best coated and sharpest at all apertures and focal lengths. I was impressed. But one sadness was the barrel distortion. At the price I just felt it distorted too much, and the Bolex Aspheron I now use is much better in taht department. But then again, all converter lenses have their pros as well as cons, and the Aspheron is only a half zoom-through. tom.

March 19th, 2005, 07:25 PM	#344
Joe Mobic Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baltimore Posts: 31	canon wide angle lens and filters so I have the UV filter and polarizer filter and the tiffen filter which is 58mm, however when using the wide angle lens, there is nothing one can place over the wide angle lens. when I placed the tiffen filter soft fx3 over the canan gl2 lens and then the wide angle lens, one can see the small dark "spots" of the tiffen filter on the LCD screen. any advice on what ya'll do with your filters and wide angle lens?

March 19th, 2005, 08:36 PM	#345
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	So far, it's been one or the other. Try to get the best footage you can, and apply the filters in post as needed. __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us