Wide Angle Lens Converter for GL / XM

Don Berube · April 28th, 2003, 09:51 AM

At about $240, the Century Optics .55x Reversible is a no brainer for any shooter using a camera with a 58mm screw-on thread mount.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/product...versible_waa/#

Bear in mind that this is not a full zoom through wide-angle adaptor, meaning it will go out of focus once you zoom in past a certain point. This is no biggie though, as you would not want to always keep such a wide angle adaptor attached 24/7.

If you need a full zoom through, you will not get as pronounced of a wide angle effect. That's just the way it is in lens design. The Canon Wd-58 with the Tulip-shaped Sunshade (no vignetting at full wide) is a very good quality piece of glass and more than adequate for most handycam shooters. If you want ultimate quality and performance you will have to pay about double the cost. Century Optics offers some superb glass for the money.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/1/1.htm

- don

Richard D. George · April 30th, 2003, 09:50 AM

I STRONGLY recommend the Century 0.65x bayonet mount zoom through lens, along with the associated FA-100 (I think that is the number) lens hood/shade.

Very good optical quality (important for anything put in front of a Canon L-series lens), and the zoom-though ability is very convenient.

Both the lens and lens hood are expensive, but well worth it! I bought mine from B&H.

Adam Wilt did a review of this lens (with a bayonet mount for a Sony PD-150) for DV Magazine. I think it is available at the DV magazine website.

Richard George
Lakewood / Denver
Beautiful Colorado

Bob Harotunian · May 11th, 2003, 08:33 AM

If using a wide angle lens, is it okay to use a soft effects filter under it? I know your supposed to remove the UV filter if using wide angle.
TIA,
Bob

Boyd Ostroff · May 11th, 2003, 09:58 AM

Try it, and then be sure to view on a monitor that shows the entire frame. I've found that putting a filter between my lens and wide adaptor will cause vignetting in the corners since it increases the space between them. You mileage may vary ;-)

Ryan Krga · May 11th, 2003, 08:49 PM

I have had my B+W F-Pro Haze Filter on with my WD58 and had no vignetting. It is usually different with different lenses.

Boyd Ostroff · May 11th, 2003, 09:26 PM

You might also want to consider whether you trust a heavy wide angle lens screwed into a relatively flimsy filter....

Brad Higerd · May 15th, 2003, 12:02 PM

Without having any plans to transfer footage to film, I am still very interested in producing footage with the “film” look. I have purchased a Canon wide angle adaptor, and I would like to know what effect it will have on creating depth of field (DOF). The follow-up question that I have is what effect placing a filter (Tiffen Soft/FX 3) in between my camera and adapter will have on the depth of field?

I have read every thread I could find on both subjects (DOF and filter use with wide angle adapter), and I would like to know more. Please feel free to comment on this filter if you have an opinion, as I have not purchased it yet.

Brad

Brad Higerd · May 15th, 2003, 02:31 PM

Please note that not only have I read every thread I could find on DOF, but I have been thoroughly confused by many. If you are kind enough to respond to this thread, would you please clarify if using terms like "increased" or "greater" depth of field. I'm pretty comfortable with terms like "shallow", but many of the existing threads contained terms that added to my confusion (like the concept of turning up the air conditioner – what does that mean?).

Rick Spilman · May 15th, 2003, 02:55 PM

The depth of field with a wide angle adapter gets really really deep. If you want a soft focus in the background do not install the WA adapter. The Tiffen filter won't make it better.

In general with 1/4" ccds it is really hard to get anything but very deep DOFs. A WA adapter will only make it worse.

Ken Tanaka · May 15th, 2003, 03:19 PM

Brad,
Since you have read so many of our lengthy, deep and (as you noted) often bewildering DOF threads and debates, I hereby confer you with the honorary degree of "Bachelor of DOF". You are now granted all rights and priveleges commensurate with this title. Congratulations.<g>

Hokay, increased depth of field refers to a deepening of the focus range, like a thickening of an imaginary ring around the camera. Conversely, a decreased depth of field thins that metaphorical ring and reduces the range of crisp focus around the camera.

Akos Szemenyei · May 15th, 2003, 08:43 PM

Well, the only way to achieve DOF on a camera like that, is to shoot with an open iris, like f2.8 or lower. You have to have use quite a lot of lights indoors, more than suggested for video, and you probably even have to use an ND filter to prevent the highlights from blowing out, it's really all about lighting. No lights, no DOF, unless you are outdoors and the sun is blazing.

Brad Higerd · May 15th, 2003, 08:46 PM

My new "Bachelor of DOF" feels good, but I still am left somewhat needy. I guess what I wanted to know is the most basic and fundamental tricks in creating a shallow DOF without having to go to NY for a digital video 3-day conference. The threads, while more informative than all 37 of my remaining brain cells had ever hoped, didn't clearly lay out the path the average GL2 owner might follow to remarkable shallow DOF footage.

While I am an engineer, I am an environmental engineer. Filling holes with trash is a far cry from understanding prismatic glass aberrations and the like. My people just need it straight and simple.

Thanks for the encouragement, the opportunity to vent, and your continued help.

Ken Tanaka · May 15th, 2003, 10:52 PM

Brad,
When the dust settled from all of the DOF threads of yore one fact remained: you can't get truly shallow, film-camera-like DOF from such small CCD (i.e. aperture) cameras by simple standard lens measures. It's even hard to accomplish on a 2/3" CCD camera. As Rick pointed out earlier, wide-angle lenses and adapters actually make the problem worse by deepening the apparent DOF. A 3-day conference won't help. You can prove this very quickly for yourself by setting your speed to, say, 1/60 opening your iris all the way (use the ND if needed) and judging for yourself. Try different zoom settings/distances to subject. That's as good as it gets.

You can try a practical effect such as "silking" the background to fake a shallow DOF. (If you had an XL1s with a manual lens you could try the macro setting trick, depending on the primary subject's size and location.)

Graham Bernard · May 16th, 2003, 01:40 AM

Hiyah Brad! - Or should I say Prof. B. Higerd B.DoF. !

Maybe get the best you can and do your Film look in Post Prod? - After all if it aint in the can you aint gonna get to do anything. Yes?

Grazie - Sorry Chris, just can't kick my nickname habit - call it even more individuality.

Rick Spilman · May 16th, 2003, 07:23 AM

Brad,

Keep in mind that depth of field has a lot to do with taste and fashion. Shallow DOF is popular today and is often overdone. Too often, at least to my taste, the camera wanders around a room with one narrow spot in focus and everything else a blur. Nothing approaching reality (unless you need to visit the optometrist.)

Orson Wells worked really hard to achieve deep depths of field in Citizen Caine. It was a break through. It has fallen out of fashion these days but that is the nature of taste and fashion.

A GL2 will not ever get really shallow depths of field because of its chip size. The one really fun, if overdone, DOF trick, rack focus is close to impossible to achieve because of the servo focus ring.

Personally, I think the best bet is to forget the "film" look and concentrate on shooting really good, compelling footage that effectively tells the story you want told. That is what people remember, not DOF or whether it looked like film.

Rick, stepping down off my soapbox now

April 28th, 2003, 09:51 AM	#106
Don Berube Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Boston, MA (travel frequently) Posts: 837	At about $240, the Century Optics .55x Reversible is a no brainer for any shooter using a camera with a 58mm screw-on thread mount. http://www.centuryoptics.com/product...versible_waa/# Bear in mind that this is not a full zoom through wide-angle adaptor, meaning it will go out of focus once you zoom in past a certain point. This is no biggie though, as you would not want to always keep such a wide angle adaptor attached 24/7. If you need a full zoom through, you will not get as pronounced of a wide angle effect. That's just the way it is in lens design. The Canon Wd-58 with the Tulip-shaped Sunshade (no vignetting at full wide) is a very good quality piece of glass and more than adequate for most handycam shooters. If you want ultimate quality and performance you will have to pay about double the cost. Century Optics offers some superb glass for the money. http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/1/1.htm - don __________________ DONALD BERUBE - noisybrain. Productions, LLC Director Of Photography/ Producer/ Consultant http://noisybrain.com/donbio.html CREATE and NETWORK with http://www.bosfcpug.org and also http://fcpugnetwork.org

May 11th, 2003, 08:33 AM	#108
Bob Harotunian Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 360	Filters with wide angle? If using a wide angle lens, is it okay to use a soft effects filter under it? I know your supposed to remove the UV filter if using wide angle. TIA, Bob

May 15th, 2003, 12:02 PM	#112
Brad Higerd Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 186	Creating Depth of Field and the WD-58H Wide Angle Adapter Without having any plans to transfer footage to film, I am still very interested in producing footage with the “film” look. I have purchased a Canon wide angle adaptor, and I would like to know what effect it will have on creating depth of field (DOF). The follow-up question that I have is what effect placing a filter (Tiffen Soft/FX 3) in between my camera and adapter will have on the depth of field? I have read every thread I could find on both subjects (DOF and filter use with wide angle adapter), and I would like to know more. Please feel free to comment on this filter if you have an opinion, as I have not purchased it yet. Brad

May 15th, 2003, 03:19 PM	#115
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Brad, Since you have read so many of our lengthy, deep and (as you noted) often bewildering DOF threads and debates, I hereby confer you with the honorary degree of "Bachelor of DOF". You are now granted all rights and priveleges commensurate with this title. Congratulations.<g> Hokay, increased depth of field refers to a deepening of the focus range, like a thickening of an imaginary ring around the camera. Conversely, a decreased depth of field thins that metaphorical ring and reduces the range of crisp focus around the camera. __________________ 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 15th, 2003, 10:52 PM	#118
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Brad, When the dust settled from all of the DOF threads of yore one fact remained: you can't get truly shallow, film-camera-like DOF from such small CCD (i.e. aperture) cameras by simple standard lens measures. It's even hard to accomplish on a 2/3" CCD camera. As Rick pointed out earlier, wide-angle lenses and adapters actually make the problem worse by deepening the apparent DOF. A 3-day conference won't help. You can prove this very quickly for yourself by setting your speed to, say, 1/60 opening your iris all the way (use the ND if needed) and judging for yourself. Try different zoom settings/distances to subject. That's as good as it gets. You can try a practical effect such as "silking" the background to fake a shallow DOF. (If you had an XL1s with a manual lens you could try the macro setting trick, depending on the primary subject's size and location.) __________________ 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

April 30th, 2003, 09:50 AM	#107
Richard D. George Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 351	I STRONGLY recommend the Century 0.65x bayonet mount zoom through lens, along with the associated FA-100 (I think that is the number) lens hood/shade. Very good optical quality (important for anything put in front of a Canon L-series lens), and the zoom-though ability is very convenient. Both the lens and lens hood are expensive, but well worth it! I bought mine from B&H. Adam Wilt did a review of this lens (with a bayonet mount for a Sony PD-150) for DV Magazine. I think it is available at the DV magazine website. Richard George Lakewood / Denver Beautiful Colorado

May 11th, 2003, 09:58 AM	#109
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,797	Try it, and then be sure to view on a monitor that shows the entire frame. I've found that putting a filter between my lens and wide adaptor will cause vignetting in the corners since it increases the space between them. You mileage may vary ;-)

May 11th, 2003, 08:49 PM	#110
Ryan Krga Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, Illinois Posts: 116	I have had my B+W F-Pro Haze Filter on with my WD58 and had no vignetting. It is usually different with different lenses.

May 11th, 2003, 09:26 PM	#111
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,797	You might also want to consider whether you trust a heavy wide angle lens screwed into a relatively flimsy filter....

May 15th, 2003, 02:31 PM	#113
Brad Higerd Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 186	Please note that not only have I read every thread I could find on DOF, but I have been thoroughly confused by many. If you are kind enough to respond to this thread, would you please clarify if using terms like "increased" or "greater" depth of field. I'm pretty comfortable with terms like "shallow", but many of the existing threads contained terms that added to my confusion (like the concept of turning up the air conditioner – what does that mean?).

May 15th, 2003, 02:55 PM	#114
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	The depth of field with a wide angle adapter gets really really deep. If you want a soft focus in the background do not install the WA adapter. The Tiffen filter won't make it better. In general with 1/4" ccds it is really hard to get anything but very deep DOFs. A WA adapter will only make it worse.

May 15th, 2003, 08:43 PM	#116
Akos Szemenyei Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Saitama, Japan Posts: 111	Well, the only way to achieve DOF on a camera like that, is to shoot with an open iris, like f2.8 or lower. You have to have use quite a lot of lights indoors, more than suggested for video, and you probably even have to use an ND filter to prevent the highlights from blowing out, it's really all about lighting. No lights, no DOF, unless you are outdoors and the sun is blazing.

May 15th, 2003, 08:46 PM	#117
Brad Higerd Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 186	My new "Bachelor of DOF" feels good, but I still am left somewhat needy. I guess what I wanted to know is the most basic and fundamental tricks in creating a shallow DOF without having to go to NY for a digital video 3-day conference. The threads, while more informative than all 37 of my remaining brain cells had ever hoped, didn't clearly lay out the path the average GL2 owner might follow to remarkable shallow DOF footage. While I am an engineer, I am an environmental engineer. Filling holes with trash is a far cry from understanding prismatic glass aberrations and the like. My people just need it straight and simple. Thanks for the encouragement, the opportunity to vent, and your continued help.

May 16th, 2003, 01:40 AM	#119
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Post Prod? Hiyah Brad! - Or should I say Prof. B. Higerd B.DoF. ! Maybe get the best you can and do your Film look in Post Prod? - After all if it aint in the can you aint gonna get to do anything. Yes? Grazie - Sorry Chris, just can't kick my nickname habit - call it even more individuality.

May 16th, 2003, 07:23 AM	#120
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	Brad, Keep in mind that depth of field has a lot to do with taste and fashion. Shallow DOF is popular today and is often overdone. Too often, at least to my taste, the camera wanders around a room with one narrow spot in focus and everything else a blur. Nothing approaching reality (unless you need to visit the optometrist.) Orson Wells worked really hard to achieve deep depths of field in Citizen Caine. It was a break through. It has fallen out of fashion these days but that is the nature of taste and fashion. A GL2 will not ever get really shallow depths of field because of its chip size. The one really fun, if overdone, DOF trick, rack focus is close to impossible to achieve because of the servo focus ring. Personally, I think the best bet is to forget the "film" look and concentrate on shooting really good, compelling footage that effectively tells the story you want told. That is what people remember, not DOF or whether it looked like film. Rick, stepping down off my soapbox now