How about the SGM-X? I don´t even need an adapter for that one

I added a Canon DM-50 mike not long ago. Very pleased with it and a simple dump into the hot shoe. I dub a lot of track over camcorder sound so mostly I need a directional for interviews or specific sound where Im "filming" the sound. I.E, autmobile exhausts, etc. It works well for the tasks I ask.

On the wide angle lens, I just picked one up but have a newbie question on it. Its a 0.42X AF Wide Angle. Just fitted adaptor ring and screwed onto front of GL2. The view is spectacular but Im getting the black halo from the lens border hood. Not really a hood, just the end of the lens. At full wide angle, the halo is as like a black circle around my footage, and shady at best at full zoom.

Im not using is with the GL2 hood on. Im sure Im doing something stupid here. I just put the WA Lens on an hour ago. What do I need to do to remove the black halo?

So the problem with buying a lens for $40 on eBay might be that the picture will be all messed up? just a useless thing to buy at a low price maybe?
Or is it a problem also with more expensive models like the WD-58H?

Some good replies here folks. The danger of buying any lens of ebay is that it might be damaged. Any slight marks to the front element will show up badly on footage shot through it as the depth of field will be huge and the front element can be actually in focus in the sunshine. Beware.

I'd also post a warning about the Sennheiser MKE 300 Oskar. Make sure you get the 'D' (for digital) version as there's a lot of hum with the cheaper version. Sennheisser Sweden can do the internal modification for you if you get the original version. I know you think it's too big, but it'll be better than the Sony 908. The 300 is mono only, you realise?

Chris - you're seeing vignetting - a very common occurance with powerful wide-angle converters that are physically too small. The big 58mm filter thread and the VAP OIS on the front of the GL2 mean that you need big glass to give a 0.42x magnification of the image. I'd go with Brian's WD 58 suggestion - this is a fine lens, though not very powerful.

Oscar - look at the Raynox site - they make fine wide-angle converters.

tom.

OK, help me with this:
A camshop here in Sweden sell two type of lenses.
One has "0,7" and the otherone has "0,3", which one of these two is the "best"? I mean, which one gives the most wide angel, 0,3 or 0,7?

The 0,3 is more wide angle than the 0,7.

The figure is a multiplication factor Oskar. So if you have a 6 mm to 60 mm 10x zoom, a 0,5x converter will change this to a 3 mm to 30 mm zoom.

If you're thinking of buying one of these lenses (0,3x or 0,7x) then I would suggest that you try them on your camcorder before you buy. The 0,3x will distort straight lines a lot, whereas the 0,7x will only distort them a little. The 0,3x is much more likely to vignette the image too - and give you black corners to your frame.

tom.

Kenko Wide converter-opinions?
 

I found on BHphoto Kenko KR-W075 58mm 0,75mm wide adapter for 79,95$. It sounds much, much cheaper then Canon ones. I need wide for my XM2, so I am considering this Kenko. Any experience with this lens, and are they zoom-through?

Hi Darko, We just purchased what I think was a Kenko wd for my sons 1 chip canon. They said it was a zoom through. At about 1/3 of the way through everything gets very soft. We also bought a WD-58 canon lens for our GL-2 and it is definately zoom through and does a great job. The Kenyo does a great job at wide but thats all. The cost for the Kenyo was about 50 or 75 dollars and I think the WD-58 was around 300 dollars.

Thank you, Terry. I'll go with Kenko. 1/3 of the way seems ok for framing purposes. I am planning to use wide converter on few occasions anyway, not the whole time. For that purpose 75$ is simply a great price.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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

I use the Raynox.

REALLY worth the money!!!

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

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.

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?

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.

I got to this place about a year ago and realised the need for a matt box.

I have 2 adaptors for the matt box:

1/- 58mm

2/- 80mm for the WD

This is THE way to get pola AND a way to mount several filters at once.

Keith - you weren't suggesting pola in post? You weren't suggesting extra ND straights or grads and openning up the iris in post to get that extra DoF . .were you? Nah! You couldn't have meant that?

Sometimes, just sometimes you gotta purchase that which you want/need to actually GET that which you aren't getting!

Grazie

I was suggesting soft filtering in post, the cam has a built-in ND. A matte box will work with the WA lens?

"A matte box will work with the WA lens?" - Yup! I use an adaptor that takes it over the 80mm - great stuff!

G

What matte box? How much?

Keith - I got the Kestrel 16:9 bellows. You get a 58mm and a 80 mm adaptor.


Here yah goes!

http://www.truelens.co.uk/matte/kestrel.htm


Grazie

They only mention the XL1, and not the GL1... What are you using Grazie?

XM2 [PAL] - Grazie

Lense Filters for Wide Angle?
 

I was wondering if anyone knew of a company that mande UV, soft, or anyother type of lense filters that would fit on my canon wide angle lense....

thanks!

Go see Matte Boxes . . .
 

Matte box is the only way I know of getting a filter "in front" of the BIG end. If you want to screw filters at the "THIN" end then you can ONLY deal with non-Grad OR NON-Pola filters. I've used UV and SKYlight 58mm on the thin end. However, using screw filters are a massive pain in the bottom.

Once you are using a matte box then the World's Your Lobster! I use a Kestrel Matte Box and Formatt filters - and this on a XM2 - works a treat!

Grazie

Hi Grazie,

Out of interest, why do you say you can't put a polariser before the wide angle? Fully accepted it's a pain but I have used a cheap Tiffen filter between the wide angle and the camera and haven't noticed any issues at any focal length.

Actually, having said that, the one thing I have noticed is that the W/A is ever so slightly lose fitting when it's attached to the Tiffen.

Still up for that beer one day???!!!

Cheers.

Ian . . .

How do you twist it? Them pola that is?

Drink! Anytime PAL!

Grazie

It just, well, twists! (along with the w/a of course.)

It doesn't affect the polariser action at all (although, as I mentioned before, I think the extra weight of the w/a on the filter does make the rotating disc a bit loose).

Regarding a wee drinky, I'm in a Variety Club charity show at the moment so very tied up. Let's do what we agreed last year - let me get back to you when I'm a bit freer! Which of course means we'll be having this conversation again in 6 months!!

Cheers.

Ian . . .

BTW, if ever you are down in the New Forest over a weekend, be sure to visit the Saturday market at Lymington. I just picked up 2 Hakuba metal cam cases with original uncut foam for a fiver each. There is a stall there which deals only in photographic equipment and they have loads of lenses, filters, cases etc etc. All used, much garbage, but the odd gem.

Small chips in Wide Angle
 

I held my GL-2 out the window of a car to get really low car shots and got a couple tiny, very tiny, chips in the lense. whats th ebst way to get these repaired or in the futuree protect my wide angle lense.

In the future, try an inexpensive (at least compared to replacing the cameras lens) UV filter over the lens. Be careful, it sounds dangerous.

Just a thought about filters behind the wide angle. I know on my GL-2, if I put a filter behind the wide angle, I experience vignetting.