GL-2's WideAngle WD-58H - is it good?

[Steven Khong]

Hello, all!

I am from the Panasonic MX forum, and have been looking for a good WideAngle for some time.

I live in Malaysia, and it's IMPOSSIBLE to get the dealers to get the Panasonic WideAngle which is legendary i.e. very good glass, very good multicoating, very good weight / balances well on the MX300 - definitely semi pro wideangle at USD $200+. (USD $170 at B&H discounted).

Oh, the MX300 is a 43mm thread but I have a 43mm to 52mm step up for my 52mm filters, and plan to move to 58mm filters with a 52 to 58mm step up ring.

Since it's impossible to get one locally or in neighboring Singapore, I have to hunt around for an alternative.

In my quest for a good semi pro wideangle, I have come across the Canon WD-58H by searching B&H with "canon + 58mm".

So, I want to ask you GL-2 / XM-2 users with this WD-58H wideangle, how are your experiences with it? Are you happy with it? Any problems so far? i.e. flare / lack of flare, abberations etc.

I am also considering the cheaper version Canon wideangle WCD 58 for Canon Powershot G1/G2/G3.

Any advice?

Thanks in advance!

[Marco Leavitt]

I have the WD-58 and I like it very much. That said, distortion can be a problem on very wide shots and the thing is very prone to flare, although that's going to be a problem with any wide angle adapter. Keep the lens hood on at all times and you should be okay. A lot of people like the Century Optics .66 adapter, which goes a bit wider (the WD-58 is .7) and supposedly has less distortion. The tradeoff is that it is supposed to have soft focus around the edges on wide shots and is a lot more expensive. Also, I don't think it comes with a lens hood, which is very important for a wide angle adapter. Aftermarket hoods from companies like Cavision and matte boxes are available, but they are way too expensive. Go with the WD-58. It's a real nice lens for the money.

[Steven Khong]

Hi, Marco!

Thanks for the reply.

Just to relate some of my experiences with WideAngles.

Initially I bought some cheapo generic brand 0.5x WideAngle for my Sony Digi8. The glass wasn't multicoated, there was very very bad flaring, and soft at the edges of the screen, at maximum wideangle. The edges of the people (the silloette, sorry for bad spelling) in a backlit situation, where light leaked through, were blurred & BLUEISH. Ugh!

Then I bought Sony's own cheapo 0.6x WideAngle (made of plastic housing) which was a little better 'cos of the minimal multicoating (more later) so there was less flare, but it's still there. What made me upset was the silloette is now blurred, Blueish AND Orangeish! The outer outline was blueish, and the inner outline was orangeish! Aargh! It was also soft towards the edges of the screen at maximum wideangle.

Do you figure that the smaller the magnification, the more blurrish / softness effects happen?

Anybody have experiences on the WideAngle for Canon's Powershot G1/G2/G3 which is 0.8x? Probably has less distortion?

=====
A note about Multicoatings: I have devised a test for multicoating: If the reflection of a white florescent tube on the surface of the filter / lens comes out as green, blue, orange etc. then it's multicoated. The deeper the color, the better the multicoating. The more combination of colors, the better the multicoating.

What color(s) do the Canon GL-2's WideAngle reflect? Are they multicoated on both ends of the adapter? I know the W.A. for Canon Powershot G1/G2/G3 is multicoated on both ends, and it reflects green.

The lens surface of my cheapo generic WideAngle reflects a white florescent tube as white. So it has no multicoating whatsover. Flare, everywhere!

The multicoating of my Sony WideAngle is "light" / low quality because the reflected a very light orange. In the same situation, my Hoya Super HMC filters (advertised as allowing 99.7% of light through, less reflections, top of the range = very expensive!) reflect a very dark green.

[Graham Bernard]

Steve - I aint no optical Nabob - But, will putting 3 adaptor rings creat a bad focus point for the final "projection" onto the 3CDD chip - just a thought.

I'm using the WD58H - love it - haven't seen any distortion or loss of value at the edges. I works for me.

[Imran Zaidi]

Graham, I have the WD58H too, but I'm curious... When I'm at the widest setting, there is no question that there is a little barrel distortion - a little of the old fish-eye effect. Are you saying that on its widest setting, you get a completely flat image?

I just want to know there's not something wrong with mine...

[Graham Bernard]

Imran - I suppose it's one of degree or how much. I haven't noticed this, but there again I'm probably not the best judge. I'm sure some of the more "Lens-Heads" out there will give us "fact" based information. Even with my limited optical knowledge we will all get spherical abberation of some type - even with "normal" lenses.

If you aren't happy with your set-up Imran, what options are open to you? I'm very happy with my set-up - maybe you have higher standards than I. I will say I've shown some of my wide angle footage to a pro wedding videographer and he likes the image I've been able to create with the W58.

Imran you said - "Are you saying that on its widest setting, you get a completely flat image?" - For me, I can't tell if it is a completely flat image. As I said - "haven't seen any distortion or loss of value at the edges. I works for me." I didn't say there maybe OR there is OR there are some numerical values as a result of the nature of optics. But I guess you knew that too.

"I just want to know there's not something wrong with mine..." Imran if you can see it AND you are not happy with it, IMHO you will need to establish with Canon techincal department the limits of the W58 - yes?

I can only reiterate - I'm happy with mine. Whatever I feel about my kit will never ausage your experience with your own set-up. But I guess you knew that already - hey?

So what I'm saying is, don't take my experience as a scientific "control" for yourself. Have it checked out.

I suppoose you could wait here for someone to say - "Yes Imran, I have the same distortion" - then what would you do? Is this a scientific control? Live with it or what? Does the experence of 2 people say that there is something incorrect with your setup OR is this something you need to live with? My point here is at what point do you say - "hmmm... this is something I really need to check-out" ? - Do you see where I'm going with this? What is it you are wanting?

I suppose you could get better and better lenses to try and reduce the effect. Where would you stop? It would depend on how deep are your pockets.

This has been a very interesting discussion - maybe some way away from the original post - But there again maybe not. It has been for me, something about expectations v options. About scientific fact v Qualitative experience.

[Marc Martin]

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi : Graham, I have the WD58H too, but I'm curious... When I'm at the widest setting, there is no question that there is a little barrel distortion - a little of the old fish-eye effect. Are you saying that on its widest setting, you get a completely flat image?

I just want to know there's not something wrong with mine... -->>>

I have a WD-58H, and it is normal that it distorts a little when you are in full zoom out. But if you zoom a little, there isn't no visible distorsion.

[Marco Leavitt]

I kind of like the distortion sometimes. You can use it for some pretty dramatic effects. It would be nice to be able to get shots with less distortion though. I guess we're going to have to wait until the chips get bigger.

[Frank Granovski]

>I guess we're going to have to wait until the chips get bigger.<

I don't think that'll happen any time soon. With 1/6" CCDs becoming the norm, what's next? 1/8" CCDs?


----------------------------------------------
Color or black and white---this is my dilemma

[Ken Tanaka]

Re: "barrel distortion" with the Canon WD-58, you will see some bending of close vertical lines when the main lens is at full-wide. The maximum distortion will be observed on edges near the horizontal extents of the field of view and on edges relatively close to the lens. This is very normal and, on the WD-58, very moderate.

Wide-angle lenses, by nature, must perform a significant amount of refractory manipulation to squish the field. The WD-58 is an excellent piece of glass, a very good value and a handy accessory to have with a GL1 or GL2.

[Tom Hardwick]

Chip sizes won't affect the amount of barrel distortion our wide-angle converts give us Marco. I agree with you that sometimes oodles of barrel distortion can look great, but then it's being used for effect. For most of the time the wide-angle converter distortion is slight enough to look like poor optical correction.

Thing is it doesn't have to be so. The aspheric converters sold here

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php

will give you a 0.65x widie with absolutely no barrel distortion.

tom.

[Marco Leavitt]

It looks intriguing, but I can't speak a word of German. Is there a place I can read about these products in English? This would seem to be quite a bombshell if its true.

[Imran Zaidi]

Just for the record, I'm not unhappy with mine at all. For the money it's a great, crystal clear lens, and that's what's more important to me. And yes, the little distortion can be used for some cool funky effects now and then.

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting some distortion that others weren't. Since I'm happy with it, I doubt I'll ever bother to get it checked out--I think it seems fine based on what most other people describe as their experience with it.

[Tom Hardwick]

Not a bombshell Marco - these aspherics were first introduced for the Super-8 cameras in the early 1970s, and mine is 29 years old this year. So how come we so happily accept barrel distortion all these years later? I don't know.

tom.

[Aaron Rosen]

Hi there -

Has anyone heard of the Kenko Wide Angle 0.65 KRW-065 Pro before?

I was given one and was curious if anyone knew about it?

THANKS!

- AR