Fish eye lenses for the GL2? at DVinfo.net

Tyler Panah · June 8th, 2007, 12:22 AM

Hey guys, just wondering if anyone recommends a good fish eye lens. I am very careful about buying lenses not made by canon, but Canon doesn't have a wide enough lens for some of my action shots, so I'm considering the Raynox MX-3000 it is .3x, I understand the lower the number the wider the shot. The Century Optics lens also looks good but it has a whopping $800 price tag.

Corey Quenneville · June 10th, 2007, 04:34 PM

I would recommend the Century Optics .3x Mark II over the Raynox MX3000 Fisheye Lens. The Century has better quality optics and more distortion. I guess it ties in to what you are shooting. I own a Century Mark II (Bayonet Mount) and love it. I would go with the Raynox if budget is low or you are not planning on using it much however. There are also ways you can modify the Raynox lens to make it a bit wider. In the end the Century Mark II is a much higher quality lens. I'm sure you won't be dissapointed with it.

Best Regards,
Corey

Jamie Allan · June 19th, 2007, 08:52 AM

I've used the raynox with my XM1 and now XM2 (GL2) and love the picture and colours it gets in good light. I've used century stuff and yeah - much better optics, much higher price (I got my raynox .3 for £80) So it's down to budget I guess...

Chris Burgess · June 22nd, 2007, 02:55 PM

I also use the Raynox and have been very happy with it. What wide shots are you wanting to shoot with the lense? I think this also makes a difference in which lense you would purchase...

Mekhael Trepanier · June 24th, 2007, 11:41 PM

hey tyler its hands down the century wins if you can afford it...
shop around with other skateboard kids they all have lots of them for sale. ive personally used both of them and just make your shoice based on budget but theres no way youll regret the putrchase of a century over the rayonox on a side note the century will hold its value look around and see if you can find a used one. you shouldnt pya more than 500 for a good used one and 3 yeras from now as long as its not scratched itll still be worth that.
simple terms its a secure investment
take care
MEKHAEL

Graham Bernard · June 25th, 2007, 12:11 AM

Just came back to this thread after thinking about it. .. Eh . . If you AREN'T necessarily wanting to get the optical value captured, you could, well I can in VEGAS7, able to do this with Deform FX that gets the kinda look?

Just a thought . ..

Grazie

Tom Hardwick · June 25th, 2007, 01:08 AM

Go with the Raynox, Tyler. If your audience is wondering why you have 7 flare spots with the Raynox rather than only 4 with the Century, you'll have to start asking yourself if your visuals aren't a bit plodding.

Fisheye lenses are all about distortion, and jugfulls of it. In fact if you open up any old wide-angle converter you'll find one of the elements is a cylindrically ground very powerful negative, and this can be blue-tacked to your front filter thread to give a very good fisheye effect.

tom.

Graham Bernard · June 25th, 2007, 01:27 AM

Tom, just a thought, being a Cyl lens wouldn't I see progressive/altering distortion by gently turning the adaptor? I can't say I've noticed that? Obviously I need to fill in some of my optical knowledge. Just exactly what is the Cyl doing?

Grazie

Tom Hardwick · June 25th, 2007, 02:08 AM

Not quite sure what you're saying here Graham. There's basically three types of lens element - they can be ground cylindrically (anamorphics), aspherically (expensive) and spherically (the most common).

If you turn a cylindrical lens then yes, you'll see the image altering quite markedly, but aspherics and cylindrical lenses are ground symetrically around their central optical axis, so spinning them radially makes no difference to the image.

tom.

Graham Bernard · June 25th, 2007, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Not quite sure what you're saying here Graham.

You said that a WA has a Cyl lens in it? Shouldn't I see distortion when I turn my WA? Theoretically a Cyl lens is taken off of a Cylindrical lump of glass - a slice parallel to the axis of the centre. Cyl lenses are used to correct astigmatism - meaning ocular distortion occurring in one axis of the human eye's lens. When we stick a Cyl and a Sph lens together we get a "barrel" shaped object. When a slice of THAT is removed then we get a toroidal surface. This is a lump of glass which is ground so that the axis' are changing throughout its surface and consequently its rotation. I have astigmatism, and I can SEE the correction/distortion when I rotate my spectacle's right lens - astig in my right eye!

So, back to my point, should I be seeing distortion when I rotate my WA adaptor? I must say I can't say I have? It was your comment that: "In fact if you open up any old wide-angle converter you'll find one of the elements is a cylindrically ground very powerful negative" - Should I be having a Cyl lens in there?

Very interesting Tom.

Grazie

Tom Hardwick · June 25th, 2007, 03:32 AM

'You said that a WA has a Cyl lens in it?'
Yes, I did say that Graham, and well spotted. I meant a spherically ground element of course; sorry about that brain-fade. But an anamorphic is simply a wide-angle adapter but in the horizontal plane only, nothing more.

Cylindrical lenses cannot correct for astigmatism - that correction always needs a combination of aspherical and cylindrical surfaces. You can easily check this by looking through the lens of a pair of spectacles and turning them about the optical axis. If the image distorts as you turn the lens then yes, the person suffers from astigmatism. In fact 90% of us suffer to some degree, but that's another matter.

So no, you shouldn't see any visual distortions as you rotate your wide-angle converter. Remember that before internal focusing nearly all lenses rotated the front group to change focus, and of course there was no image change there.

We're getting warmer.

tom.

June 8th, 2007, 12:22 AM	#1
Tyler Panah New Boot Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20	Fish eye lenses for the GL2? Hey guys, just wondering if anyone recommends a good fish eye lens. I am very careful about buying lenses not made by canon, but Canon doesn't have a wide enough lens for some of my action shots, so I'm considering the Raynox MX-3000 it is .3x, I understand the lower the number the wider the shot. The Century Optics lens also looks good but it has a whopping $800 price tag.

June 10th, 2007, 04:34 PM	#2
Corey Quenneville New Boot Join Date: May 2006 Location: US Posts: 10	I would recommend the Century Optics .3x Mark II over the Raynox MX3000 Fisheye Lens. The Century has better quality optics and more distortion. I guess it ties in to what you are shooting. I own a Century Mark II (Bayonet Mount) and love it. I would go with the Raynox if budget is low or you are not planning on using it much however. There are also ways you can modify the Raynox lens to make it a bit wider. In the end the Century Mark II is a much higher quality lens. I'm sure you won't be dissapointed with it. Best Regards, Corey

June 19th, 2007, 08:52 AM	#3
Jamie Allan Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Notts, UK Posts: 101	I've used the raynox with my XM1 and now XM2 (GL2) and love the picture and colours it gets in good light. I've used century stuff and yeah - much better optics, much higher price (I got my raynox .3 for £80) So it's down to budget I guess...

June 22nd, 2007, 02:55 PM	#4
Chris Burgess Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 30	I also use the Raynox and have been very happy with it. What wide shots are you wanting to shoot with the lense? I think this also makes a difference in which lense you would purchase...

June 24th, 2007, 11:41 PM	#5
Mekhael Trepanier Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 144	hey tyler its hands down the century wins if you can afford it... shop around with other skateboard kids they all have lots of them for sale. ive personally used both of them and just make your shoice based on budget but theres no way youll regret the putrchase of a century over the rayonox on a side note the century will hold its value look around and see if you can find a used one. you shouldnt pya more than 500 for a good used one and 3 yeras from now as long as its not scratched itll still be worth that. simple terms its a secure investment take care MEKHAEL

June 25th, 2007, 12:11 AM	#6
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Just came back to this thread after thinking about it. .. Eh . . If you AREN'T necessarily wanting to get the optical value captured, you could, well I can in VEGAS7, able to do this with Deform FX that gets the kinda look? Just a thought . .. Grazie

June 25th, 2007, 01:08 AM	#7
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Go with the Raynox, Tyler. If your audience is wondering why you have 7 flare spots with the Raynox rather than only 4 with the Century, you'll have to start asking yourself if your visuals aren't a bit plodding. Fisheye lenses are all about distortion, and jugfulls of it. In fact if you open up any old wide-angle converter you'll find one of the elements is a cylindrically ground very powerful negative, and this can be blue-tacked to your front filter thread to give a very good fisheye effect. tom.

June 25th, 2007, 01:27 AM	#8
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Tom, just a thought, being a Cyl lens wouldn't I see progressive/altering distortion by gently turning the adaptor? I can't say I've noticed that? Obviously I need to fill in some of my optical knowledge. Just exactly what is the Cyl doing? Grazie

June 25th, 2007, 02:08 AM	#9
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Not quite sure what you're saying here Graham. There's basically three types of lens element - they can be ground cylindrically (anamorphics), aspherically (expensive) and spherically (the most common). If you turn a cylindrical lens then yes, you'll see the image altering quite markedly, but aspherics and cylindrical lenses are ground symetrically around their central optical axis, so spinning them radially makes no difference to the image. tom.

June 25th, 2007, 03:32 AM	#11
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	'You said that a WA has a Cyl lens in it?' Yes, I did say that Graham, and well spotted. I meant a spherically ground element of course; sorry about that brain-fade. But an anamorphic is simply a wide-angle adapter but in the horizontal plane only, nothing more. Cylindrical lenses cannot correct for astigmatism - that correction always needs a combination of aspherical and cylindrical surfaces. You can easily check this by looking through the lens of a pair of spectacles and turning them about the optical axis. If the image distorts as you turn the lens then yes, the person suffers from astigmatism. In fact 90% of us suffer to some degree, but that's another matter. So no, you shouldn't see any visual distortions as you rotate your wide-angle converter. Remember that before internal focusing nearly all lenses rotated the front group to change focus, and of course there was no image change there. We're getting warmer. tom.