Wide angle adapter HV20

[Paul Tauger]

I just got Canon's HD43 wide angle lens for my HV20. Some quick observations:

1. This lens is heavy! I haven't weighed it or looked up specs, but it's probably as heavy (or heavier) than the camera. It's also big. Still, the combined weight is quite manageable, particularly in comparison with my prosumer VX2000 which this rig replaces. I've previously described my shooting technique of using a shoulder strap and balancing the camera against my chest (this provides 3-point support and enables very stable hand-held shots). The heavy lens on the front actually helps as puts weight on the front of the camera strap.

2. I keep a UV filter on my HV20 -- this protects the lens and the auto-lens cap. I tried putting the HD43 over the filter, i.e. the filter is between the WA lens and the camera. It works great -- there is no vignetting. There's another advantage to doing this. The HV20 has plastic filter screw threads (what do you expect in an inexpensive consumer camera?). The UV filter I'm using (a Tiffen) has a metal collar. This means I'm less likely to strip the camera's screw threads when putting the WA lens on and off. This also means that other filters, e.g. polarizing, can be used between the WA lens and the camera, a desirable option as the Canon WA doesn't have filter threads on the front.

3. This is pretty decent-quality glass. In some quick and non-scientific tests, I couldn't detect any significant color fringing when zoomed all the way in. It's a tad less contrasty than the HV20's lens, but definitely acceptable.

4. Image stabilization is adversely effected -- it can get a little jumpy. I'll probably switch off IS when shooting in extreme wide position (IS is really less important when shooting wide, anyway).

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Heh, funny, I got one just 3 hours ago! :)
http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2007/1...ii-and-wd-h43/

[Ben Hillier]

Hi there..not a question but observation. This is my experience with HV20 from shooting a couple of short documentaries. I went in with the Videomic on top of camera for verité doco work - bad idea. If someone is talking and you want to move the camera away from speaker ie to get reaction, you can't as sound drops away. After reaserch I forked out $400 for an ME64 which couldn't have been a better choice for this cam. Its short, battery op, low profile, has a wide pattern so you can move the camera around while not losing out the sound. Its the perfect length for this cam too, only 7inches. It also has presence boost which really picks voices out of nowhere.
If you need an on camera mic for verité doco footage to pick up voices / dialogue, this is a good choice of mic. It would be way to noisy for narrative work though. While it is expernsive, it is the only mic really that has all these characteristics and is battery op. I use it in conjunction with an old sony VCL-0746B wide angle lens, which is very small compared with the official lens. With this on the cam you can get in close enough to the subject to get decent sound level.
Anyway just wanted to share that, hope its of some use. Cheers. Ben.

[Gabriel Chiefetz]

Awesome info, thanks. I use the ME 64 too, and it's excellent. Any low-light issues using the HV20 for doc work?

[Ben Hillier]

Low light has not really been a major problem - when shooting 24p. 60i is not so great, but do-able. When you consider the size of the cam you can't complain at all. Chaocito.

[Prech Marton]

Nobody? :-(

[Dave Blackhurst]

the 6600 is supposed to be a "high quality" lens, says "HD" right on the box, FWIW. I used it on an HV20 and with a 43-37 stepdown adapter for my Sonys - I don't use it anymore, but it's still in my kit. No noticeable barrelling, maybe a bit of CA towards the edges on bright lines (pretty common from my experience), never really had it under conditions where lens flare was an issue. HTH

[Prech Marton]

Today i buy a 58mm 6600Pro, and a 37->58 step up ring, so my HV10 looks like a monster. But i'm not sure, i made a good deal..
The distorsion is really little on the edge, see the wardrobe on picture.
BUT.. There is a HUGE lensflare when there is a light on the picture.
On the 3rd pics, the lamp is even NOT visible on the screen, but the bad flares are there:( What can i do??
When i film a speaking people, and above the man is a lamp, i can see always those blue circles??
I haven't time to film outdoor, but i would like making nature videos where the sun is in the picture, so i guess, this horrible effect will visible.
This lens is not a multi coated one?
Wasnt so cheap, and nobody says from here: beware of spotlight!

help
i dont know, if i can return to shop, and when yes, what else can i buy

[Johann Schlossberg]

Originally Posted by Rick Llewellyn

Contrary to some other experiences the Raynox 0.5 HD5050PRO does vignette on the HV10. It doesn't look like it in the view finder, but when you pull it into the computer it is there.

Also, the image is fairly sharp in the middle, but looses sharpness as you go to the edge by a factor of somewhere between 2 & 4- just eye balling it.

It has some barrel distortion, but I kind of liked the artsy look.

Also there was some previous discussion about removing the 37-37mm adapter ring. On the HV10 that is not a good idea because the lense will rub against the camera's front.

If you are sure you are going to use it in an overscan display then it might be OK, but I think I am going to have to return it. I am going to consider the Raynox 49mm which was previously suggested or maybe the Canon 0.7X.

Rick

I agree with Rick. It is a very bad lense. If Lee Wilson had not written that it is a good lense, I had not bought this lense. Without the adaptor ring, at full wide it still makes vignetting, the middle of the image is clear, but close to the edge, it is very fuzzy and unclear.

[Tom Hardwick]

Prech, I too had the 6600 Pro on my TRV900. I really liked the lens but like you I found that the single (not multi) coating did mean that it was very prone to flare, as you've found out. However, I used it with a good 4:3 aspect ratio lens hood (see pic) and as long as you stop unwanted light hitting the front element, it works very well indeed. It certainly had a lot less barrel distortion than the 3x more expensive Century.

Johann - you say you're getting vignetting with the 5050 lens, but I certainly don't see that on your pictures here. It may well be slightly darker towards the picture corners, but it seems to be the least of your worries if you're not getting a sharp image all over.

tom.

[Fergus Anderson]

Hi Tom

I need a hood for my 6600, just wondered where you got ours from and if it comes into view at full wide?

Cheers

[Tom Hardwick]

That picture of me and the TRV900+hood. I had to lighten the hood in Photoshop as it's so matt black it just looked like a silhouette in the original photo. Anyway, it came from an old Chinon Super-8 ciné camera from the early 80s, and such excellent hoods are very hard to find now.

At full wide the hood did indeed vignette so I had to 'pull it rearwards' on the 6600 PRO. The design of the hood made this possible because it clamped around the outside of the 6600 - I didn't use the lens's 'filter' threads.

I don't use the hood any more as I shoot 16:9 exclusively now, and it's a 4:3 hood so not efficient enough for me.

tom.

[Prech Marton]

Tom, thanks for answer.

A multi coating lens will not produce any lens flare?
And such a lens is very expensive?
6600 wasn't so cheap, so i guessed before purchase, it is a multi coated one.
But the seller says, only the professional category is, where lens flare doesnt exist (for exaple interchangeable lens, XL1, XH1, etc).
But in this category (camcorder original lens + wide lens) i will not find any, that doesnt do lens flare.

Yes, i need a good hood. But in 16:9.
Here in Hungary, i not find even a good 4:3 one, so i will do it myself.
Where shoud i began? (material, etc)

thx,
Marton

[Tom Hardwick]

All lenses produce flare Marton. All pieces of plastic and glass (elements within the lens) bounce back a tiny amount of light rather than letting the light pass through, and it's this that lets you 'see' a piece of glass in your hands. If all the light passed through, the piece of glass would become effectively invisible.

Glass reflects back about 8 to 10% of the light that hits it. Coat the glass and that drops to 1%. Multi-coat and you can get this down to 0.3%. Fine, but when your lens consists of 18 elements (a typical 12x zoom with two NDs and three beam-splitting prisms between the world and the chips) these figures mount up.

All lenses flare - it's just that some do more than others. Zooms more than primes, unhooded ones more than hooded ones. Cheap ones more than expensive ones.

If you add a typical 3 element widie to your camcorder's zoom, that's another 6 air-2-glass surfaces you've added, and again, the flare levels rise. And flare is not just about shooting into the light. If you film a piece of white paper in a dark table you get exactly the same thing - flare within the lens.

Good man - make yourself an efficient hood in 16:9. Stiff, very black plastic and superglue maybe. Remember a 'shadowed' hood (like the PD150 has) is the very best design, where the front rectangular mask 'shadows' the interior of the hood, so that it's even less reflective.

And remember that with any zoom lens, your hood will only be efficient at full wide-angle. At all the other 100 focal lengths up to full zoom the hood gets less and less efficient, so think on this when you shoot into the light.

tom.

[Matt Krump]

I bought the Merkury CL-52WB (.45x) mentioned in another thread. I'm happy with it, but would like something wider for filming my kids indoors. They usually ending up inside 5 feet of me, and I'm just not capturing all the action.

Any recommendations? My budget is $90.00