Chris, I think that when Ario says "Raynox Tele", he means "The Wide-angle Raynox HD-6600 at full zoom", and not a test with an another Raynox Tele lens...

But the result is the same: it's well known that the HD-6600 becomes a little soft and has some color fringing at full zoom. From full wide to x6 /x7 zoom ii's a very good lens with quite no barrel distortion and not too much soft corners). Raynox sells this lens under 3 versions 55mm, 52mm and 43mm: that means that, on the HV20 which has a 43mm thread, you use the quality of a 55/52mm wide-angle.

I'll try to do this later today when I have time.

Why would you use the 55/52mm instead of the 43mm version?

Yeah, after I posted, I realized what was going on. I have a 58 mm Kenko Pro II .65 x that I've used that does not show that fringing at any zoom.

As to the Sony tele, it occurs at max zoom, and appears mostly on the edges- and no wonder with all that glass in front of the senser...:)

My remark was not there: Raynox sells exactly the same optics (with the same name HD-6600pro) but with different threads (BTW, I've forgotten the 58mm version in my previous post...): that means that when you buy the 43mm, you have in hands an optics build for bigger cameras.

I think it's one of the reasons why the borners are not bad with this optics in 43mm. I'm not sure that the result is so good using the HD-6600pro on a 55mm or 58mm camera (or videocamera). Some vignetting would appear.

It's maybe why you can found different returns of information on Internet depending on which HD-6600/camera combination is reviewed.

So I wonder how the Merkury performs zoomed in? Also - how the edges are vs. the 6600?

Ario...I've now posted several sets of images with tree foliage against the sky for you to check out. Please go back to my original webpage.

http://vettaville.com/canon_hv20_wideangle_lens.htm

I would say there is more fringing and blurriness on the Raynox at zoom, but less loss off detail on the sides at wide vs. the Merkury. But the $90 price difference is something to keep in mind...

Wow that cleared up how to get into macro as I too had no clue that my wide angle is made up of two seperate lens. Thanks for that website, Nathan, that really helped.

Hmmm....might pick one up...Ebay has them for $14.95.

Thanks for posting re your purchase, Nathan! The price point is definitely intriguing.

Like every other HV20 owner, it appears, I've been mulling acquiring a HD WA. I just haven't been convinced to shell out the precious Washingtons.

I would appreciate any enlightenment, but Nathan's captures look a bit on the soft side. The Raynox as well.

The 52mm seems barely WA, I see they also have a 58mm. Why, Nathan, did you get the 52 and not the 58?

Does the Mercury's smaller WA compared to the Raynox account for its similar results?

Thanks again for posting!

I believe there is an inherent problem in viewing photo stills taken with the HV20 and viewing frame grabs. The HV20 does not even come close to having enough pixel resolution for still images. 1920 x 1080 only gives you a 2.07 MP image - and that's barely decent at best. So that goes into why the images look as soft and unsharp as they do. That's poor image quality compared to a Canon 8.0 MP camera with 3264 x 2448 pixel resolution. What I'm saying here is that the video footage captured on the HV20 is far superior than the still photos it is capable of capturing.

I'm telling you - the ONLY way that anyone would be able to truly see how sharp and detailed the video quality can be with this Merkury WD lens (or any lens for that matter) is to own it, try it, and view the footage on an HDTV.

I got a 52mm because that is all they had. And yes, it is a much less noticable wideangle - which is exactly why I love it. The image looks very natural through all the zoom range...meaning it doesn't looked warped or bent much at all. In fact, with most footage you'd not initially realize I was using a wideangle lens because of how un-wideangle the 52mm looks. While it may not look like much more image area is being captured, it really is and I'm able to fit subject matter into the entire frame that would not have fit otherwise for a given distance from the subject.

It's all about finding what works best to your eye and style. For the price that the Merkury lens is selling on ebay - you're not losing much money at all to buy and try. And as I said, all comments are subjective at best until you get to try for yourself and convince your own eye if a specific lens will or will not work for you. The Merkury was my first step into wideangle lenses and I found that I love it - but I would certainly like to own other wideangle lenses for comparison purposes.

I wanted to add some additional comments about wideangle footage. If you have the opportunity to sit a really watch an HD channel, such as Discovery HD Theater. If you start viewing all the programs with an analytical eye - especially the nature and scenic programs, you'll start to recognize wideangle footage.

Some footage is very subtle wideangle with just an ever so minimal curvature to the video that compliments the overall capture and makes it a little less static and more interesting than just very flat non-wideangle footage.

Then some footage can be more than mild to extreme wideangle (without looking fisheye) but is noticably curved looking. This footage can work well given the right subject matter and not work as well other times. It all depends upon the shooters eye and what they think looks good - which could actually look like bad cinematography. But that will always be a topic of subjective debate. :o)

Anyone try the 37mm Merkury Wide Angle with an HV10?

-Ed

Does this come with the macro lens too? Is the macro lens necessary for the wide angle to work?

Cheers