I Got a Merkury Wide-Angle Lens for my HV20

Nathan Shane · July 26th, 2007, 12:22 PM

Hey fellow tech-heads...could some of you please chime in on my tech-thoughts about using this larger 52mm lens on a 43mm camera.

My thoughts about the corners of the image NOT being degraded in quality:

As I wrote previously in the forum, if the image looks sharp and focused in the LCD, then it is, if it looks somewhat soft and slightly out of focus, then it is.

The corners do not degrade badly, in fact I would say there is very little to no degradation "you will take notice of". I think the reason for that is the fact that the lens is 52mm covering a 43mm camera. In actuality, the HV20 lens isn't what is 43mm, that's the width of the outside threaded portion of the camera. The lens area itself is much smaller in width/surface area. I'm no expert, but my technical thoughts on this are that if there are degraded edges to the image caused by this wide-angle lens, then the camera is not seeing them because they are physically outside of the view of the HV20's lens since the Merkury is a larger 52mm lens - so my thoughts are that the HV20 is only seeing through the middle section of the wide-angle lens where the image is its best. And that is also why there is very little barrel distortion (image bending) as well, because its not seeing the more curved part of the image at the outer edges.

Does this sound like a good tech-explanation???

Joseph H. Moore · July 26th, 2007, 12:25 PM

Nathan,
That's got to be part of it. The sensor is imaging more of the "sweet spot" and less of the marginal area of the adapter.

Tom Hardwick · July 26th, 2007, 01:31 PM

Not really Nathan. The manufacturer (Raynox, for instance) designs a lens such as the 6600PRO and sells this with a 43 mm, 52 mm, and a 58 mm attachment thread. The thread he puts on the back bears little relationship to the diameter of the entry and exit pupil.

It's a bit like the filter thread on camcorders. The DVX100A has a 72 mm filter thread whereas the MX300 has a 43 mm thread. Yet the smaller camera has a longer zoom and they're both f/1.6 to f.2.8.

All you've got to worry about is vignetting at the widest angle setting of the zoom. If your image vignettes (as seen on the computer, not on the camera's v'finder which is hugely masked down) then your wide-angle converter has elements that are either too small or it's spaced too far away from your front element.

tom.

Ben Troxell · August 14th, 2007, 03:23 PM

Sorry to bring this thread from the grave, but I was wondering if I would notice any difference in quality from the Merkury 52mm and 58mm lenses?

Joseph H. Moore · August 14th, 2007, 03:30 PM

Ben: Not likely.
All: I got this lens and was quite disappointed with it. Pretty severe loss of resolution, IMHO.

Tom Hardwick · August 14th, 2007, 03:37 PM

Depends what camera you're fitting the lens to Ben. If you fit the 58 mm lens to a TRV900, no problem. But if you fit the 52 mm to a VX2k, you'll probably vignette the image at full wide.

tom./

Ben Troxell · August 14th, 2007, 03:44 PM

Alright, I was just wondering if i should nab a used one for $26 shipped with caps and a 3 piece filter kit. I was just planning on using it for a high school media course.

Edit: Tom, i was planning on using in on my HV20.

Nathan Shane · August 14th, 2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Troxell

Alright, I was just wondering if i should nab a used one for $26 shipped with caps and a 3 piece filter kit. I was just planning on using it for a high school media course.

Edit: Tom, i was planning on using in on my HV20.

For $26.00 and some extra filters...I say get it, can't beat that price even if you don't like it for some reason.

Tom Hardwick · August 15th, 2007, 01:09 AM

I agree. It's new at that price? You can always take it apart and use one of the internal elements to get some wild fish-eye effects.

Tom Alexander · August 15th, 2007, 02:51 PM

I bought one and am very pleased with the results. Just playing around in Mammoth and very little degradation within 50% zoom. Beyond that the image starts to degrade at the edges, but its going in my underwater housing at max wide angle, so it should work great.

Ben Troxell · August 15th, 2007, 04:41 PM

Thanks for the advice everyone, i've decided to get it. I'll put up some video in the sample forum after i get it.

Gerald Hocutt · October 15th, 2007, 09:03 PM

just kicking this dead horse again. just got my hv20 and went to the first high school football to film (daylight games from atop the press box). not sure of the name brand but it came in a silver box with titanium written on it. .42 by .46. had to use a stepping ring. says professional super wide angle. it has the screw off macro lens also. maybe one coating.

first off,i'm a pure newby, so everyone might already know this. with the wide angle lens on, i cain't hardly zoom in very much. is this typical with a wide angle lens?

if it is, can i add my double and get some more zoom?

with this lens, i noticed a lot of softness around the edges at full zoom, which is where i had to keep it to get a close enough shot. the other team had on white jersy's and pants. on the tv, around the outer edges there uniforms actually glowed. lol looked like a force sheild around them. lol

setting the white light might have cured this, i will have to check this next time. also, the center of the screen was clear. i'm asuming this is the barel veiw yaw were talking about earlier. also, when i zoom all the way in, i can see the adges of the inside of the wide angle lens. is this normal? i have 21 days to return the lens so i'm just making sure this stuff is normal.
thanks,

Tom Hardwick · October 16th, 2007, 01:45 AM

All of what you describe is 'normal' for a cheap and pretty uselss lens, Gerald, but I'd venture to suggest that paying more (probably a lot more) for a wide-angle converter would be in your best interest. You've just bought one of the finest HDV cameras around - the HV20 - and the Canon engineers would cry if they knew what you'd screwed to the front of their beautifully engineered lens.

You still have 19 days to return the lens. Do it.

tom.

Adam Perry · October 16th, 2007, 07:07 AM

if you're zoomed in almost the whole way, there's no reason to be using a wide angle lens in the first place. its counter intuitive. the only real reason to use it is zoomed the whole way out. otherwise take it off!

Gerald Hocutt · October 16th, 2007, 08:18 AM

i'm trying to get as close to the players as possible on the football field. i bought the camera to record my son's game and review the games with the other coaches later. thats why i wanted the wide angle lens to zoom in close and capture all the action up close, running backs and linebackers at the same time. see how's doing what while the play is going on. the video did suck pretty bad. the kit also came with a bower's 2x telephoto lens. is this any good either. trying to decide on returning the wide angle lens or not.

July 26th, 2007, 12:22 PM	#46
Nathan Shane Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Addison, Texas Posts: 178	Hey fellow tech-heads...could some of you please chime in on my tech-thoughts about using this larger 52mm lens on a 43mm camera. My thoughts about the corners of the image NOT being degraded in quality: As I wrote previously in the forum, if the image looks sharp and focused in the LCD, then it is, if it looks somewhat soft and slightly out of focus, then it is. The corners do not degrade badly, in fact I would say there is very little to no degradation "you will take notice of". I think the reason for that is the fact that the lens is 52mm covering a 43mm camera. In actuality, the HV20 lens isn't what is 43mm, that's the width of the outside threaded portion of the camera. The lens area itself is much smaller in width/surface area. I'm no expert, but my technical thoughts on this are that if there are degraded edges to the image caused by this wide-angle lens, then the camera is not seeing them because they are physically outside of the view of the HV20's lens since the Merkury is a larger 52mm lens - so my thoughts are that the HV20 is only seeing through the middle section of the wide-angle lens where the image is its best. And that is also why there is very little barrel distortion (image bending) as well, because its not seeing the more curved part of the image at the outer edges. Does this sound like a good tech-explanation???

July 26th, 2007, 12:25 PM	#47
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Nathan, That's got to be part of it. The sensor is imaging more of the "sweet spot" and less of the marginal area of the adapter.

July 26th, 2007, 01:31 PM	#48
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Not really Nathan. The manufacturer (Raynox, for instance) designs a lens such as the 6600PRO and sells this with a 43 mm, 52 mm, and a 58 mm attachment thread. The thread he puts on the back bears little relationship to the diameter of the entry and exit pupil. It's a bit like the filter thread on camcorders. The DVX100A has a 72 mm filter thread whereas the MX300 has a 43 mm thread. Yet the smaller camera has a longer zoom and they're both f/1.6 to f.2.8. All you've got to worry about is vignetting at the widest angle setting of the zoom. If your image vignettes (as seen on the computer, not on the camera's v'finder which is hugely masked down) then your wide-angle converter has elements that are either too small or it's spaced too far away from your front element. tom.

August 14th, 2007, 03:23 PM	#49
Ben Troxell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: PA Posts: 31	Sorry to bring this thread from the grave, but I was wondering if I would notice any difference in quality from the Merkury 52mm and 58mm lenses?

August 14th, 2007, 03:30 PM	#50
Joseph H. Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 362	Ben: Not likely. All: I got this lens and was quite disappointed with it. Pretty severe loss of resolution, IMHO.

August 14th, 2007, 03:37 PM	#51
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Depends what camera you're fitting the lens to Ben. If you fit the 58 mm lens to a TRV900, no problem. But if you fit the 52 mm to a VX2k, you'll probably vignette the image at full wide. tom./

August 14th, 2007, 03:44 PM	#52
Ben Troxell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: PA Posts: 31	Alright, I was just wondering if i should nab a used one for $26 shipped with caps and a 3 piece filter kit. I was just planning on using it for a high school media course. Edit: Tom, i was planning on using in on my HV20.

August 15th, 2007, 01:09 AM	#54
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I agree. It's new at that price? You can always take it apart and use one of the internal elements to get some wild fish-eye effects.

August 15th, 2007, 02:51 PM	#55
Tom Alexander Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Ontario, Ca. Posts: 121	I bought one and am very pleased with the results. Just playing around in Mammoth and very little degradation within 50% zoom. Beyond that the image starts to degrade at the edges, but its going in my underwater housing at max wide angle, so it should work great.

August 15th, 2007, 04:41 PM	#56
Ben Troxell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: PA Posts: 31	Thanks for the advice everyone, i've decided to get it. I'll put up some video in the sample forum after i get it.

October 15th, 2007, 09:03 PM	#57
Gerald Hocutt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Columbus, Mississippi Posts: 34	just kicking this dead horse again. just got my hv20 and went to the first high school football to film (daylight games from atop the press box). not sure of the name brand but it came in a silver box with titanium written on it. .42 by .46. had to use a stepping ring. says professional super wide angle. it has the screw off macro lens also. maybe one coating. first off,i'm a pure newby, so everyone might already know this. with the wide angle lens on, i cain't hardly zoom in very much. is this typical with a wide angle lens? if it is, can i add my double and get some more zoom? with this lens, i noticed a lot of softness around the edges at full zoom, which is where i had to keep it to get a close enough shot. the other team had on white jersy's and pants. on the tv, around the outer edges there uniforms actually glowed. lol looked like a force sheild around them. lol setting the white light might have cured this, i will have to check this next time. also, the center of the screen was clear. i'm asuming this is the barel veiw yaw were talking about earlier. also, when i zoom all the way in, i can see the adges of the inside of the wide angle lens. is this normal? i have 21 days to return the lens so i'm just making sure this stuff is normal. thanks,

October 16th, 2007, 01:45 AM	#58
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	All of what you describe is 'normal' for a cheap and pretty uselss lens, Gerald, but I'd venture to suggest that paying more (probably a lot more) for a wide-angle converter would be in your best interest. You've just bought one of the finest HDV cameras around - the HV20 - and the Canon engineers would cry if they knew what you'd screwed to the front of their beautifully engineered lens. You still have 19 days to return the lens. Do it. tom.

October 16th, 2007, 07:07 AM	#59
Adam Perry Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 77	if you're zoomed in almost the whole way, there's no reason to be using a wide angle lens in the first place. its counter intuitive. the only real reason to use it is zoomed the whole way out. otherwise take it off!

October 16th, 2007, 08:18 AM	#60
Gerald Hocutt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Columbus, Mississippi Posts: 34	i'm trying to get as close to the players as possible on the football field. i bought the camera to record my son's game and review the games with the other coaches later. thats why i wanted the wide angle lens to zoom in close and capture all the action up close, running backs and linebackers at the same time. see how's doing what while the play is going on. the video did suck pretty bad. the kit also came with a bower's 2x telephoto lens. is this any good either. trying to decide on returning the wide angle lens or not.