I Got a Merkury Wide-Angle Lens for my HV20

Gerald Hocutt · October 16th, 2007, 08:22 AM

tom, this lens was $150 bucks, is that cheap for a lens or did i over pay for a cheap lens. i thought about getting the canon wide angle lens but it was around the same price range (i believe, maybe wrong).

how much would a good wide angle lens be?

also, the fuzzie light surrounding the white uniformed players, is that bad white out setting or just from the lens. it noticed it around the edges more than anywhere else.

Tom Hardwick · October 16th, 2007, 09:16 AM

150 bucks sounds about right for a low range wide-converter, though a lot depends on its power, on whether it's a non-zoom or a full zoom-through and also on how big it is - ie what filter size fitting it comes with. Converter lenses that use aspheric rather than spherical elements are more expensive but better.

It sounds from your description that you paid rather a lot for a lens that gives you quite easily noticeable distortions. The Canon lens will be very much better but is probably a 0.7x as against your 0.5x (is it?).

When you say you're 'trying to get as close to the players as possible on the football field' do you mean you're getting physically up close to them with your widie in place for a more intimate view? Sounds to me though as if you're in the stands and really need a telephoto converter to increase the focal length of the camera's zoom lens. This will 'bring the players closer'. The 'bowers 2x' that came with the kit will be of the same so-so quality I'd say.

The 'fuzzy light' you're seeing is most probably chromatic abberation. Pretty common in cheap lenses and in single element lenses.

I'd be tempted to get my money back and buy a lens with a brand name you recognise on it. Canon or Tokina or Raynox or Century or Kenko.

tom.

Gerald Hocutt · October 16th, 2007, 09:40 AM

thanks tom, i think i'll try and send it back. if a noob like me notices it you know it's bad, if the white team would have had circles around their helmets thay could have passed for angels. not kidding.

i'm shooting from atop the press box located behind the blechers, normal high school football field layout. so i was trying to get a really close up shot of the action while still getting the entire players on the field. are you surposed to be able to see inside the wide angle lens when you zoom all the way in. this is a 46cm wide angle lens with a step down ring to the hv20's 43.

if i use some extra rings, could i place the bowers doubler in front of the wide angle lens and beable to shoot futher out. with the wide angle lens i have very little zoom.

am i going about this the wrong way, for shooting highschool football games from atop the press box, would you use the wide angle lens or just the regular lens?

Tom Hardwick · October 16th, 2007, 09:54 AM

No, the perfect wide-angle zoom-through converter will allow you to use the full zoom capability of your camcorder without any vignetting, barrel distortion, chromatic abberation, contrast reduction, increased flare levels or softening of image detail.

Such a lens doesn't exist whatever you pay. Sounds to me as if your lens exhibits all of these faults, and some of them to a marked degree.

No, you cannot combine the tele and the wide lens. One at a time. please.

You're going about things the wrong way. Use the telephoto converter on your zoom lens to 'get closer to the action'. But you won't be able to zoom back (towards wide-angle) far, before you 'see inside the lens' (Called vignetting).

Use the wide-converter whan you're back to the wall yet still can't get everything in your v'finder without hose-piping the scene.

As Adam says - when you don't need extra lenses, take them off. They will *all* degrade your image quality, always. No exceptions.

tom.

Gerald Hocutt · October 16th, 2007, 10:06 AM

thanks for the info tom. i'm going to remove the wide angle lens for the next game. i'll mess around with the wide angle lens later doing more close up stuff where i don't have to zoom out much. all the video was taken at full zoom, that probabily did not help much either.

tom, i started a thread on the vegas site about trying to find a vegas editing software that will work with my laptop. you mind throwing your 2 cents in. i never looked at a editing program before. i cain't see the difference between vegas pro 8 and artitect 4.5. i know these are way more than i need, just got the free trail to see what it looked like. i'm sure even the most basic vegas will do more than i need it to do, which is capture hdv, maybe add a menu with a foot ball scene running in the back ground during the menu. i think thats looping but not sure. and then burning the video to my dvd burner.

Tom Hardwick · October 16th, 2007, 10:15 AM

You're on the right track. Sounds to me as if you're confusing the wide converter and the tele converter. Use your Canon camcorder without any extra lenses bolted on for the finest picture quality. And buy and use a tripod for your press box location. Please.

Sounds like you're a contender for the excellent (free) program called iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. They'll do everything you describe and more.

When you get more experience you can fiddle with lenses, manual settings and editing programs. Walk first, run second.

tom.

Gerald Hocutt · October 16th, 2007, 10:25 AM

one more question,
did you install/or use the canon cd that came with your camera? mine says digital video solution disk, version 24.0.

i have not installed it yet.

also my computer has movie maker on it. will this handle my hd video from the hv20?

gerald

Tom Hardwick · October 16th, 2007, 10:29 AM

If you have Vista you should be ok. Otherwise downconvert in camera and feed DV via Firewire into the pc. You'll be outputting to standard definition DVDs anyway.

The CD is probably not needed - more for the stills processing I'd have thought. I have a Sony Z1.

tom.

Gerald Hocutt · October 16th, 2007, 10:33 AM

thanks for the time and help
gerald

Matt Krump · November 24th, 2007, 10:20 AM

I just received the lens based on this string, but when I tried to screw it on the threads were bigger than the camera's. What is a cheap adapter that someone could recommend? Thanks.

C.S. Michael · November 24th, 2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Krump

I just received the lens based on this string, but when I tried to screw it on the threads were bigger than the camera's. What is a cheap adapter that someone could recommend? Thanks.

From the photos, it looks like you need a 43mm to 52mm stepup adapter ring. You can find these in camera stores, or online.

I have the WD-H43. Quality is great, but the lens is extremely heavy. I may pick up a lighter alternative.

Ryan Avery · November 26th, 2007, 04:28 PM

FYI to all,

Schneider Optics will have line of accessory lenses for the Canon HV-20 very soon. We have been very busy working on other projects. In the meantime, if you wish to buy a good wide angle, we make a line of 58mm lenses that use a 58mm-43mm step ring. Specifically, we make this lens which features a .55x wide angle and the front element can be unscrewed and reversed for a fisheye effect! This is one of my favorite lenses we manufacture.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecomm...D=1070&IID=883

Ryan Avery
Regional Sales Representative
Schneider Optics

Raymond Toussaint · November 30th, 2007, 08:48 PM

Raynox is also advising you to use the wide lens 6600PRO 52 with the HV20 and use a step-up ring to go from 43mm-52mm the ring is RA5243a. So do not use the 43mmm Raynox.

I need this lens and the HV20 for some shots on a boom, weight is everything but I don't think I'm happy with the resolution (center res 350 l/mm) and CA. I am going to use a 72mm polarizer on top , so with all that glass, flare is a risk.

The Canon Wide adapter is heavy and the other Raynox HD-7000PRO is better (540 lines/mm) but heavy too.

Tom Hardwick · December 2nd, 2007, 02:37 AM

You're right - the 6600 Pro is a good lens in as far as its barrel distortion is very well controlled, but I thought mine had flare levels that were too high, and I was careful to hood it very efficiently. Adding a polarisor (many of which are uncoated) to those hungry-looking front threads will only worsen the problem.

I'm not sure I'd put much weight on Raynox's 'lpmm' figures. The 6600 PRO came out in about 1998 so was way before the HiDef revolution. My guess is that the more modern 7000 wouldn't be any sharper on your HV20, just more useable. (less wide but much sharper at telephoto settings, where the 6600 falls down).

tom.

David Twelves · January 17th, 2008, 07:50 PM

My Merkury showed up today for my HV20. Is there ANY kind of 53mm adapter available to only use the Wide-Angle adapter without the Macro?

November 24th, 2007, 10:20 AM	#70
Matt Krump New Boot Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sugar Grove, IL Posts: 17	What Adapter I just received the lens based on this string, but when I tried to screw it on the threads were bigger than the camera's. What is a cheap adapter that someone could recommend? Thanks.

November 30th, 2007, 08:48 PM	#73
Raymond Toussaint Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 173	raynox 6600pro Raynox is also advising you to use the wide lens 6600PRO 52 with the HV20 and use a step-up ring to go from 43mm-52mm the ring is RA5243a. So do not use the 43mmm Raynox. I need this lens and the HV20 for some shots on a boom, weight is everything but I don't think I'm happy with the resolution (center res 350 l/mm) and CA. I am going to use a 72mm polarizer on top , so with all that glass, flare is a risk. The Canon Wide adapter is heavy and the other Raynox HD-7000PRO is better (540 lines/mm) but heavy too.

October 16th, 2007, 08:22 AM	#61
Gerald Hocutt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Columbus, Mississippi Posts: 34	tom, this lens was $150 bucks, is that cheap for a lens or did i over pay for a cheap lens. i thought about getting the canon wide angle lens but it was around the same price range (i believe, maybe wrong). how much would a good wide angle lens be? also, the fuzzie light surrounding the white uniformed players, is that bad white out setting or just from the lens. it noticed it around the edges more than anywhere else.

October 16th, 2007, 09:16 AM	#62
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	150 bucks sounds about right for a low range wide-converter, though a lot depends on its power, on whether it's a non-zoom or a full zoom-through and also on how big it is - ie what filter size fitting it comes with. Converter lenses that use aspheric rather than spherical elements are more expensive but better. It sounds from your description that you paid rather a lot for a lens that gives you quite easily noticeable distortions. The Canon lens will be very much better but is probably a 0.7x as against your 0.5x (is it?). When you say you're 'trying to get as close to the players as possible on the football field' do you mean you're getting physically up close to them with your widie in place for a more intimate view? Sounds to me though as if you're in the stands and really need a telephoto converter to increase the focal length of the camera's zoom lens. This will 'bring the players closer'. The 'bowers 2x' that came with the kit will be of the same so-so quality I'd say. The 'fuzzy light' you're seeing is most probably chromatic abberation. Pretty common in cheap lenses and in single element lenses. I'd be tempted to get my money back and buy a lens with a brand name you recognise on it. Canon or Tokina or Raynox or Century or Kenko. tom.

October 16th, 2007, 09:40 AM	#63
Gerald Hocutt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Columbus, Mississippi Posts: 34	thanks tom, i think i'll try and send it back. if a noob like me notices it you know it's bad, if the white team would have had circles around their helmets thay could have passed for angels. not kidding. i'm shooting from atop the press box located behind the blechers, normal high school football field layout. so i was trying to get a really close up shot of the action while still getting the entire players on the field. are you surposed to be able to see inside the wide angle lens when you zoom all the way in. this is a 46cm wide angle lens with a step down ring to the hv20's 43. if i use some extra rings, could i place the bowers doubler in front of the wide angle lens and beable to shoot futher out. with the wide angle lens i have very little zoom. am i going about this the wrong way, for shooting highschool football games from atop the press box, would you use the wide angle lens or just the regular lens?

October 16th, 2007, 09:54 AM	#64
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	No, the perfect wide-angle zoom-through converter will allow you to use the full zoom capability of your camcorder without any vignetting, barrel distortion, chromatic abberation, contrast reduction, increased flare levels or softening of image detail. Such a lens doesn't exist whatever you pay. Sounds to me as if your lens exhibits all of these faults, and some of them to a marked degree. No, you cannot combine the tele and the wide lens. One at a time. please. You're going about things the wrong way. Use the telephoto converter on your zoom lens to 'get closer to the action'. But you won't be able to zoom back (towards wide-angle) far, before you 'see inside the lens' (Called vignetting). Use the wide-converter whan you're back to the wall yet still can't get everything in your v'finder without hose-piping the scene. As Adam says - when you don't need extra lenses, take them off. They will all degrade your image quality, always. No exceptions. tom.

October 16th, 2007, 10:06 AM	#65
Gerald Hocutt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Columbus, Mississippi Posts: 34	thanks for the info tom. i'm going to remove the wide angle lens for the next game. i'll mess around with the wide angle lens later doing more close up stuff where i don't have to zoom out much. all the video was taken at full zoom, that probabily did not help much either. tom, i started a thread on the vegas site about trying to find a vegas editing software that will work with my laptop. you mind throwing your 2 cents in. i never looked at a editing program before. i cain't see the difference between vegas pro 8 and artitect 4.5. i know these are way more than i need, just got the free trail to see what it looked like. i'm sure even the most basic vegas will do more than i need it to do, which is capture hdv, maybe add a menu with a foot ball scene running in the back ground during the menu. i think thats looping but not sure. and then burning the video to my dvd burner.

October 16th, 2007, 10:15 AM	#66
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You're on the right track. Sounds to me as if you're confusing the wide converter and the tele converter. Use your Canon camcorder without any extra lenses bolted on for the finest picture quality. And buy and use a tripod for your press box location. Please. Sounds like you're a contender for the excellent (free) program called iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. They'll do everything you describe and more. When you get more experience you can fiddle with lenses, manual settings and editing programs. Walk first, run second. tom.

October 16th, 2007, 10:25 AM	#67
Gerald Hocutt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Columbus, Mississippi Posts: 34	one more question, did you install/or use the canon cd that came with your camera? mine says digital video solution disk, version 24.0. i have not installed it yet. also my computer has movie maker on it. will this handle my hd video from the hv20? gerald

October 16th, 2007, 10:29 AM	#68
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	If you have Vista you should be ok. Otherwise downconvert in camera and feed DV via Firewire into the pc. You'll be outputting to standard definition DVDs anyway. The CD is probably not needed - more for the stills processing I'd have thought. I have a Sony Z1. tom.

October 16th, 2007, 10:33 AM	#69
Gerald Hocutt Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Columbus, Mississippi Posts: 34	thanks for the time and help gerald

November 26th, 2007, 04:28 PM	#72
Ryan Avery Sponsor: Schneider Optics Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Van Nuys, CA Posts: 387	FYI to all, Schneider Optics will have line of accessory lenses for the Canon HV-20 very soon. We have been very busy working on other projects. In the meantime, if you wish to buy a good wide angle, we make a line of 58mm lenses that use a 58mm-43mm step ring. Specifically, we make this lens which features a .55x wide angle and the front element can be unscrewed and reversed for a fisheye effect! This is one of my favorite lenses we manufacture. http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecomm...D=1070&IID=883 Ryan Avery Regional Sales Representative Schneider Optics

December 2nd, 2007, 02:37 AM	#74
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You're right - the 6600 Pro is a good lens in as far as its barrel distortion is very well controlled, but I thought mine had flare levels that were too high, and I was careful to hood it very efficiently. Adding a polarisor (many of which are uncoated) to those hungry-looking front threads will only worsen the problem. I'm not sure I'd put much weight on Raynox's 'lpmm' figures. The 6600 PRO came out in about 1998 so was way before the HiDef revolution. My guess is that the more modern 7000 wouldn't be any sharper on your HV20, just more useable. (less wide but much sharper at telephoto settings, where the 6600 falls down). tom.

January 17th, 2008, 07:50 PM	#75
David Twelves New Boot Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hartford, Connecticut Posts: 12	My Merkury showed up today for my HV20. Is there ANY kind of 53mm adapter available to only use the Wide-Angle adapter without the Macro?