Raynox fisheye at DVinfo.net

Kurt Zhuang · December 4th, 2008, 04:41 PM

hey has anyone had any experience with the MX306PRO 62mm fisheye?
i was thinking about getting it for my xha1, and buying a 72-62 stepdown. will the vignetting be horrible? if i zoom through to get rid of it will the picture be terrible?

Raynox | MX-3062PRO 62mm, 0.3X, Semi-Fisheye Ultra | MX3062

i was either going to go with xha1+mx306 with step down, or hv30 with Raynox mx3000 58mm with step up.

would it be better to have a step up so there is nearly no vignetting?
what are the pros n cons of step up/step down?

Raynox | MX-3000PRO 58mm 0.3x Semi Fisheye Lens | MX3000PRO

thanks in advance :)

Samuel Ko · December 4th, 2008, 05:34 PM

they have a 72mm fisheye for the raynox. which im curious on
but the price is around 6-800dollars.

Kurt Zhuang · December 4th, 2008, 06:22 PM

ha yeah price is a big issue for me. thats why the 160+step ring looks better to me ha

Janson Williams · December 4th, 2008, 07:29 PM

that is def a nice price, i bought this one
Century Precision Optics | 0HD-FEAD-XLH 0.3x | 0HD-FEAD-XLH

quite expensive and heavy,

when i zoom, it just gets really blurry, but i did read on the specs of yours and it does say you can zoom in, but the point of the fisheye is to get the most viewing possible, hopefully when you zoom in passed the vignette effect, you dont loose much view

good luck with that, i am sure yours will be much lighter than mine, let me know how it goes

David W. Jones · December 4th, 2008, 08:21 PM

If you are a hobbyist just out having fun, then the Raynox for a few bucks will give you something to occupy your time.
If you are serious about your image quality, pass it by.

Kurt Zhuang · December 5th, 2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janson Williams

that is def a nice price, i bought this one
Century Precision Optics | 0HD-FEAD-XLH 0.3x | 0HD-FEAD-XLH

quite expensive and heavy,

when i zoom, it just gets really blurry, but i did read on the specs of yours and it does say you can zoom in, but the point of the fisheye is to get the most viewing possible, hopefully when you zoom in passed the vignette effect, you dont loose much view

good luck with that, i am sure yours will be much lighter than mine, let me know how it goes

that is very steep ha. that ones an adapter though not a converter, so zoom isnt really possible. the only thing im worried about is the CA and fuzziness on the sides, but if its minimal i think i will get this.

does anyone know anything about the step down though? like how much vig ill get on top of normal vig, and if i can just zoom by it

Mikey Williams · December 8th, 2008, 10:18 PM

You will definitely get a vignette with any fisheye smaller than your actual lens. Some fisheyes even if they are the same size as your lens may still give you vignetting.

I've had the Raynox on a Sony before, it did alright but it def. looses quality near the edges.

The Century Optics one is a lot better, but it's also a lot more expensive. If you're not selling the footage you shoot with the fisheye than i wouldn't be to worried about spending less on the Raynox. if the footage is going to be seen on lots of TVs, get the Century.

Oh, and I have yet to see a "fisheye" lens that you can zoom through and it is actually wide enough to truely be a "fisheye".

Tom Cambridge · December 9th, 2008, 03:49 PM

My experience with any adapters/converters for the A1 has not been good. I started with a zunow wfx-07 wide converter and that had softness at the edges covering 25 % of the image and bad chromatic aberration (useless). I then thought that perhaps it is the quality of the product so I returned it for a century optics 0HD-FEAD-XLH fisheye. This was in fact worse than the zunow with heavy chromatic aberration but less softness, in this respect it was actually quite good considering how much wider it made the angle of view. So then I decided that it would make sense to try a less wide quality lens, so I returned the fisheye and opted to try the 0.8x wide converter from century in a bid for a clean image with no softness. It was the best of the three but still lessened the quality of the image with aberrations and softness which were still too noticeable for my liking. I am confident that the canon option would most likely give me what i am looking for but the size and weight of the thing is a big no-no for me.

Now I have noticed the flaws of the stock canon lens which shows up aberrations in high contrast areas but you have to look hard and it is well within what I believe to be acceptable. So I Have concluded that the bad experiences I had with converters are a result of the stock lens's flaws being magnified as tends to be the case on most camera's.

Either this or my camera is faulty or an unfortunate example of the A1, I certainly am not saying it is a problem on all A1's, maybe different people have different views on what is acceptable.

It is also worth mentioning that I have experienced no vignetting which is a plus to all the converters, even the fish-eye.

I'd be very interested to hear if anyone has come across the same problems as me and if they have to let me know if they have found a solution.

Thanks.

Tom Hardwick · December 10th, 2008, 11:40 AM

I too tried the Zenow on my Z1, but found the barrel distortion laughable. All the wide-angle converters I've tried have added to the flare levels and softened the corners of the frame. Stopping down helps to cure this, but of course stopping down sure doesn't help sharpness at these very short focal lengths.

I now use a single element aspheric. 0.55x so good and powerful, and zero barrel distortion. I have to accept some CA, but that's the laws of optics at work.

tom.

Alastair Brown · December 10th, 2008, 10:39 PM

16x9 | Distributor of Film & Digital Products

There are also the 16 x 9 fisheyes.

December 4th, 2008, 04:41 PM	#1
Kurt Zhuang Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: z Posts: 49	Raynox fisheye hey has anyone had any experience with the MX306PRO 62mm fisheye? i was thinking about getting it for my xha1, and buying a 72-62 stepdown. will the vignetting be horrible? if i zoom through to get rid of it will the picture be terrible? Raynox \| MX-3062PRO 62mm, 0.3X, Semi-Fisheye Ultra \| MX3062 i was either going to go with xha1+mx306 with step down, or hv30 with Raynox mx3000 58mm with step up. would it be better to have a step up so there is nearly no vignetting? what are the pros n cons of step up/step down? Raynox \| MX-3000PRO 58mm 0.3x Semi Fisheye Lens \| MX3000PRO thanks in advance :)

December 8th, 2008, 10:18 PM	#7
Mikey Williams Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Squamish, BC, Canada Posts: 28	You will definitely get a vignette with any fisheye smaller than your actual lens. Some fisheyes even if they are the same size as your lens may still give you vignetting. I've had the Raynox on a Sony before, it did alright but it def. looses quality near the edges. The Century Optics one is a lot better, but it's also a lot more expensive. If you're not selling the footage you shoot with the fisheye than i wouldn't be to worried about spending less on the Raynox. if the footage is going to be seen on lots of TVs, get the Century. Oh, and I have yet to see a "fisheye" lens that you can zoom through and it is actually wide enough to truely be a "fisheye". __________________ Mikey Williams Down To Earth Productions

December 4th, 2008, 05:34 PM	#2
Samuel Ko Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New York, NY Posts: 47	they have a 72mm fisheye for the raynox. which im curious on but the price is around 6-800dollars.

December 4th, 2008, 06:22 PM	#3
Kurt Zhuang Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: z Posts: 49	ha yeah price is a big issue for me. thats why the 160+step ring looks better to me ha

December 4th, 2008, 07:29 PM	#4
Janson Williams Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 101	that is def a nice price, i bought this one Century Precision Optics \| 0HD-FEAD-XLH 0.3x \| 0HD-FEAD-XLH quite expensive and heavy, when i zoom, it just gets really blurry, but i did read on the specs of yours and it does say you can zoom in, but the point of the fisheye is to get the most viewing possible, hopefully when you zoom in passed the vignette effect, you dont loose much view good luck with that, i am sure yours will be much lighter than mine, let me know how it goes

December 4th, 2008, 08:21 PM	#5
David W. Jones Trustee Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Little Rock Posts: 1,383	If you are a hobbyist just out having fun, then the Raynox for a few bucks will give you something to occupy your time. If you are serious about your image quality, pass it by.

December 9th, 2008, 03:49 PM	#8
Tom Cambridge New Boot Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: England Posts: 24	My experience with any adapters/converters for the A1 has not been good. I started with a zunow wfx-07 wide converter and that had softness at the edges covering 25 % of the image and bad chromatic aberration (useless). I then thought that perhaps it is the quality of the product so I returned it for a century optics 0HD-FEAD-XLH fisheye. This was in fact worse than the zunow with heavy chromatic aberration but less softness, in this respect it was actually quite good considering how much wider it made the angle of view. So then I decided that it would make sense to try a less wide quality lens, so I returned the fisheye and opted to try the 0.8x wide converter from century in a bid for a clean image with no softness. It was the best of the three but still lessened the quality of the image with aberrations and softness which were still too noticeable for my liking. I am confident that the canon option would most likely give me what i am looking for but the size and weight of the thing is a big no-no for me. Now I have noticed the flaws of the stock canon lens which shows up aberrations in high contrast areas but you have to look hard and it is well within what I believe to be acceptable. So I Have concluded that the bad experiences I had with converters are a result of the stock lens's flaws being magnified as tends to be the case on most camera's. Either this or my camera is faulty or an unfortunate example of the A1, I certainly am not saying it is a problem on all A1's, maybe different people have different views on what is acceptable. It is also worth mentioning that I have experienced no vignetting which is a plus to all the converters, even the fish-eye. I'd be very interested to hear if anyone has come across the same problems as me and if they have to let me know if they have found a solution. Thanks.

December 10th, 2008, 11:40 AM	#9
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I too tried the Zenow on my Z1, but found the barrel distortion laughable. All the wide-angle converters I've tried have added to the flare levels and softened the corners of the frame. Stopping down helps to cure this, but of course stopping down sure doesn't help sharpness at these very short focal lengths. I now use a single element aspheric. 0.55x so good and powerful, and zero barrel distortion. I have to accept some CA, but that's the laws of optics at work. tom.

December 10th, 2008, 10:39 PM	#10
Alastair Brown Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Glasgow/Scotland Posts: 626	16x9 \| Distributor of Film & Digital Products There are also the 16 x 9 fisheyes.