Wide Angle Adaptor for XH A1?

Don Palomaki · July 10th, 2007, 11:41 AM

Which Century? the 0.6x that is not full zoom-through? or the 0.8x that is zoom through.

Blake Calhoun · July 10th, 2007, 11:46 AM

Sorry, good point. I want the zoom through. Thanks.

Eugene Presley · July 10th, 2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blake Calhoun

Sorry, good point. I want the zoom through. Thanks.

I'm selling a brand new one. Check out out the Private Classifieds.

Blake Calhoun · July 10th, 2007, 11:35 PM

Got a direct link Eugene? I can't seem to locate item. Thanks.

EDIT: Found post Eugene, thanks, but that's not the zoom through is it?

David Chia · July 11th, 2007, 01:00 AM

What about the new Red eye FX, it is now made for HD cameras too. It is so much lighter. I was looking at buying it . But can any one tell me if it blocks the AF sensor. It looks small enough to fit in to the A1 with the existing hood intact.

here is the link:

http://www.vfgadgets.com/RedEye.htm

http://www.collinscraft.com/

Eugene Presley · July 11th, 2007, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blake Calhoun

Got a direct link Eugene? I can't seem to locate item. Thanks.

EDIT: Found post Eugene, thanks, but that's not the zoom through is it?

The zoom through model costs more than 1000$, it's not worth it.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=98511

David Chia · July 11th, 2007, 03:18 AM

Eugene , does the Red eye FX W.A blocks the AF sensor in the A1. Is it small enough to fit it with the existing hood on?

Eugene Presley · July 11th, 2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Chia

Eugene , does the Red eye FX W.A blocks the AF sensor in the A1. Is it small enough to fit it with the existing hood on?

I noticed some pulsing from time to time, like the century optice wide-angle, which has the same 'problem'. When filming with a wide-angle I always turn the AF off, it's of no use then.

I can use the existing hood in combination with the red eye, yes, without any problem. Big advantage over the Century optics!

Blake Calhoun · July 11th, 2007, 08:55 AM

Okay, didn't realize it was that much for the zoom through. Thanks for the info.

David Chia · July 11th, 2007, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene Presley

I noticed some pulsing from time to time, like the century optice wide-angle, which has the same 'problem'. When filming with a wide-angle I always turn the AF off, it's of no use then.

I can use the existing hood in combination with the red eye, yes, without any problem. Big advantage over the Century optics!

Thanks Eugene, Just want I needed to hear. I be picking one up soon

Andy Gordon · July 17th, 2007, 05:59 AM

Here’s a comparison of a couple of wide angle lenses I have.

Raynox MXpro3000 0.3 semi fisheye:

I removed the lens from the housing and glued it to a 72-67mm step down ring which happens to hold it the right distance from the cam lens. The chroma separation is significant towards the edge of the image, barrel distortion is massive, and the edges of the image are out of focus at wide apertures. For the price (around $100) it’s not bad, super wide FOV for an interesting effect.

Bolex Aspherson 6.5mm for Vario-Switar 12.5-100mm:

I’ve been looking for a non distorting wide for a while and now I have one thanks to Tom Hardwick. It’s 0.52 or around 17mm focal length in 35mm equivalent. You need a custom made step ring to mount this lens, the thread is 85mm and it’s on the middle of the lens housing, I haven't got one yet but it might need to attach to the bayonet mount to avoid vignetting. Chroma separation is quite significant at the edges, there’s slight barrel distortion but hardly noticeable (might just be down to the inherent stock lens distortion, and seems worse on objects close to the camera). You can zoom up to z65 before it goes out of focus and the FOV is slightly narrower than the stock at full wide, so fairly pointless zooming. The list price is 1400 swiss francs ($1165) but if you ask Bolex for a quote you can get a significant discount, I got the lens new for cheaper than the second hand one I was bidding for on ebay. Anyway I love this lens, the non distorted exaggerated perspective looks amazing, I can live with the fringing.

L. Kirk Kauder · July 17th, 2007, 07:45 AM

Okay, I've read through every thread I can find on this forum and others and I've yet to find a comprehensive answer to the question: Which of the following in your experienced opinion is better?

1. The Canon WD-H72 (.75X)

2. The Century Optics Wide Angle Auxillary lens (.6X - http://www.adorama.com/CY0HD06WAXLH.html)

3. The Red Eye Wide Angle Adapter (.5X).

I'm not looking for complete zoom through... just want to widen up those shots were the environment is too confining and/or add some visual affecting.
Does anyone have any screens or vids of any of these bad boys for comparison? That would be so ideal... and so cool!

Right now I'm leaning towards the Century Optics Wide Angle adapter because it is definitely lighter than the Canon and is slightly wider. It also allows for filters.
Has anyone tried this puppy? Does it "see" (vignette) with the XHA1 lens hood when the lens is fully zoomed out? Is it worth the money? (It's about the same price as the WD-H72).
And what about it's having a bayonet-mount... will that actually work on my threaded XHA1 out of the box or do I need an adapter to use the adapter?

I have considered the Red Eye, but some have stated that it's not made of glass and may easily scratch... plus it's priced slightly higher than the other two options.

I'm getting close to a very big production and will need a good wide angle solution for some selected scenes... and I'm going crazy trying to find out as much as I can without spending (and/or wasting) a ton of money.

Anyone help an old altar boy?
Thanks!

Phil Kay · July 17th, 2007, 08:07 AM

I have the WD-H72. It really is superb,hardly any distortion.

Eric Weiss · July 17th, 2007, 09:29 AM

the canon is great. it is heavy, but the image is worth it.
people claim that it isn't much wider, but it certainly is. being 16x9, the a1 is already pretty wide and the canon wd gives you a lot more vertical as well. it is 100% zoom through and also works well in 4x3.

L. Kirk Kauder · July 17th, 2007, 04:59 PM

Thanks, guys. Your input is very much appreciated.
It seems there are quite a few folks out there with the Canon... and everyone seems to be happy with it.
For my purposes, however I really don't want that heavy glass on the front of my camera (if I can find something just as good or better) and I don't really need the zoom through... so the WD is at the bottom of my list of three. That's why I was hoping to find someone... anyone! ...that can add some info to the pool on the other two adapters.
I wish I could get my hands on these devices and try them out myself before I buy them. I'm too cheap to shell out 400 bucks without knowing I'm going to be happy. Oh, well... the search goes on. :-)

July 10th, 2007, 11:41 AM	#226
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,489	Which Century? the 0.6x that is not full zoom-through? or the 0.8x that is zoom through. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

July 10th, 2007, 11:46 AM	#227
Blake Calhoun Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 157	Sorry, good point. I want the zoom through. Thanks. __________________ Mainly dabble in features and WebTV: www.pinktheseries.com \| www.facebook.com/continuumtv \| www.killingdown.com

July 10th, 2007, 11:35 PM	#229
Blake Calhoun Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 157	Got a direct link Eugene? I can't seem to locate item. Thanks. EDIT: Found post Eugene, thanks, but that's not the zoom through is it? __________________ Mainly dabble in features and WebTV: www.pinktheseries.com \| www.facebook.com/continuumtv \| www.killingdown.com Last edited by Blake Calhoun; July 10th, 2007 at 11:40 PM. Reason: Found post

July 11th, 2007, 08:55 AM	#234
Blake Calhoun Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 157	Okay, didn't realize it was that much for the zoom through. Thanks for the info. __________________ Mainly dabble in features and WebTV: www.pinktheseries.com \| www.facebook.com/continuumtv \| www.killingdown.com

July 17th, 2007, 05:59 AM	#236
Andy Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Perth WA Posts: 103	Wide angle comparison - Raynox and Aspheron Here’s a comparison of a couple of wide angle lenses I have. Raynox MXpro3000 0.3 semi fisheye: I removed the lens from the housing and glued it to a 72-67mm step down ring which happens to hold it the right distance from the cam lens. The chroma separation is significant towards the edge of the image, barrel distortion is massive, and the edges of the image are out of focus at wide apertures. For the price (around $100) it’s not bad, super wide FOV for an interesting effect. Bolex Aspherson 6.5mm for Vario-Switar 12.5-100mm: I’ve been looking for a non distorting wide for a while and now I have one thanks to Tom Hardwick. It’s 0.52 or around 17mm focal length in 35mm equivalent. You need a custom made step ring to mount this lens, the thread is 85mm and it’s on the middle of the lens housing, I haven't got one yet but it might need to attach to the bayonet mount to avoid vignetting. Chroma separation is quite significant at the edges, there’s slight barrel distortion but hardly noticeable (might just be down to the inherent stock lens distortion, and seems worse on objects close to the camera). You can zoom up to z65 before it goes out of focus and the FOV is slightly narrower than the stock at full wide, so fairly pointless zooming. The list price is 1400 swiss francs ($1165) but if you ask Bolex for a quote you can get a significant discount, I got the lens new for cheaper than the second hand one I was bidding for on ebay. Anyway I love this lens, the non distorted exaggerated perspective looks amazing, I can live with the fringing. Attached Thumbnails

July 11th, 2007, 01:00 AM	#230
David Chia Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Posts: 427	What about the new Red eye FX, it is now made for HD cameras too. It is so much lighter. I was looking at buying it . But can any one tell me if it blocks the AF sensor. It looks small enough to fit in to the A1 with the existing hood intact. here is the link: http://www.vfgadgets.com/RedEye.htm http://www.collinscraft.com/

July 11th, 2007, 03:18 AM	#232
David Chia Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Posts: 427	Eugene , does the Red eye FX W.A blocks the AF sensor in the A1. Is it small enough to fit it with the existing hood on?

July 17th, 2007, 07:45 AM	#237
L. Kirk Kauder Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Sugar Land, TX USA Posts: 40	Wide Angle Decision Okay, I've read through every thread I can find on this forum and others and I've yet to find a comprehensive answer to the question: Which of the following in your experienced opinion is better? 1. The Canon WD-H72 (.75X) 2. The Century Optics Wide Angle Auxillary lens (.6X - http://www.adorama.com/CY0HD06WAXLH.html) 3. The Red Eye Wide Angle Adapter (.5X). I'm not looking for complete zoom through... just want to widen up those shots were the environment is too confining and/or add some visual affecting. Does anyone have any screens or vids of any of these bad boys for comparison? That would be so ideal... and so cool! Right now I'm leaning towards the Century Optics Wide Angle adapter because it is definitely lighter than the Canon and is slightly wider. It also allows for filters. Has anyone tried this puppy? Does it "see" (vignette) with the XHA1 lens hood when the lens is fully zoomed out? Is it worth the money? (It's about the same price as the WD-H72). And what about it's having a bayonet-mount... will that actually work on my threaded XHA1 out of the box or do I need an adapter to use the adapter? I have considered the Red Eye, but some have stated that it's not made of glass and may easily scratch... plus it's priced slightly higher than the other two options. I'm getting close to a very big production and will need a good wide angle solution for some selected scenes... and I'm going crazy trying to find out as much as I can without spending (and/or wasting) a ton of money. Anyone help an old altar boy? Thanks! __________________ Kirk VideoBlanket.com Last edited by L. Kirk Kauder; July 17th, 2007 at 04:53 PM.

July 17th, 2007, 08:07 AM	#238
Phil Kay Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Peel,Isle of Man(UK) Posts: 194	I have the WD-H72. It really is superb,hardly any distortion. __________________ Canon XH-A1,SGPRO flip,Apple imac,FCExpress http://www.pbase.com/philkneen

July 17th, 2007, 09:29 AM	#239
Eric Weiss Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philly,PA Posts: 360	the canon is great. it is heavy, but the image is worth it. people claim that it isn't much wider, but it certainly is. being 16x9, the a1 is already pretty wide and the canon wd gives you a lot more vertical as well. it is 100% zoom through and also works well in 4x3.

July 17th, 2007, 04:59 PM	#240
L. Kirk Kauder Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Sugar Land, TX USA Posts: 40	Thanks, guys. Your input is very much appreciated. It seems there are quite a few folks out there with the Canon... and everyone seems to be happy with it. For my purposes, however I really don't want that heavy glass on the front of my camera (if I can find something just as good or better) and I don't really need the zoom through... so the WD is at the bottom of my list of three. That's why I was hoping to find someone... anyone! ...that can add some info to the pool on the other two adapters. I wish I could get my hands on these devices and try them out myself before I buy them. I'm too cheap to shell out 400 bucks without knowing I'm going to be happy. Oh, well... the search goes on. :-) __________________ Kirk VideoBlanket.com