Wide Angle Adaptor for XH A1?

Kellen Dengler · February 5th, 2008, 03:40 PM

If I had the money for a 35mm adapter and wide angle lenses for that I would totally do that. It really depends what you want to do and how much of it you are going to do for the money. Obviously the Canon 72mm Wide Angle adapter is much cheaper than a 35mm setup but it is also more limited (no matte box/filer capabilities etc).

What do you mostly film?

About the Letus and monitor issue there is a post a few below this that discusses exactly that...

Ivo van Aart · February 5th, 2008, 03:50 PM

Thanks for the quick reply!

I'm doing only narative work. Long filmprojects. This summer, I want my DOP to mount the xh a1 on his shoulder and use a wide angle lens. I will probably have around 2000 euro (about 3000 dollar) to spend. So a Letus Economy with railsystem, shouldermount and maybe a follow focus I can afford.

Is a follow focus important to have in your setup?

Kellen Dengler · February 5th, 2008, 04:11 PM

So then do you already have a set of lenses for the 35mm adapter? Or at least the wide angle lens you want to use?

I don't own a 35mm adapter and follow focus, but I've used one and found the follow focus to be very helpful in obtaining very precise focused shots. Once you get an adapter and lenses and all that, and then throw it on your shoulder the follow focus make sit easier to adjust focus for sure.

I'm sure others on here who own a 35mm adapter and follow focus will give input...

Ivo van Aart · February 6th, 2008, 01:00 AM

I hope so :)

I have a lot of still lenses. Personally I have a wide angle, normal (like 50mm) and a zoomlens (canon, exept the zoomlens) but I know a still photographer who still works analogue so he has a lot of lenses.

Randy Panado · March 28th, 2008, 04:37 PM

After reading through this whole thread, is it safe to deduce that the Canon is the best for image quality, price, and accessories (bag, hood, etc.) but the only downside is the weight?

I'm going to be using it for a LAST MINUTE gig in a week and I'm researching like a madman trying to find a suitable wide angle in time.

Back story is my friend/client lost my number and only now found it a WEEK away from his event. Didn't have time to prepare as far as tapes/cleaning/prepping goes so scrambling a bit and will have to 2day or overnight a lens here.

Thanks for all the info posted so far.

Matt Desmond · April 1st, 2008, 04:41 PM

ok, so here's a question:

Which is better for quality of image and versatility/zoom?

Century Optics .3x fisheye
or
16x9 EX Super Fisheye

???

Luc De Wandel · May 11th, 2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Panado

After reading through this whole thread, is it safe to deduce that the Canon is the best for image quality, price, and accessories (bag, hood, etc.) but the only downside is the weight?

I'm going to be using it for a LAST MINUTE gig in a week and I'm researching like a madman trying to find a suitable wide angle in time.

Back story is my friend/client lost my number and only now found it a WEEK away from his event. Didn't have time to prepare as far as tapes/cleaning/prepping goes so scrambling a bit and will have to 2day or overnight a lens here.

Thanks for all the info posted so far.

Weight is indeed a serious disadvantage, plus the fact that I find the wide-angle effect marginal.

Petri Kaipiainen · May 29th, 2008, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kellen Dengler

Obviously the Canon 72mm Wide Angle adapter is much cheaper than a 35mm setup but it is also more limited (no matte box/filer capabilities etc).

Not so.

Canon 0.8x adapter fits the Chrosziel 450-XHG1 mattebox. It is used without the 110 to 81mm adapter (needed with the fixed lens, included in the kit), the Canon WA adapter is about 1 mm smaller in diameter than the mattebox opening. If you feel you need to fill the gap Chrosziel sells a black rubber band for that purpose.

I have both Canon 0.8x and Century 0.6x adapters. Canon 0.8x is great quality, full zoom-thru, but heavy and not all that WA. Century is light, cheaper, approaches a real WA, but has slightly soft corners and is only about 6x zoom-thru.

I like them both, usable in different situations.

Alain Lumina · August 4th, 2008, 05:15 PM

I think it's probably the same thing labelled "Titanium," this one is labelled something else, but the kicker is it has "Japan" on the lens rim, but right on the box it says Made in China.

I have actually, in other areas than optics, gotten some great super cheap stuff from China, maybe like getting a 1980 Toyota before people knew they were already great.

Something I don't understand is there is a unscrewable rear element that says "Macro" on it, and I think it must be meant to stay on there because when you remove it the front section does not have 72 MM threads that I can seat in the camera.

It vignettes with my 72 MM Canon brand UV filter on between it and the camera, but not without.

I'll try to put up some test cheese shots. I like to buy either really good things or really bad ones. Low risk either way, and sometimes you get lucky with junk. It was this or nothing for WA on my budget.

Tom Hardwick · August 5th, 2008, 12:30 AM

Alain, you should avoid using filters with wide-angle adapters, either between zoom and converter or on the front of them. This is because you're adding two extra air-to-glass surfaces and increasing the chances of flare, diffraction and vignetting.

The 'macro' part of the lens is simply a very powerful c.10 dioptre close-up lens. It might be worth experimenting with, but generally the edge definition is pretty poor. It might be ok on still cameras where you can crop the image to remove the whooshy edges.

tom.

Lew Stamp · November 16th, 2008, 11:43 AM

I just switched from the Gl-2 with the 58 wide, and ordered the XHA1 with a WD- H72. The GL 2 was a great balance with the wide on. I was stunned to say the least how front end heavy the XhA1 is with the WD- H72 on. But as I do more run and gun news style video for Ohio.com I am not inclined to go without in on camera full time. Note it is a must to keep the wide, spit-spot clean or it will show.
Lew

Lew Stamp · November 16th, 2008, 11:50 AM

There are no filter threads on the front end, they would have to clamp on like the lens hood, if still needed.
Lew

John Stakes · December 15th, 2008, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Fadely

We've got the WD H72 wide angle. It screws in to the camera's 72mm threads; it's not bayonet.

It is better than our 16x9 Inc. wide lens.

chuck

which model are you comparing to? what makes the Canon better [anybody]?

Joe Gaetani · January 20th, 2009, 06:48 PM

Has anybody used this adapter?
Century Precision Optics | 0.6x Wide Angle Adapter | 0HD-06WA-AG

Or know anything about its performance?

Tom Hardwick · January 21st, 2009, 02:48 AM

Being from Century it will be beautifully made, superbly coated, wonderfully powerful and barrel distort pretty severely as its of spherical construction. If these parameters suit you, go for it.

August 4th, 2008, 05:15 PM	#324
Alain Lumina Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fort Dick California ( Far North) Posts: 59	I bought the .45 $45 WA Cheeser! Eat your hearts out! I think it's probably the same thing labelled "Titanium," this one is labelled something else, but the kicker is it has "Japan" on the lens rim, but right on the box it says Made in China. I have actually, in other areas than optics, gotten some great super cheap stuff from China, maybe like getting a 1980 Toyota before people knew they were already great. Something I don't understand is there is a unscrewable rear element that says "Macro" on it, and I think it must be meant to stay on there because when you remove it the front section does not have 72 MM threads that I can seat in the camera. It vignettes with my 72 MM Canon brand UV filter on between it and the camera, but not without. I'll try to put up some test cheese shots. I like to buy either really good things or really bad ones. Low risk either way, and sometimes you get lucky with junk. It was this or nothing for WA on my budget.

November 16th, 2008, 11:43 AM	#326
Lew Stamp New Boot Join Date: May 2006 Location: Akron, Ohio, USA Posts: 10	Wd- H72 I just switched from the Gl-2 with the 58 wide, and ordered the XHA1 with a WD- H72. The GL 2 was a great balance with the wide on. I was stunned to say the least how front end heavy the XhA1 is with the WD- H72 on. But as I do more run and gun news style video for Ohio.com I am not inclined to go without in on camera full time. Note it is a must to keep the wide, spit-spot clean or it will show. Lew

November 16th, 2008, 11:50 AM	#327
Lew Stamp New Boot Join Date: May 2006 Location: Akron, Ohio, USA Posts: 10	filter WD- H72 There are no filter threads on the front end, they would have to clamp on like the lens hood, if still needed. Lew

January 20th, 2009, 06:48 PM	#329
Joe Gaetani Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Burlington, VT Posts: 33	New Century Optics WA Has anybody used this adapter? Century Precision Optics \| 0.6x Wide Angle Adapter \| 0HD-06WA-AG Or know anything about its performance?

February 5th, 2008, 03:40 PM	#316
Kellen Dengler Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York, NY Posts: 118	If I had the money for a 35mm adapter and wide angle lenses for that I would totally do that. It really depends what you want to do and how much of it you are going to do for the money. Obviously the Canon 72mm Wide Angle adapter is much cheaper than a 35mm setup but it is also more limited (no matte box/filer capabilities etc). What do you mostly film? About the Letus and monitor issue there is a post a few below this that discusses exactly that...

February 5th, 2008, 03:50 PM	#317
Ivo van Aart Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Breda, Netherlands Posts: 67	Thanks for the quick reply! I'm doing only narative work. Long filmprojects. This summer, I want my DOP to mount the xh a1 on his shoulder and use a wide angle lens. I will probably have around 2000 euro (about 3000 dollar) to spend. So a Letus Economy with railsystem, shouldermount and maybe a follow focus I can afford. Is a follow focus important to have in your setup?

February 5th, 2008, 04:11 PM	#318
Kellen Dengler Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: New York, NY Posts: 118	So then do you already have a set of lenses for the 35mm adapter? Or at least the wide angle lens you want to use? I don't own a 35mm adapter and follow focus, but I've used one and found the follow focus to be very helpful in obtaining very precise focused shots. Once you get an adapter and lenses and all that, and then throw it on your shoulder the follow focus make sit easier to adjust focus for sure. I'm sure others on here who own a 35mm adapter and follow focus will give input...

February 6th, 2008, 01:00 AM	#319
Ivo van Aart Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Breda, Netherlands Posts: 67	I hope so :) I have a lot of still lenses. Personally I have a wide angle, normal (like 50mm) and a zoomlens (canon, exept the zoomlens) but I know a still photographer who still works analogue so he has a lot of lenses.

March 28th, 2008, 04:37 PM	#320
Randy Panado Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 643	After reading through this whole thread, is it safe to deduce that the Canon is the best for image quality, price, and accessories (bag, hood, etc.) but the only downside is the weight? I'm going to be using it for a LAST MINUTE gig in a week and I'm researching like a madman trying to find a suitable wide angle in time. Back story is my friend/client lost my number and only now found it a WEEK away from his event. Didn't have time to prepare as far as tapes/cleaning/prepping goes so scrambling a bit and will have to 2day or overnight a lens here. Thanks for all the info posted so far.

April 1st, 2008, 04:41 PM	#321
Matt Desmond New Boot Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 17	ok, so here's a question: Which is better for quality of image and versatility/zoom? Century Optics .3x fisheye or 16x9 EX Super Fisheye ???

August 5th, 2008, 12:30 AM	#325
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Alain, you should avoid using filters with wide-angle adapters, either between zoom and converter or on the front of them. This is because you're adding two extra air-to-glass surfaces and increasing the chances of flare, diffraction and vignetting. The 'macro' part of the lens is simply a very powerful c.10 dioptre close-up lens. It might be worth experimenting with, but generally the edge definition is pretty poor. It might be ok on still cameras where you can crop the image to remove the whooshy edges. tom.

January 21st, 2009, 02:48 AM	#330
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Being from Century it will be beautifully made, superbly coated, wonderfully powerful and barrel distort pretty severely as its of spherical construction. If these parameters suit you, go for it.