Need a good wide angle lens

[Peter Liptak]

Hello,

I am going back home to Europe to visit family and since houses/apartments are little small I need to get a wide angle lens so I can see more. I need a quality lens, so that I do not see flares. It needs to be 43mm or more, macro or not I don't really care, at least .40x, and definitely no fish-eye effect. I know I said I want quality lens, but I need it to be cheap (in price) as well, because the this trip will cost me a lot as it is. I know that is a bad combination, but help me out. What choices to I have? I do not mind e-bay much. Thanks
-Peter

[Chris Hurd]

Is this for a standard definition or high definition camcorder? What make and model, specifically?

[Peter Liptak]

it is for non-HD and I have JVC Everio GZ-MG130U

[Edward Carlson]

I use a Raynox HD-6600. It is .66x with little distortion, no fisheye effect. It comes in a variety of sizes, including 43 mm with no adapters. It is not zoom through, however. It usually blurs at about 8x.

[Peter Liptak]

Originally Posted by Edward Carlson

I use a Raynox HD-6600.

Uh, a little expensive. Any thoughts on these:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Wide-Ang...f=pd_rhf_p_t_3
http://stores.channeladvisor.com/47s...itemid=4808298
http://stores.channeladvisor.com/47s...syShare%20P880
http://stores.channeladvisor.com/47s...Sony%20HDR-FX7

[Robert M Wright]

You're not going to get quality at that kind of price.

[Peter Liptak]

there has to be some king of middle ground?

[Robert M Wright]

The Raynox is a budget wide angle adapter. You're not going to get a quality wide angle adapter for significantly less. You might try to find one used maybe.

[Peter Liptak]

something like this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Raynox-DCR-720-W...QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Raynox-0-65x-Wid...QQcmdZViewItem

[Eric Darling]

Peter, good glass is expensive. It holds its value well, and anything under $150 for that sort of lens is rubbish. You can do what you want, of course. It's your money, but it's also your pictures that will be adversely affected.

[G. Lee Gordon]

What truly is the big deal about the glass? Does it make that much difference? Is there a measurement for the glass on lenses (eg. 2 particles per inch or something like that?). Does it always matter or only for HD or blowing up to a big screen?
With the cost of professional glass there must be a reason... Just wondering what it is.

[Eric Darling]

Good glass has better clarity, better definition and contrast. It also means less vignetting, less chromatic aberration, better flare control. All of these are measurable to some degree with any lens. However, you should not discount the importance of good glass, no matter what camera you are working with. In digital SLRs, I opted to save some money and go with the Canon 20D (now the 40D, I believe) instead of the full frame 5D. But I haven't skimped on glass - saving up for L series lenses.

Image quality ALWAYS starts with the lens - it should never be an afterthought.

This is one of the reasons why I'll never make my primary video rig one that doesn't have interchangeable lenses.

[Chris Swanberg]

I'll offer my 2 cents. (worth approximately that I am sure)

I think that lesser quality glass in a wide angle lens is less noticeable (objectionable) than in a telephoto lens. While I agree with what everyone has said above.... If I compare quality between the SONY model WA (expensive) on my Z1 versus a slightly wider angle cheaper aftermarket ( eg. WAY cheaper).... I doubt the typical viewer will see the difference. [CA or distortion wise.]

Now on telephoto.... that is a wholly different story from my experience. Buy the best glass you can afford.

Not sure if I just set up a flame war or exposed my own ignorance, but thought I should offer that.

[Greg Huber]

There is a huge difference in the glass you use. For still pictures I shoot with a Canon Rebel XT. I started out using the kit lens, which is very low quality glass. The quality of glass impacts a lot of things especially when it comes to sharpness of the picture, ability to take pictures in low light, the "blur" background effect, etc (I'm trying to put things in laymans terms...). The more expensive glass offers better capability of taking sharp pictures in low-light settings (such as indoors). You also get the benefit of a more stablized shot which means sharper pictures, even when zoomed. Cheaper lenses mean noticable lower quality in low-light situations, less ability to have "blurred" backgrounds with a sharp subject, and noticable loss of sharpness when using the zoom lens because of no stabilization. You don't really start to appreciate the differences until you are looking for them and are trying to get a more professional look. That is why professional pictures usually look better than point-and-shoot, which tend to use a slower shutter speed and longer depth of field.

I think the same is true for both DSLR's and DVC's. I picked the JVC HD7 because it has a good lens and gives the ability to do the manual focus. However, the image stablization is very poor and results in pretty shakey shots unless using a tripod. Fortunately the lens is "fast" enough to still keep the shakey shots clear :)

Originally Posted by G. Lee Gordon

What truly is the big deal about the glass? Does it make that much difference? Is there a measurement for the glass on lenses (eg. 2 particles per inch or something like that?). Does it always matter or only for HD or blowing up to a big screen?
With the cost of professional glass there must be a reason... Just wondering what it is.

[Wayne Avanson]

i'm with Greg on this one. I use the Same camera, The Canon EOS400 and have just dumped the kit lens in favour of an EFS 17-55 f2.8 USM lens, and the difference is just amazing. All of a sudden taking great pictures is easy. Great glass, great shots.

Not cheap though.

The HD7 has a good lens and that's where it all matters.