17x lens for hd100 at DVinfo.net

Bill Parker · January 15th, 2007, 07:00 AM

Has anyone used the 17x lens for the HD100? If so, how much better is it than the stock lens? Would I still be able to use the same matte box? How about the 18x lens - why such a higher price? Thanks.

Bill Ravens · January 15th, 2007, 07:29 AM

I've got a 17x. It's 1/2 inch longer than the 16x, and a little heavier. The glass elements are larger in diameter and the front filter holder is metal instead of plastic. i've run a few field tests witht his lens. It seems to have an improved CA over the 16x, but, CA isn't gone. The CA seems better across the zoom range, but, if you're slightly out of focus, the green/purple shift becomes quite noticeable. Overall, the 17x seems a lot better made.

Bill Parker · January 15th, 2007, 07:57 AM

Thanks for the reply. Would the difference in quality be noticeable in an interview setting? That's where I do most of my work. I'm thinking of saving my money for the 13x which would give me more options.

Terry Nixon · January 16th, 2007, 12:09 AM

i'd be interested in purchasing someone's spare stock lens if the price where right.
email me directly.
terry

Bill Ravens · January 16th, 2007, 07:28 AM

Bill...

The stock lens will work quite well in interview situations. The problem with chromatic aberration is only at full zoom in.

Werner Wesp · January 17th, 2007, 03:36 AM

Well that's it: for nice shallow depth of field you'd like to shoot as much in tele as possible (and open up your iris of course), but then the CA poses a problem... Is that any better on the 17x and how much would you say? (I know this is a difficult question to answer).

Also: do you use IDX or A/B? What's the balance like with the 17x?

Bill Parker · January 17th, 2007, 04:42 AM

I always shoot zoomed all the way in and I haven't had a problem w/ CA. I just looked over my interviews and I can't see it at all. Maybe it's because I'm in a controlled lighting situation. I also don't open my iris up all the way if I can help it - it keeps me closer to the sweet spot. Once I get my shallow dof and have sufficient light, I stop. Of course, the camera is by now miles from my subject, but I've learned to deal with it.

Brian Luce · January 17th, 2007, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Parker

I always shoot zoomed all the way in and I haven't had a problem w/ CA. I just looked over my interviews and I can't see it at all. Maybe it's because I'm in a controlled lighting situation. I also don't open my iris up all the way if I can help it - it keeps me closer to the sweet spot. Once I get my shallow dof and have sufficient light, I stop. Of course, the camera is by now miles from my subject, but I've learned to deal with it.

is the image appreciably sharper than the stock lens? this thing is about 3 grand right?

Bill Parker · January 17th, 2007, 05:46 AM

I'm actually using the stock lens. I'm curious to know if I'd see much of a difference with the 17x.

Bill Ravens · January 17th, 2007, 07:48 AM

I can try to give you guys an answer, but, keep in mind my answer is pretty subjective. IMHO, the 17x lens is better than the 16x, in terms of CA, however,I've noticed that it's very sensitive to mis-focus. By that I mean the CA increases quite quickly as you go out of focus. So much so that I actually use the purple/green fringing to find the right focus. When in focus, the CA disappears....pretty normal for a long zoom. At full zoom, the 17x is definitely superior to the 16x, but, keep in mind the next class up is the 18x, which sells for $18k. Don't think $3k will match the quality of the 18x.

Werner...I'm using the older IDX brick battery system because it's compatible with AB. With the IDX battery and an FS-4 my HD110 is really nicely balanced. It has a tendency to want to roll to the right, but, as for front/back balance, it's really comfortable.

Werner Wesp · January 18th, 2007, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Parker

I always shoot zoomed all the way in and I haven't had a problem w/ CA. I just looked over my interviews and I can't see it at all. Maybe it's because I'm in a controlled lighting situation. I also don't open my iris up all the way if I can help it - it keeps me closer to the sweet spot. Once I get my shallow dof and have sufficient light, I stop. Of course, the camera is by now miles from my subject, but I've learned to deal with it.

I do that too, but the shallow DoF is the real killer for my lens. The subject (that's in focus) really looks nice, but the plants that are out of focus on the background (e.g.) have purple parts instead of just being green. Especially around the highlights, where light shines through (if you have a background as in the lowest picture here http://users.telenet.be/wespproductions/)...

With the shallow DoF, a big part of the image is out of focus, but that part is tinted somewhat due to CA. It's that I want to get rid of. I question if the 17x will be any better. Also the wide angle is marginally wider, that can come in handy sometimes...

(I'll post an example later)

Bill Parker · January 18th, 2007, 04:51 AM

I've just uploaded a couple of JPG's from two interviews. One has what looks like CA and one without. I have no idea if this will work as I've never tried this before. It's not showing up in the preview window- let's see if it shows up in the post. If it does, the difference I see is that the clips with the light background shows the CA whereas the clip w/ the subdued lighting in the background doesn't. It may be a function of avoiding too much white or blowing out your whites. Does that make sense?

Bill Ravens · January 18th, 2007, 07:52 AM

Bill..

absolutely. i've noticed that CA appears much worse when overexposed. I took some footage of the recent snowstorm we had. The footage showed very noticeable green/magenta blooming at the interface between the snow(light) and the trees(dark). As you can imagine, the exposure range was probably more than 8 stops, so the snow was blown out.

sorry guys, I really haven't had much time to use this lens. It's on my short list to run it thru f/stops and zoom ratios. Mechanically, this lens is much better built than the 16x. I hate that plastic filter holder on the 16x. I'll post some frame grabs when I get a chance. I did manage to get one framegrab with the 17x, full zoom, f/4 here->
http://www.geocities.com/ravens202/Image0.jpg

January 15th, 2007, 07:00 AM	#1
Bill Parker Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cambridge MA Posts: 207	17x lens for hd100 Has anyone used the 17x lens for the HD100? If so, how much better is it than the stock lens? Would I still be able to use the same matte box? How about the 18x lens - why such a higher price? Thanks. __________________ Bill Parker www.hindsightmedia.net

January 15th, 2007, 07:57 AM	#3
Bill Parker Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cambridge MA Posts: 207	Thanks for the reply. Would the difference in quality be noticeable in an interview setting? That's where I do most of my work. I'm thinking of saving my money for the 13x which would give me more options. __________________ Bill Parker www.hindsightmedia.net

January 17th, 2007, 03:36 AM	#6
Werner Wesp Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 497	Well that's it: for nice shallow depth of field you'd like to shoot as much in tele as possible (and open up your iris of course), but then the CA poses a problem... Is that any better on the 17x and how much would you say? (I know this is a difficult question to answer). Also: do you use IDX or A/B? What's the balance like with the 17x? __________________ High-Definition Video Consultant - CEO of Delimex NV - http://www.delimex.be gear of choice : http://www.wespgear.com

January 17th, 2007, 04:42 AM	#7
Bill Parker Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cambridge MA Posts: 207	I always shoot zoomed all the way in and I haven't had a problem w/ CA. I just looked over my interviews and I can't see it at all. Maybe it's because I'm in a controlled lighting situation. I also don't open my iris up all the way if I can help it - it keeps me closer to the sweet spot. Once I get my shallow dof and have sufficient light, I stop. Of course, the camera is by now miles from my subject, but I've learned to deal with it. __________________ Bill Parker www.hindsightmedia.net

January 17th, 2007, 05:46 AM	#9
Bill Parker Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cambridge MA Posts: 207	I'm actually using the stock lens. I'm curious to know if I'd see much of a difference with the 17x. __________________ Bill Parker www.hindsightmedia.net

January 15th, 2007, 07:29 AM	#2
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	I've got a 17x. It's 1/2 inch longer than the 16x, and a little heavier. The glass elements are larger in diameter and the front filter holder is metal instead of plastic. i've run a few field tests witht his lens. It seems to have an improved CA over the 16x, but, CA isn't gone. The CA seems better across the zoom range, but, if you're slightly out of focus, the green/purple shift becomes quite noticeable. Overall, the 17x seems a lot better made.

January 16th, 2007, 12:09 AM	#4
Terry Nixon Texas Media Systems DVi Sponsor Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 289	i'd be interested in purchasing someone's spare stock lens if the price where right. email me directly. terry

January 16th, 2007, 07:28 AM	#5
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Bill... The stock lens will work quite well in interview situations. The problem with chromatic aberration is only at full zoom in.

January 17th, 2007, 07:48 AM	#10
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	I can try to give you guys an answer, but, keep in mind my answer is pretty subjective. IMHO, the 17x lens is better than the 16x, in terms of CA, however,I've noticed that it's very sensitive to mis-focus. By that I mean the CA increases quite quickly as you go out of focus. So much so that I actually use the purple/green fringing to find the right focus. When in focus, the CA disappears....pretty normal for a long zoom. At full zoom, the 17x is definitely superior to the 16x, but, keep in mind the next class up is the 18x, which sells for $18k. Don't think $3k will match the quality of the 18x. Werner...I'm using the older IDX brick battery system because it's compatible with AB. With the IDX battery and an FS-4 my HD110 is really nicely balanced. It has a tendency to want to roll to the right, but, as for front/back balance, it's really comfortable.

January 18th, 2007, 04:51 AM	#12
Bill Parker Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cambridge MA Posts: 207	Clips w/ & w/out CA I've just uploaded a couple of JPG's from two interviews. One has what looks like CA and one without. I have no idea if this will work as I've never tried this before. It's not showing up in the preview window- let's see if it shows up in the post. If it does, the difference I see is that the clips with the light background shows the CA whereas the clip w/ the subdued lighting in the background doesn't. It may be a function of avoiding too much white or blowing out your whites. Does that make sense? Attached Thumbnails __________________ Bill Parker www.hindsightmedia.net

January 18th, 2007, 07:52 AM	#13
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Bill.. absolutely. i've noticed that CA appears much worse when overexposed. I took some footage of the recent snowstorm we had. The footage showed very noticeable green/magenta blooming at the interface between the snow(light) and the trees(dark). As you can imagine, the exposure range was probably more than 8 stops, so the snow was blown out. sorry guys, I really haven't had much time to use this lens. It's on my short list to run it thru f/stops and zoom ratios. Mechanically, this lens is much better built than the 16x. I hate that plastic filter holder on the 16x. I'll post some frame grabs when I get a chance. I did manage to get one framegrab with the 17x, full zoom, f/4 here-> http://www.geocities.com/ravens202/Image0.jpg Last edited by Bill Ravens; January 18th, 2007 at 08:27 AM.