43mm wide angle lenses - choices & prices

Frank Granovski · December 17th, 2003, 03:59 AM

Not really, but it is common for consumer Panasonic cams.

Anthony Claudia · February 6th, 2004, 06:54 AM

After reading through this thread, I began checking out some of the lenses that people had mentioned.

One inparticular was the "Raynox HD-6600 Pro 43mm 0.66x ". I made up my mind that this was the lens I would purchase.

After reading some of the comments about the poor coating on the Raynox, I emailed the experts at B&H to see which lens hood they recommended for this particiular WA. However, to my suprise, the technician replied that "they did not recommend using any lens hood with this type of lens...".

I find that very suprising. Anyone have any thoughts on this, or better yet, anyone using a good hood with this particular Raynox?

Tom Hardwick · February 6th, 2004, 07:47 AM

I do indeed have very strong thoughts on this subject Anthony. Firstly I'm amazed at B & H, or to rephrase that, I'm amazed that they could let a salesman with so little experience so near a phone line. And let him turn away sales, too.

I had a Raynox 6600PRO. OK, it looked to be a single coating, but Raynox have sensibly included a 72mm filter thread - not for the addition of filters, but so that hoods can be easily fitted. Remember that tom's law states that a lens hood is the cheapest, lightest, most easily fitted, most sensible, most effective and one of the best accessories you can buy. On top of all that it gives picture improvements out of all proportion to its cost and technological design.

As the focal length decreases and depth of field becomes ever greater, dust on the front element of your lens is brought into ever sharper focus. If the front element is shaded from the sun these unavoidable imperfections just don't show up, and in fact a front element can be quite dirty yet not show these marks on film if a hood is used.

I had a 4:3 aspect ratio hood with my Raynox, and of course these are a lot more efficient (the petal hood is the most efficient BTW). Problem with the 4:3 hood is it must be aligned with the camcorder's chips, but if you buy a circular hood that shouldn't be a problem.

Go for it. Buy a circular hood that's 'too deep' and distort it into a 4:3 shape with a stiff wire frame. It works well. The pictures I got from the Raynox were amazingly good at the price, my only complaint being that the fall-off in performance towards telephoto was too gradual (unlike a non-zoom through, say) and this was loosing me sharpness if I wasn't careful. On the other hand Raynox really shamed much more expensive lenses. I had a Centyry 0.65x for test and the Raynox had far less barrel distortion at less than one third the price.

tom.

Anthony Claudia · February 6th, 2004, 10:23 AM

Thanks Tom. I was shocked at this sales guy's response as well. He obviously needs to review "Tom's Law" :)

I will certainly procure a hood for my new WA lens. I have a few questions about hoods, based on some of your comments. Where might I find a good reference (i.e. book, website) or information on the following:

- what is a petal hood?
- how do you align a hood to your camera's chips?/ when do you need to do this?
- If I am shooting in 16:9, should I distort my hood to that aspect ration, as opposed to 4:3?

Thanks again for the reply.

Tom Hardwick · February 6th, 2004, 11:27 AM

A petal hood. You've probably seen them fitted to long zooms that pro photographers use at football matches. The hood is cut away in all four corners to avoid vignetting the image, and this makes the hood look like a closing tulip.

You align an aspect ratio hood by making sure the horizontal and vertical parts of the hood are horizontal and vertical. If you turn the hood so that it's misaligned you'll see the hood breaking into your field of view.

The most efficient hood is the aspect ratio petal hood. Following on from that, if you have a normal rectangular hood, do indeed make it match the aspect ratio you're shooting in. The hood should ideally be just clear of the full frame anywhere around its perimeter.

tom.

Matt McConnell · February 6th, 2004, 12:05 PM

So what rectangular or petal type lens hood do you recommend for the Raynox 6600? Is there a lens hood that does not need to use the 72mm threads?

Anthony Claudia · February 6th, 2004, 12:33 PM

Matt, I saw this one at B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=41356&is=REG

It clips on as opposed to being threaded. I am really not sure if it is any good though. It does not look very deep. Other than that, I am having a lot of trouble finding a hood for the Raynox. Especially an aspect ratio hood.

Tom, thanks for the clarifications.....much less complicated than I was anticipating.

Bill Gibson · February 6th, 2004, 01:08 PM

I plan to use this lens on the Optura Xi on which I film exclusively in 16:9 now - I guess that makes finding an aspect ratio hood even tougher? Any suggestions?

Dave Largent · February 6th, 2004, 02:00 PM

I'm quite pleased with my Canon 43mm wide.
Great coating, and as luck would have it, I just picked
up a Super 8 movie camera and it takes a 43mm lens also,
so I can use my wide and telephoto lenses from my Panny
DV53.
Must add that the Canon wide is *not* black. The Canon
Super 8 I bought is all black, so the wide cuts into the "pro
look", but that's the way it goes. :- (

Anthony Claudia · February 6th, 2004, 02:45 PM

So, in terms of a hood for the Raynox 6600, would this be overkill for my little ol' DV953:

http://cinetactics.com/mb100m-images.php

It's pricey.

Dave Largent · February 7th, 2004, 08:37 AM

Just spend a little more for a well-coated lens like the
Canon and forget the hood.

Chris Campbell · March 17th, 2004, 04:00 AM

Read all the posts. Great info!Now I have to decide between the Raynox 0.3 and the 0.5.
Thanks everyone.

Adam Folickman · March 17th, 2004, 04:31 AM

I have the .5 and it is very good.

I use a slim filter on the front (Hoya 62mm Haze UV(0) Pro 1 (S-HMC) Super Multi-Coated Glass Filter) to protect the Raynox glass. I get no vignetting and sharp focus through all lens zoom powers. I have tried using a rubber Wide Angle Lens Hood on top of the filter but get a little vignetting in the upper left and upper right corners of the picture. If I zoom in just a little (between 1x and 2x), the vignetting goes away.

If I remember correctly, John Gaspain has the RAYNOX .3

Chris Campbell · March 17th, 2004, 04:38 AM

Thanks a lot Adam. I will probably go with the 0.5 as the semi fisheye might be a bit over the top.
Cheers

Guy Bruner · March 17th, 2004, 10:37 AM

Over the weekend, I picked up an Ambico .42x semi-fisheye new in the box. It is a 46mm mount so I'm waiting on the stepup ring from B&H to affix it securely. However, I shot some video just holding it in place. It vignettes in all four corners, as expected, at full wide on the DV953. I didn't try any zooming but I expect a 1.5 zoom should clear up the vignetting. Gives an interesting look, lots of barrel distortion, and much wider field of view over my .6x Kodak. Was pretty cheap at $24, too.

February 6th, 2004, 06:54 AM	#47
Anthony Claudia Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Charlottesville, VA Posts: 27	sorry to resurrect an older discussion.... After reading through this thread, I began checking out some of the lenses that people had mentioned. One inparticular was the "Raynox HD-6600 Pro 43mm 0.66x ". I made up my mind that this was the lens I would purchase. After reading some of the comments about the poor coating on the Raynox, I emailed the experts at B&H to see which lens hood they recommended for this particiular WA. However, to my suprise, the technician replied that "they did not recommend using any lens hood with this type of lens...". I find that very suprising. Anyone have any thoughts on this, or better yet, anyone using a good hood with this particular Raynox?

March 17th, 2004, 04:00 AM	#57
Chris Campbell New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Tokyo Japan Posts: 9	Wide angle conversion lenses for the GS100 Read all the posts. Great info!Now I have to decide between the Raynox 0.3 and the 0.5. Thanks everyone.

December 17th, 2003, 03:59 AM	#46
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Not really, but it is common for consumer Panasonic cams.

February 6th, 2004, 07:47 AM	#48
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I do indeed have very strong thoughts on this subject Anthony. Firstly I'm amazed at B & H, or to rephrase that, I'm amazed that they could let a salesman with so little experience so near a phone line. And let him turn away sales, too. I had a Raynox 6600PRO. OK, it looked to be a single coating, but Raynox have sensibly included a 72mm filter thread - not for the addition of filters, but so that hoods can be easily fitted. Remember that tom's law states that a lens hood is the cheapest, lightest, most easily fitted, most sensible, most effective and one of the best accessories you can buy. On top of all that it gives picture improvements out of all proportion to its cost and technological design. As the focal length decreases and depth of field becomes ever greater, dust on the front element of your lens is brought into ever sharper focus. If the front element is shaded from the sun these unavoidable imperfections just don't show up, and in fact a front element can be quite dirty yet not show these marks on film if a hood is used. I had a 4:3 aspect ratio hood with my Raynox, and of course these are a lot more efficient (the petal hood is the most efficient BTW). Problem with the 4:3 hood is it must be aligned with the camcorder's chips, but if you buy a circular hood that shouldn't be a problem. Go for it. Buy a circular hood that's 'too deep' and distort it into a 4:3 shape with a stiff wire frame. It works well. The pictures I got from the Raynox were amazingly good at the price, my only complaint being that the fall-off in performance towards telephoto was too gradual (unlike a non-zoom through, say) and this was loosing me sharpness if I wasn't careful. On the other hand Raynox really shamed much more expensive lenses. I had a Centyry 0.65x for test and the Raynox had far less barrel distortion at less than one third the price. tom.

February 6th, 2004, 10:23 AM	#49
Anthony Claudia Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Charlottesville, VA Posts: 27	Thanks Tom. I was shocked at this sales guy's response as well. He obviously needs to review "Tom's Law" :) I will certainly procure a hood for my new WA lens. I have a few questions about hoods, based on some of your comments. Where might I find a good reference (i.e. book, website) or information on the following: - what is a petal hood? - how do you align a hood to your camera's chips?/ when do you need to do this? - If I am shooting in 16:9, should I distort my hood to that aspect ration, as opposed to 4:3? Thanks again for the reply.

February 6th, 2004, 11:27 AM	#50
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	A petal hood. You've probably seen them fitted to long zooms that pro photographers use at football matches. The hood is cut away in all four corners to avoid vignetting the image, and this makes the hood look like a closing tulip. You align an aspect ratio hood by making sure the horizontal and vertical parts of the hood are horizontal and vertical. If you turn the hood so that it's misaligned you'll see the hood breaking into your field of view. The most efficient hood is the aspect ratio petal hood. Following on from that, if you have a normal rectangular hood, do indeed make it match the aspect ratio you're shooting in. The hood should ideally be just clear of the full frame anywhere around its perimeter. tom.

February 6th, 2004, 12:05 PM	#51
Matt McConnell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Scotts Valley, CA Posts: 33	So what rectangular or petal type lens hood do you recommend for the Raynox 6600? Is there a lens hood that does not need to use the 72mm threads?

February 6th, 2004, 12:33 PM	#52
Anthony Claudia Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Charlottesville, VA Posts: 27	Matt, I saw this one at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=41356&is=REG It clips on as opposed to being threaded. I am really not sure if it is any good though. It does not look very deep. Other than that, I am having a lot of trouble finding a hood for the Raynox. Especially an aspect ratio hood. Tom, thanks for the clarifications.....much less complicated than I was anticipating.

February 6th, 2004, 01:08 PM	#53
Bill Gibson Tourist Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3	I plan to use this lens on the Optura Xi on which I film exclusively in 16:9 now - I guess that makes finding an aspect ratio hood even tougher? Any suggestions?

February 6th, 2004, 02:00 PM	#54
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	I'm quite pleased with my Canon 43mm wide. Great coating, and as luck would have it, I just picked up a Super 8 movie camera and it takes a 43mm lens also, so I can use my wide and telephoto lenses from my Panny DV53. Must add that the Canon wide is not black. The Canon Super 8 I bought is all black, so the wide cuts into the "pro look", but that's the way it goes. :- (

February 6th, 2004, 02:45 PM	#55
Anthony Claudia Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Charlottesville, VA Posts: 27	So, in terms of a hood for the Raynox 6600, would this be overkill for my little ol' DV953: http://cinetactics.com/mb100m-images.php It's pricey.

February 7th, 2004, 08:37 AM	#56
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Just spend a little more for a well-coated lens like the Canon and forget the hood.

March 17th, 2004, 04:31 AM	#58
Adam Folickman Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: New Hampshire, USA Posts: 125	I have the .5 and it is very good. I use a slim filter on the front (Hoya 62mm Haze UV(0) Pro 1 (S-HMC) Super Multi-Coated Glass Filter) to protect the Raynox glass. I get no vignetting and sharp focus through all lens zoom powers. I have tried using a rubber Wide Angle Lens Hood on top of the filter but get a little vignetting in the upper left and upper right corners of the picture. If I zoom in just a little (between 1x and 2x), the vignetting goes away. If I remember correctly, John Gaspain has the RAYNOX .3

March 17th, 2004, 04:38 AM	#59
Chris Campbell New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Tokyo Japan Posts: 9	Thanks a lot Adam. I will probably go with the 0.5 as the semi fisheye might be a bit over the top. Cheers

March 17th, 2004, 10:37 AM	#60
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Over the weekend, I picked up an Ambico .42x semi-fisheye new in the box. It is a 46mm mount so I'm waiting on the stepup ring from B&H to affix it securely. However, I shot some video just holding it in place. It vignettes in all four corners, as expected, at full wide on the DV953. I didn't try any zooming but I expect a 1.5 zoom should clear up the vignetting. Gives an interesting look, lots of barrel distortion, and much wider field of view over my .6x Kodak. Was pretty cheap at $24, too.