Should I buy this Lens and Filter??

Allan Rejoso · October 4th, 2003, 06:54 PM

Thanks Pat and Sam.

The thing that concerns me about the 5000 is that it costs substantially cheaper (in Japan) and FEELS cheap compared to both the Pany and the 6600 because of its reduced size and weight. So far as my experience from most Jap makers has proven, you really get what you pay for, unless you buy it used.

Raynox is clear that the 5000 is newly designed (3-group, 4-piece construction) specifically for compact cams such as the TRV950 or basically those cams with lens threads ranging from 27 to 43mm. Size and weight wise, Raynox has a point, and Yes, claimed resolution at center is high.

Barreling with the 5000 is expected and I believe is the main advantage of the 6600 over it.

The 6600 and the new 7000 on the other hand are boasted to suit the likes of VX2000, GL2. The 6600 should work great with the GS100, although the size and weight of the 6600 can disturb the excellent balance of the cam, especially the 7000 which weighs more than 300 grams.

I doubt if the Pany lens converters are made by Leica, but it doesn't matter that much to me. Quite intriguing that cam makers basically don't provide any thread at the front of their lens converters. Either they don't want us to protect the huge front glass or, they don't recommend attaching anything on it at all, or both.

Patricia Kim · October 5th, 2003, 12:19 AM

I agree about the appearance of the 5000. I find the adapter rings (plastic) cheezy and have decided to get a metal one. I also thought the reason the Tiffen gold diffusion filter I purchased didn't fit might have been poor milling on the Raynox. Not so, however, since the Hoya super HMC fits perfectly. I find both the Panasonic and the Raynox have their place and have no hesitation about using either at 10x - which one depends on the situation in which I'll be shooting. (The Panasonic is heavier than the Raynox, by the way, and looks more "pro" - for those who care about that.)

The no thread phenomenon seems widespread, and must have something to do with the vignetting issue as a general rule. (Even the original Tiffen conversion lenses, from what I can see, did not have threads.) Probably as consumer cams get better and owners decide they can use them in far more varied situations than in the past and demand grows for conversion lenses that work for amateurs rather than just pros, that is changing.

Frank Granovski · October 5th, 2003, 01:38 AM

Quote:

The no thread phenomenon seems widespread, and must have something to do with the vignetting issue as a general rule

That's what I keep hearing and reading, and believe this to be true, for the most part. However, sometimes you need or want to use a filter, or have the option to screw on a lens hood at the very least. I'd never buy an adaptor without threads. Would a photographer buy a $500+ lens for his or her SLR without filter threads? I don't think so. At least I wouldn't. I use filters and hoods on all my photo lenses. Mind you, some of my lenses have built-in hoods, which you just pull out and clicks into place. (But they always come with threads---unless you're using some cheap rangefinder from the 50's.)

Patricia Kim · October 5th, 2003, 01:56 AM

Frank, at one point I did a site search re filters and found that even among you pros, there's a split on the issue of using them. In addition, looking at some of the really expensive (to me) stuff out there - matte boxes, bellows hoods, etc., it seems not everyone needs to screw in a hood or filter, especially not those who can afford the more expensive stuff - mainly pros, at least in the past.

Now there are even filters designed especially for wide angle lenses, as well as special hoods. Believe me, though, if there were any way I could get what I wanted without adding more weight to my camcorder, I would go with it - no filters, hoods, what have you. How about that for wanting it easy?

Patricia Kim · October 5th, 2003, 02:07 AM

P.S. Just a note on pricing. At B&H, the Raynox 6600 is slightly cheaper (for the 43mm size) than the 5000. Perhaps Samuel and some of the other owners can give some info on resolution and their view of shoot through at different zoom ranges on the 6600 so others can have a better basis for making purchasing decisions.

Frank Granovski · October 5th, 2003, 02:31 PM

Patricia, yes, there is a spit. If you're shooting in a studio, you wouldn't need a protective filter on the cam or on an adaptor. However, I just leave my UV on---and don't use an adaptor. But if I did use one, I'd like to be able to screw on a lens hood. With flaring from say over-head track lighting, most of the time I just shoot from a high angle (pointing the cam downward) and screw on a hood for good measure.

But what if you're shooting on the beach? I knew this guy in Hawaii with a Century wide and tele for his PD150. He had to always clean his tele adaptor. After a month or so, it was ruined. He was always complaining about the lack of threads. But I told him to buy the Kenko Pro in the first place, because they come with threads. I don't care if a threadless adaptor is the slightly better one than the one with threads. I would want threads!

Joel Specter · October 5th, 2003, 05:52 PM

The Raynox 6600 sells for even less then B&H at Adorama
https://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl

Patricia Kim · October 5th, 2003, 06:22 PM

Couldn't agree with you more, Frank, not because I would necessarily want to use a filter, but because I think I should always have the option to do so. Maybe the manufacturers are getting the message - actually today I saw an interesting ad in the local paper: one of the Canon consumer camcorders was being advertised - with emphasis on a wide angle conversion attachment as part of the package. Didn't look to see if it was threaded, though.

October 5th, 2003, 05:52 PM	#22
Joel Specter New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Northridge CA Posts: 14	The Raynox 6600 sells for even less then B&H at Adorama https://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl __________________ PV-DV953 PC:Dell P4 2.2 120GB

October 4th, 2003, 06:54 PM	#16
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Thanks Pat and Sam. The thing that concerns me about the 5000 is that it costs substantially cheaper (in Japan) and FEELS cheap compared to both the Pany and the 6600 because of its reduced size and weight. So far as my experience from most Jap makers has proven, you really get what you pay for, unless you buy it used. Raynox is clear that the 5000 is newly designed (3-group, 4-piece construction) specifically for compact cams such as the TRV950 or basically those cams with lens threads ranging from 27 to 43mm. Size and weight wise, Raynox has a point, and Yes, claimed resolution at center is high. Barreling with the 5000 is expected and I believe is the main advantage of the 6600 over it. The 6600 and the new 7000 on the other hand are boasted to suit the likes of VX2000, GL2. The 6600 should work great with the GS100, although the size and weight of the 6600 can disturb the excellent balance of the cam, especially the 7000 which weighs more than 300 grams. I doubt if the Pany lens converters are made by Leica, but it doesn't matter that much to me. Quite intriguing that cam makers basically don't provide any thread at the front of their lens converters. Either they don't want us to protect the huge front glass or, they don't recommend attaching anything on it at all, or both.

October 5th, 2003, 12:19 AM	#17
Patricia Kim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 453	I agree about the appearance of the 5000. I find the adapter rings (plastic) cheezy and have decided to get a metal one. I also thought the reason the Tiffen gold diffusion filter I purchased didn't fit might have been poor milling on the Raynox. Not so, however, since the Hoya super HMC fits perfectly. I find both the Panasonic and the Raynox have their place and have no hesitation about using either at 10x - which one depends on the situation in which I'll be shooting. (The Panasonic is heavier than the Raynox, by the way, and looks more "pro" - for those who care about that.) The no thread phenomenon seems widespread, and must have something to do with the vignetting issue as a general rule. (Even the original Tiffen conversion lenses, from what I can see, did not have threads.) Probably as consumer cams get better and owners decide they can use them in far more varied situations than in the past and demand grows for conversion lenses that work for amateurs rather than just pros, that is changing.

October 5th, 2003, 01:56 AM	#19
Patricia Kim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 453	Frank, at one point I did a site search re filters and found that even among you pros, there's a split on the issue of using them. In addition, looking at some of the really expensive (to me) stuff out there - matte boxes, bellows hoods, etc., it seems not everyone needs to screw in a hood or filter, especially not those who can afford the more expensive stuff - mainly pros, at least in the past. Now there are even filters designed especially for wide angle lenses, as well as special hoods. Believe me, though, if there were any way I could get what I wanted without adding more weight to my camcorder, I would go with it - no filters, hoods, what have you. How about that for wanting it easy?

October 5th, 2003, 02:07 AM	#20
Patricia Kim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 453	P.S. Just a note on pricing. At B&H, the Raynox 6600 is slightly cheaper (for the 43mm size) than the 5000. Perhaps Samuel and some of the other owners can give some info on resolution and their view of shoot through at different zoom ranges on the 6600 so others can have a better basis for making purchasing decisions.

October 5th, 2003, 02:31 PM	#21
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Patricia, yes, there is a spit. If you're shooting in a studio, you wouldn't need a protective filter on the cam or on an adaptor. However, I just leave my UV on---and don't use an adaptor. But if I did use one, I'd like to be able to screw on a lens hood. With flaring from say over-head track lighting, most of the time I just shoot from a high angle (pointing the cam downward) and screw on a hood for good measure. But what if you're shooting on the beach? I knew this guy in Hawaii with a Century wide and tele for his PD150. He had to always clean his tele adaptor. After a month or so, it was ruined. He was always complaining about the lack of threads. But I told him to buy the Kenko Pro in the first place, because they come with threads. I don't care if a threadless adaptor is the slightly better one than the one with threads. I would want threads!

October 5th, 2003, 06:22 PM	#23
Patricia Kim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 453	Couldn't agree with you more, Frank, not because I would necessarily want to use a filter, but because I think I should always have the option to do so. Maybe the manufacturers are getting the message - actually today I saw an interesting ad in the local paper: one of the Canon consumer camcorders was being advertised - with emphasis on a wide angle conversion attachment as part of the package. Didn't look to see if it was threaded, though.