Wide Angle Lenses

[Jinghong Chua]

Nope. Just normal wide conversion len for my 72mm filter theaded DVX100. But cheaper......

[Josh Bass]

I'm about to embark on a project using a DVX100a, and I know it's currently got the widest stock lens of any prosumer cam, but I'd still like to find something wider to stick on the end for certain situations.

I've seen the century optics brochure that talks about the wide angle solutions. . .seem to remember it's just as it is for my XL1s--they have .6x fixed focal length adapter, and a .7x full zoom through converter, and a fisheye (definitely not the one we want).

So, just wondering if anyone's used or owns one of the wide angle adapters/converters for this camera, and how good they are, with regard to barrel distortion (in addition to that which already exists on the DVX100a at it's widest focal length), and soft focus (on my XL1s, when using the .6x century adapter, I've noticed some softness toward the edges of the frame).

Thanks.

[David A. Johnson]

I have the Century Optics 0.6 WA adapter. Here's the rundown:
* Only weighs 7 oz. (The 0.7 is almost 1.5 lbs!!!)
* My initial tests show good sharpness, even at the edges.
* It allows partial zoom-through, out to about Z60.
* Barrel distortion is fairly noticable.

I shoot mostly 16:9 (masked, not anamorphic) with my DVX100a, so I really like the wider view of the 0.6 WA.

Good luck,
David

[Josh Bass]

But the DVX100a has in-camera anamorphic, unlike the '100. Isn't it pretty good?

[Josh Bass]

Check this out: I've learned that Panasonic makes their own WA adapter for the DVX series? I was unaware of this. It's an .8x, I'm told. That means about 20% wider than that DVX's stock lens' widest angle of view, correct? Or totally wrong? Anyone know anything about it? Seems like if it's only 1/5th wider, not really worth the effort.

[Gabor Lacza]

Josh,
is that right that the DVX100A has an in-camera anamorphic??
Gabor

[David A. Johnson]

Josh,

You've got it backwards. If you have a 0.8 WA adapter, it means the effective focal length is 80% of whatever the focal length is without the adapter. A 0.6 WA adapter gives an effective focal length that's 60%. Here's the way the numbers look:

Widest view of DVX is equivalent to a 32.5 mm lens on a 35mm camera.
* Put a 0.8 adapter on it and the angle of view is equal to 32.5 x 0.8 = 26mm lens (on a 35mm camera).
* Put a 0.6 adapter on it and the angle of view is equal to 32.5 x 0.6 = 19.5mm lens (on a 35mm camera).

Hope this helps,
David

[Josh Bass]

I guess. . .still confused. Because a .7x adapter gives you 30% more area of view (according to ZGC. . .maybe they're wrong?) and a .6x gives a 40% wider view, I guess the logic followed in my mind that .8x would give a 20% wider view. Also, I looked at a website that had the that .8x adapter, w/pics mentioned on it, and they showed comparisons of the the camera without the adapter, and with it, and yes, the difference was very minimal.

To the other guy: Yes, there is in-camera anamorphic with the DVX100a.

[Raoul Perros]

Hi All,

I am about to get a wide angle adapter 0.6 or 0.7 for my DVX100A

I saw the screen graps on http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/century.html and watched them using the BMP link. To me the 0.6 looks much less in focus/sharp than the 0.7

And when I compare the frame edges it looks like the 0.7 image is wider than the 0.6 one. Is it not supposed to be the other way around or am I getting something wrong?

I read in a Century optic .6 Vs .7 Vs Pany LW728G thread:

' My impression is that the .7 is sharper in the center but worse in the corners. _The .6 is a touch softer overall but more even from side to side. _I think I perfer it's look. _However the .7 seems just as wide as the .6.
What do you guys think? '

I am about to order a whole lot of stuff with my DVX100A (can't wait to have it...). After reading this thread and various others (and seeing the stills from the link http://www.parasiteproductions.com/eos_stills/) I made up my mind for the 0.7, as it looks sharper to me. Now the salesman just called me saying that century said they will only be able to deliver the 0.7 in a month or so (I am buying from germany). Hence, I am thinking again to get the 0.6 one. I know it's alot lighter, so thats an advantage. I said I call him back tomorrow morning (EU time).

Has anyone used both of them? What do you think about their sharpness in comparison?

If I get the 0.6, is the barrel distortion when zoomed in to (35mm equivalent) 22.75, like the 0.7 widest setting, the same than the 0.7 one's?

I will appreciate any advice or comments a lot!

Many Thanks

Raoul

:)

[Brian Mitchell Warshawsky]

Raoul,

If cost is no limit, by all means consider the .7. It appears to be an awesome piece of Schneider glass. Your question excluded the intended application for the lens, so there is insufficient information from which to provide an objective opinion.

On the .6, I am a proud owner of this fine adapter, and for my purposes the barrel distortion is not an issue, and I love picture quality.

However, bear in mind that this lens is WIDE. How wide? It may not be a fisheye, but try and fit a lens shade to it. Century Optics, per my conversation with them, gave up on their attempt.

What I discovered the hard way is that the DVX100, or perhaps more appropriately, MY DVX100 has a field of view wider than the LCD monitor. Maybe I need to re-calibrate it somehow, but the .6 is so wide that you have remain diligent against any potential objects which may fall within this stadium-wide field of view, and still remain outside the LCD’s borders. Gotta Shotgun Mic? Push it WAY back. Even further. A one-inch wide home made paper lens shade? I tried it. You’ll see it.

The only downside to me is that you practically need a NASA clean room to insure that this glass is free of dust. Any stray light (no shade) will light up dust or fingerprints, like a Christmas tree, thanks to the wonders of limitless depth of field. Might as well focus right on the dust particles.

Shooting in inclement weather? You can enjoy the shadeless beauty of water droplets on your lens.

As stated, this is a terrific lens, at a great price, but if anyone has any suggestions either to provide a light shade or to keep this lens dust free (or even a favourite lens cleaner to recommend) do let me know.

Brian

[Raoul Perros]

Hi Brian,

thanks a lot for your response!

Yeah, the 0.6 is wide, but I need to film in a 2 by 2 metre space, so I'll need it...and I won't have to unscrew it a lot, if not never.

Also it is partly zoomthrough, so I expect I will be able to change the width and zoom in to maybe up to 40mm (35mm equivalent...)?

Still it is a shame, as the 0.7 is fully zoomthrough, so fo later usage it would be good.

You say you love the picture quality, so I presume it is possible to get a sharp focused image and that the screengrabs I saw were out of focus, but unreleated to the lense.

Do you know if the barrel distortion gets less when you zoom in a little, like the barrel distortion the 0.7 at 22.75mm would have?

And about the viewable image of the LCD and the actually recorded one: I think i will testshoot, (using a boompole shotgun..) so I get a feel how much more I have to expect to be visible finally as a general awareness to have while shooting.

What do you mean with re calibrate? And how do you clean your lens?

So D.O.F wise, is there any way to reduce that? Do you mean the dust on the lens will be in focus just as the rest of the image? Cause of light falling /reflecting on to the lense as soon as the shot is not in complete shadow?

Thanks again for your shareing of experience!

[Josh Bass]

I'll back up the statements made by the .6x owner. I've been using a a DVX100a for a while now, and got the .6x cause, hey, wider's better, right?

First of all, and this is a biggie, there's really NO way to use filtration with this guy. No screw-in filters made for that diameter, and no 4x4 matte box will fit in front of it without some vignetting at the widest settings, in the underscan portion of the image. You'd have to move up to a 6x6 box, and spend $2-3000.

Dust/crap/doody on the glass, BIG problem for me. I would clean, and scrub, and scrub and clean, and I'd shoot, and BAMMO, there's a spot somewhere in the image.

Also, to me, at the widest setting, the barrel distortion is VERY severe for something not considered a fisheye lens. Straight horizontal and vertical lines will appear to bend in a very noticable way, with distance from the lens and where they are in the frame affecting just how much. Sometimes it looks cool, and sometimes not so much.

I believe ZGC is going to let us return the adapter and change it out for a .7x because of all these issues.

I haven't worked with it myself, but I do know that it's about twice the price of the .6x (bad), heavier (bad), but that you can put a 4x4 matte box in front of it with no vignetting (good), and that it's fully zoom through (good).

[Raoul Perros]

Hi Josh,

thanks for your post!

So what happens to the barrel distortion, once I zoom in? Does it get less? Or does it stay all the time, no matter if zoomed in or not as a general feature of the 0.6?

I expect (without having used it) that it should be less, when zoomed in as if the lense would be 0.7 or 0.8.

What I mean is, if I get the 0.6 and decide that the barrel distortion is to much for the shoot, can I zoom in and make it less?

Cheers,

[Kevin Spahr]

I was checking into a Wide-Angle Lens and I noticed that the Panasonic (AG-LW4307) is one of the cheaper ones ($180).

Your thoughts?
Not that I would consider spending thousands to get the best one possible.

(Using it with DVC30)

kevin spahr

[Donald Pittelli]

i paid 200 for mine but it works real good .dp