Anyone planning to get the Wide Angles lens accessory?

[Greg Quinn]

Is anyone else planning to get the VCL-HG0862K wide angle lens for the V1U, or are most folks here planning to mate the V1U to an M2/Mini35 etc.?
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...-V1U/acce.html
Greg

[Zsolt Gordos]

I have ordered one for run and gun. Have not received yet.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

I am planning on using a 28mm lens with a Brevis adapter for wide-angle shots. If I was going to do more event video, I would get the WA adapter or maybe one from another company in a .7x strength. Since the V1/FX7 are wider than the "normal" 50mm focal lenght 35mm film lens, I don't think a really wide lens is necessary. I used a .7x on my VX2000 and it has something like a 47mm equivalent in film lenses while the V1 has more like a 37mm equivalent. I don't like fisheye lenses, so .8x may be just the ticket.

[Carlos E. Martinez]

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

I am planning on using a 28mm lens with a Brevis adapter for wide-angle shots. If I was going to do more event video, I would get the WA adapter or maybe one from another company in a .7x strength. Since the V1/FX7 are wider than the "normal" 50mm focal lenght 35mm film lens, I don't think a really wide lens is necessary. I used a .7x on my VX2000 and it has something like a 47mm equivalent in film lenses while the V1 has more like a 37mm equivalent. I don't like fisheye lenses, so .8x may be just the ticket.

This question of wide angle 35mm film lens equivalent has been a quiz for me on adapters like the Brevis or the M2.

What 35mm lenses would you need to get a real wide angle on this cameras?

Am I wrong or you can't get the equivalent of .7x or .8x wide field with any of these adaptors?

[Tom Hardwick]

A 30 mm (equivalent) wide-angle converter is hardly worth the effort involved in doing the lens switch in my view. ISony make this expensive bayonet-on zoom-through and it comes with a deep hood. Deep because let's face it - it isn't particually wide-angle.

I think you really should look wider. You can always zoom in to the 0.8x position if that's the focal length you want to shoot at, but if you buy a 0.8x then that's as wide as it'll go of course.

The 0.8x as sold for the FX1/Z1 makes more sense as that takes the equiv down to 26 mm - noticeably wider for more dramatic shots and better perspective control.

BTW Marcus, a 0.7x on a VX2000 gives an equiv of 30 mm as well.

tom.

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

A 30 mm (equivalent) wide-angle converter is hardly worth the effort involved in doing the lens switch in my view. ISony make this expensive bayonet-on zoom-through and it comes with a deep hood. Deep because let's face it - it isn't particually wide-angle.

There's pics of the 0.8x lens and it's hood here:
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...-V1U/acce.html

I personally think that 30mm (35mm-equiv) is actually a pretty good wideangle. Yes the FX1/Z1 with their converter is a lot wider, but 30mm is still pretty good. Without the 0.8x on, the max. wideangle on V1 is 37.4mm and that really *isn't* very wide, so definitely worth getting one of the 0.8x converters IMO.

[Marshall Levy]

Not to skew the post at all, but I was just thinking....any decent, not over-priced fisheye lenses for this camera? I use the Raynox fisheye w/ my Z1U's but obviously this camera will require yet another lens.

Sorry to get off topic. :)

[Ron Chau]

Any suggestions on a non-zoom through W/A lens ? I don't need the zoom through feature, nor the additional expense.

I know Centruy Optics makes one for the FX1.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

Coming from the VX2000, the V1's angle of view isn't so bad. The VX2000 was something like 47mm equivalent and I almost always left the WA adapter in place. With .8x in front of the V1, I'll feel right at home for event videos and I'll use my 28mm Nikon for wide shots using the Brevis. I like the field of view on the FX1 without a wide-angle, but I admit something a bit wider would be nice. I'm sure another manufacturer will come out with an adapter in the .7-.65x range. Heck, I'll bet some of the 58mm threaded WA adapters will work with the V1 with a step-down ring. I won't spend too much money testing that theory, but I'm sure someone has a 58mm adapter left over from a GL or PD/VX series of cameras. Since the V1's threads are only 4mm larger than the 58mm standard, one of the older adapters is bound to work.

"Am I wrong or you can't get the equivalent of .7x or .8x wide field with any of these adaptors?"

As you can see, anything less than 30mm focal length will give a wide field of view on the 35mm adapters like the Brevis or Redrock M2. I have a 28mm lens that should be just fine. I found a decent 28mm affordable, but the price jumps quickly when getting a 24mm Nikon or wider. 24mm is the widest common Nikon lens.

[Dominic Jones]

Originally Posted by Carlos E. Martinez

This question of wide angle 35mm film lens equivalent has been a quiz for me on adapters like the Brevis or the M2.

What 35mm lenses would you need to get a real wide angle on this cameras?

Am I wrong or you can't get the equivalent of .7x or .8x wide field with any of these adaptors?

Well, that depends on what you mean by "real wide angle", but you can certainly get wider than the stock lens with a 0.7x adapter - Nikon (for instance) make 35mm SLR lenses down to 16mm that are rectilinear (i.e. non-fisheye), although they do start to get very slow. The 20mm Nikkors are excellent and are available down to an f2 maximum aperture - that's much wider than even the Z1's stock lens with wideangle adapter, which as previously mentioned has a 35mm equivalent length of around 26mm...

If you start talking about PL mount glass like Zeiss and Cooke then you can get even wider - there's a 12mm Cooke S4 and I believe Zeiss make lenses down to around 8mm for 35mm coverage.

Edit: Sorry Marcus, I just read the end of your post and realised you'd already answered Carlos - my bad! FWIW though, whilst I'm editing, the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor is pretty widely available and still *reasonably* inexpensive (compared to the 24mm's, at least) - and much better optically, imo, if you do decide to go for something wider then the 28mm.

[Mike Paterson]

Can someone clarify - what is the 35mm equivalent angle of view of the standard V1 lens without adaptor?

[Carlos E. Martinez]

Originally Posted by Dominic Jones

Well, that depends on what you mean by "real wide angle", but you can certainly get wider than the stock lens with a 0.7x adapter .

How? Some weeks ago I got the following explanation from Dennis Wood over this question at the Cinevate forum:

"Focal lengths would be exactly the same as the 35mm lenses and in some cases (fast 50mm for example) more. The same would apply for academy format lenses. FOV may be a bit different (more) with HD as the 16:9 frame can utilize a slightly wider section of the image cone than 4:3."

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to mean that using the Brevis (or other adaptors), you get their very same length with photo lenses. That is a 35mm lens, which would be a WA in 35mm photo, would still be a 35mm lens when using the adapter in a DV/HDV camera, but no longer a WA. 35mm would be tele lens now.

Using a 7.22 rate to find the equivalent on DV/HDV camera (as used by Sony in the Z1 specs), a 35mm photo lens would be something like 252.7mm in the video camera.

- Nikon (for instance) make 35mm SLR lenses down to 16mm that are rectilinear (i.e. non-fisheye), although they do start to get very slow. The 20mm Nikkors are excellent and are available down to an f2 maximum aperture - that's much wider than even the Z1's stock lens with wideangle adapter, which as previously mentioned has a 35mm equivalent length of around 26mm....

A 20mm lens would be a 144.4m tele now.

If you start talking about PL mount glass like Zeiss and Cooke then you can get even wider - there's a 12mm Cooke S4 and I believe Zeiss make lenses down to around 8mm for 35mm coverage.

Are you sure those Zeiss and Cooke lenses were not 16mm film lenses?

In any case, if my assumption is correct (which I don't know if it is) an 8mm lens equivalent (57.76) would still be a tele.

If I misinterpreted all this please tell me so. I am willing to buy an adapter like the Brevis, but I want it for wide angle too.

Maybe the adapters DO allow the lenses to cover the same field they did in 35mm. Do they?

[Tom Hardwick]

The VX2k is and was 43.2 equiv at wide-angle, Marcus, and the FX7 (and V1 of course) have a 35mm Equivalent of 37.4-748mm (16:9 Camera Mode), and 45.7-914mm (4:3 Camera Mode) - this info for Mike.

So although the V1 has smaller chips than the VX it does start out with a clear wide-angle advantage. I'm still of the opinion that a 0.5x converter is the best option to go for though, as you can always zoom up to the 0.7 or 0.8 times position whether it be a zoom-through or not.

Most wideangles will add to the barrel distortion which is unfortunate, though there are aspherical lenses ouut there that keep straight lines straight - as god intended.

tom.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

I like to be able to see the entire back wall of the room I am in from the far wall, be it a church or living room. I found that the .7x adapter on the VX2000 was fine and I just went full wide and left it there in smaller rooms. I liked it to stop at that field of view so I could quickly pull back in a snap and leave it there. That is just my shooting style. I also don't like significant barrel distortion and don't want to spend the money on a high-end adapter.

In other news:

"Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to mean that using the Brevis (or other adaptors), you get their very same length with photo lenses. That is a 35mm lens, which would be a WA in 35mm photo, would still be a 35mm lens when using the adapter in a DV/HDV camera, but no longer a WA. 35mm would be tele lens now."

Carlos, you officially stand corrected. Using a 35mm adapter like the Brevis, a 50mm Focal Length (FL) "normal" lens will have approximately the same field of view as it would on a 35mm SLR camera. That is the whole point of the 35mm adapters. There is no magnification factor. The adapter's internal diffusion imager is what the camcorder lens works with. The adapter is like a little movie screen inside that always plays whatever the 35mm (whatever focal lenght) lens sees with a similar field of view and depth of field.

Dominic, thanks for the heads up on the 20mm lenses. When I bought my lenses last year, the wider ones seemed prohibitively expensive while the 28mm F2 was less than $200. I'll look into the 20mm f2.8 if I feel the need for a wider view. With an HD camera, perhaps sweeping vistas are a new option for me.

[Carlos E. Martinez]

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

Carlos, you officially stand corrected. Using a 35mm adapter like the Brevis, a 50mm Focal Length (FL) "normal" lens will have approximately the same field of view as it would on a 35mm SLR camera. That is the whole point of the 35mm adapters. There is no magnification factor. The adapter's internal diffusion imager is what the camcorder lens works with. The adapter is like a little movie screen inside that always plays whatever the 35mm (whatever focal lenght) lens sees with a similar field of view and depth of field.

In fact I officially stand wrong, which in this case pleases me. I thought adapters were too precious a tool not to be able to use them for wide angles too.

Keeping the same view field was the idea, and the diffusion imager seems to do that. Is that the one that spins (on M2) or vibrates (more expensive designs), right?

I thought there was a magnification, as when you used 35mm lenses in 16mm cameras. I'm glad there is none.