Got my accessories

[Tom Hardwick]

The 6600 PRO is available with either a 52 or 58 mm attachment thread - though I haven't checked the Raynox site of late to see if they have a 72 mm version.

I'm not so sure I fall for this ''HD lens'' branding DSE, as I didn't fall for the ''Digital ready'' headphones, speakers, cables etc. Not to say that
some lenses are better than others - far from it, but the 6600 PRO is a simple, three element A lens.

Now of course Raynox could make a 'not very good' one with the inner and
outer surfaces not quite spherical (in other words exhibiting astigmatism)
or they could do their very best under the circumstances and for the price
asked, and make both inner and outer spherical surfaces as perfect as
possible and have the three elements as axially centred as possible.

I'm sure they do this. The limiting factor is the pretty abysmal standard
definition and the rather better high definition, not the quality of the
lens grinding, centering, coating and edge blacking.

Better lenses can cost more and I can agree with this when you talk of lenses constructed for huge chips (35 mm film in a Panavision, DSLR Nikon or Canon for instance). But let's look at the Z1 that replaced my 5 year old VX2000. The Z1 sports an ''HD'' lens, emblazoned with the Zeiss badge and the T* multicoating logo. The use of the logo alone adds to the cost, but adds not a whit to the image or build quality.

My somewhat more humble VX2000 has a ''Sony video lens'', yet is faster, has less barrel distortion and is every bit as good in the SD mode. In fact I'd
go so far as to say it performs better than the Z1 in the SD mode, yet surely the HD lens fitted to the Z1 should eek more from the 720 x 576 frame? Maybe not.

With this in mind I'd love to see the VX2k's lens feeding the Z1's chips. My guess is that it would perform just as well (though flare slightly more - I am indeed a convert to T* MC). There's no point in Sony making a VX2k lens that's less good simply because it's feeding a low resolution chipset. Modern close-tolerance zoom design and the wide-spread use of aspherical surfaces has made good zooms (once the R & D design has passed go) as cheap to make as bad ones.

Maybe you could label your lens as 'HD' if end of line inspection rates were
more frequent or more thorough, if your packaging was more secure or
prettier, if your guarantee was longer or if all the element surfaces were
super multi-coated rather than only coating the more obvious exterior ones.

But to reiterate. I'm not denying that there's OK lenses made and very good
lenses made. Canon - in an effort to counteract the pirate Tamrons,
Vivitars, Soligors etc - introduced an 'OK' lens line that all admitted were
not as good as their premium line, yet sold for considerably less money.
They were generally slower, lighter, had a more restricted operating
temperature range and wouldn't survive the drop test as well. 95% of the
photographers that bought them were delighted.

tom.

[Tom Hardwick]

Lee, if you want full zoom through, I can recommend Century optics. Their lenses I've tested have benn beautifully made and beautifully coated.

[Keith Moreau]

Hello, I've posted some results in this forum here on this wide adapter. It is a 58mm filter diameter. It is rated as a "High Definition" and I think it is. With a 62mm-58mm step down ring there is no viginetting. However with an additional filter protector (B+W - fairly thick) there is viginetting at the widest zooms. I have ordered a thinner step down ring and filter protector (Tiffen Pro LPF) so we'll see if this is still the case. It doesn't support full zoom through, probaby 1/2 the range, but it isn't too big and is only $150. Disadvanges are the slow 'screw' rather than bayonet attachment. Here is a link to my review of it and other Raynox adapters.

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=85031

Regards,

-Keith

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I'm not so sure I fall for this ''HD lens'' branding DSE, as I didn't fall for the ''Digital ready'' headphones, speakers, cables etc. Not to say that
some lenses are better than others - far from it, but the 6600 PRO is a simple, three element A lens.

.

You might not, but I (and most others that work with HD-resolved glass) will express you're not correct. Resolution charts don't lie. It has less to do with the number of elements as it does with the way the glass is ground.
Of course you pay for it, but that's what sets a $12,000.00 Fuji lens apart from a $50K Angineaux, or a $50.00 no-name threaded wide from a $400.00 Century Optics wide of the same thread diameter.
Google "OTF", and it might provide some insight. There is a significant difference in glass quality and how accurately it's ground/polished.

[Jim Hardy]

Have you considered the "Red Eye" WA adapter?

http://www.collinscraft.com/

I myself haven't used it, but it looks worth looking into.

[Tom Hardwick]

I think that we're in complete agreement then, DSE. More expensive lenses are designed using better computers, use different refractive index glass more intelligently, are built to withstand rougher handling, have better multi-coatings, have better element grinding, blacking, centering and so on.

My quibble is with the ''HD'' tag, as if making lenses for HDV cameras is somehow different than making them for SD cameras. Canon's D30 DSLR had a 3.1 mp chip . It seemed amazing 6 years ago, but the body used the standard Canon lens range - not an 'SD' lens lineup because the chip was so low res.

The latest 16.7mp chipped 1DS bodies use the same lenses quite happily. A good lens will always be a good lens, and a cheap no-name will almost invariably show its compromises in flare, distortion, unsharpness and life expectancy.

tom.

[Tom Hardwick]

Jim, I tested the 0.5x and 0.7x aspherical Red Eye wide-angle converter lenses in the 58 mm fitting. They were not for me, and have since ceased production I hear.

tom.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I think that we're in complete agreement then, DSE. More expensive lenses are designed using better computers, use different refractive index glass more intelligently, are built to withstand rougher handling, have better multi-coatings, have better element grinding, blacking, centering and so on.

My quibble is with the ''HD'' tag, as if making lenses for HDV cameras is somehow different than making them for SD cameras. Canon's D30 DSLR had a 3.1 mp chip . It seemed amazing 6 years ago, but the body used the standard Canon lens range - not an 'SD' lens lineup because the chip was so low res.

The latest 16.7mp chipped 1DS bodies use the same lenses quite happily. A good lens will always be a good lens, and a cheap no-name will almost invariably show its compromises in flare, distortion, unsharpness and life expectancy.

tom.

Making lenses for HD vs SD is indeed different. Again, it's about how many lines the elements can resolve. You can't really compare a DSLR to a zoomable video camera lens, not in this particular arena, because they're a fairly different tiger.
I understand what you're saying, and for the most part we're agreeing.
But I don't want someone reading this thread in 6 months to walk away and say "Well...HD glas isn't really any different than SD glass, it's just a matter of price." HD glass has a higher spec/standard that it must meet. For example, Canon has their broadcast lens for the XL1. It's an SD lens, and Canon recommends it as such. The glass will resolve to around 600 lines, so it can't resolve for HD, but; if you were shooting 720p, you'd be surprised at how good this lens will look if you stay away from the full ends (wide/tele) and shoot in the middle. Go too far either way, you'll not like the picture. Because the glass isn't capable of resolving to full HD.

[Brett Sherman]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Where did you order them from?

I had it backordered from B&H Photo.