New 0.7 Raynox wideangle, HD-7062PRO, for V1U due in May

Ron Chau · May 21st, 2007, 05:29 PM

The Raynox 6000ex is only .8x and will need a step ring.

I'm interested to hear what you guys think about the 7062.

Ideally, I'd like a .7x or stronger with better detail and resolution, but I really can't complain much. I like the minimal barrel distortion and the low price.

The Century .7 zoom through is $490, the .65x non zoom is $340. I wouldn't mind paying the extra money as long as the barrel distortion is minimal and they have a usable increase in resolution over the 7062.

Seth Bloombaum · May 21st, 2007, 10:23 PM

Well, my engineer buddy did not have a full rez chart stuck on his wall, but this combo chart.

Interpret as you will, here are several caps at native resolution. I'm interested to know what more experienced eyes make of them, as I flew in and out of my friend's shop (got a little overextended today...)

Note that most of these were at Zoom 66, one at Zoom 25 (100 = full tele).

***edit***
Note that the WA zoom 25 file's distortion was produced because we couldn't get the darn camera close enough to fill the frame. Had to go off the bench on a pile of apple boxes, and the height wasn't quite right, so the perspective is slightly off.

Tom Hardwick · May 22nd, 2007, 01:20 AM

And Raynox has done more than most manufacturers to try and combat barrel distortion in their converter lenses. The 6600PRO is a prime example of this, but in controlling the distortion there seems to be a price to pay - loss of image quality at the telephoto end.

But you've bought a wideangle converter to give you more wide angle, and you certainly shouldn't shoot at 15mm (say) with the converter lens in place when your normal zoom will do a much better job at that focal length.

tom.

Piotr Wozniacki · May 22nd, 2007, 02:18 AM

Hmm... I was following this thread with great interest, as I'm after a wa adapter for my V1E as well. Having read about all the advantages and disadvantages of different models, I tend to think that - after all - I'd be best off to buy the Sony's own VCL-HG-0826K. Yes, .8x is not quite enough, but at least it seems to not add excessive distorsion and is fully zoom-through; plus this great lens hood with barn cover. What do you think?

Tom Hardwick · May 22nd, 2007, 01:55 PM

With the Z1 and the V1 alongside one another the extra long zoom of the V1 was quite an eye-opener on our testing day. The V1's 35 mm still-camera equivalent wide angle is 37.4 mm, compared to the Z1's 32.5 mm, but Sony supplied us testers with their bayonet-on 0.8x wide-angle converter for the V1, and this takes the V1 down to 30 mm. This is a beautifully coated, full zoom-through optic, giving very sharp results.

I must say the size and weight of the converter lens didn't seem fair-trade for the extra wide-angle coverage it gives. This extra coverage is pretty darn feeble - there's no polite way to say it. The converter also adds to the barrel distortion; a no-no. It comes with it's own 16:9 hood that looks exactly like the stock hood only much bigger, and it too has barn-door shutters. Trouble is the hood/converter lens combo is now a very bulky affair, and all three of us testers gave it the thumbs down. Even if it was supplied free you'd still have to carry it about.

tom.

Ron Chau · May 22nd, 2007, 03:22 PM

Tom, how is the barrel distortion and resolution of the Sony W/A lens compared to what you see on the Raynox 7062 clips we've provided ?

Piotr Wozniacki · May 22nd, 2007, 03:30 PM

I'm also very interested in an answer to this question. The barrel distorsion on Canon A1 (which natively has the wide angle similar to that of the V1 with the 0.8x Sony wa adapter) is quite substantial; should I expect anything worse than that, and would the Raynox be better in this regard?

Tom Hardwick · May 23rd, 2007, 01:52 AM

I'd class the barrel distortion on the Sony 0.8x as slight, but then the lens is so mild I'd not expect otherwise. It's certainly evident on window and door frames, but for a lot of work it would go un-noticed.

Unless you do a side-by-side comparison you can never tell which lens is worse. My 3 chip Panasonic's 12x zoom has godawful barrel distortion. The VX2000 is ok, but the Z1 has most noticeable barrel distortion. So most cameras start out with a disadvantage - a wide-angle converter tends to exagerate the inherrent distortion, making it even more obvious - even if the converter lens itself has zero distortion.

It's a suck-it-and-see situation, but generally the rules are this:

1) If you want zoom through you'll have to accept distortion
2) If you want more power you'll accept more distortion
3) If you buy an aspheric you'll have less distortion

But beware - some lenses such as RedEye are aspherics, but still distort heavily. Look here as the aspherics:

http://www.lenswvl.com/
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/ka...a/b_optike.php
http://www.bolex.ch/NEW/?p=1

tom.

Ron Chau · May 25th, 2007, 05:48 PM

I guess we all have different acceptance levels when it comes to barrel distortion and resolution.

That's why I like to post and see people's sample pics and/or videos.

For $150, I'm happy with my Raynox. However, I would like better resolution and a wider angle, so despite Tom's bad experiences, I just ordered a .5x Redeye. It's not zoom through, so I will still keep the Raynox.

My eye's and needs are not as critical as many on this board, so hopefully I will be happy with the Redeye.

Either way, I'll be posting sample clips when I receive it.

Tom Hardwick · May 26th, 2007, 05:27 AM

Yes, let us know how you get on with the Redeye. I tested the 0.7x and the 0.5x versions in 58mm fitting, neither of which are now available I hear. They are beautifully slim and light (high pressure plastic injection mouldings), have superb multi-coating and are sharp into the corners.

The big problem comes with the barrel distortion on the 0.5x, and even shots taken in the garden show it up. They do indeed have one aspherical surface, but it's nowhere near aspherical enough to cancel the distortion. Still - they're not too dear and come with a beautifully padded case with a belt loop.

tom.

Adriano Moroni · May 27th, 2007, 09:07 AM

Hi I have a Sony FX7 camera and in 10 days I have to buy a wide angle lens. In your opinon is it better Raynox HD7062Pro or Sony VCL-HG0862?
I look for better image quality over all.
thanks

Piotr Wozniacki · May 27th, 2007, 09:15 AM

Adriano, between the two you mention, I'd definitely choose the Raynox (more effective). But add the "K" to the VCL-HG0862, and I have a dilemma - the "K" version of the Sony converter has this nice lens hood/shutter, which is so functional (and looks impressive, too:))

Adriano Moroni · May 27th, 2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Adriano, between the two you mention, I'd definitely choose the Raynox (more effective). But add the "K" to the VCL-HG0862, and I have a dilemma - the "K" version of the Sony converter has this nice lens hood/shutter, which is so functional (and looks impressive, too:))

Thanks a lot for your advice. Bur have you seen some clips taken with Sony VCL-HG0862? Are you sure Raynox gives a better image quality than VCL-HG0862 over all about definition?
thanks again

Piotr Wozniacki · May 27th, 2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adriano Moroni

Thanks a lot for your advice. Bur have you seen some clips taken with Sony VCL-HG0862? Are you sure Raynox gives a better image quality than VCL-HG0862 over all about definition?
thanks again

Never said anything about quality - only mentioned better effectiveness of Raynox (0.7x vs 0.8x with Sony's).

Adriano Moroni · May 27th, 2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Never said anything about quality - only mentioned better effectiveness of Raynox (0.7x vs 0.8x with Sony's).

But my first question was about image quality. ;)

May 21st, 2007, 10:23 PM	#32
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	Charts for Raynox 7062 Well, my engineer buddy did not have a full rez chart stuck on his wall, but this combo chart. Interpret as you will, here are several caps at native resolution. I'm interested to know what more experienced eyes make of them, as I flew in and out of my friend's shop (got a little overextended today...) Note that most of these were at Zoom 66, one at Zoom 25 (100 = full tele). *edit* Note that the WA zoom 25 file's distortion was produced because we couldn't get the darn camera close enough to fill the frame. Had to go off the bench on a pile of apple boxes, and the height wasn't quite right, so the perspective is slightly off. Attached Thumbnails Last edited by Seth Bloombaum; May 22nd, 2007 at 06:38 PM.

May 22nd, 2007, 02:18 AM	#34
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Hmm... I was following this thread with great interest, as I'm after a wa adapter for my V1E as well. Having read about all the advantages and disadvantages of different models, I tend to think that - after all - I'd be best off to buy the Sony's own VCL-HG-0826K. Yes, .8x is not quite enough, but at least it seems to not add excessive distorsion and is fully zoom-through; plus this great lens hood with barn cover. What do you think? __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

May 22nd, 2007, 03:30 PM	#37
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	I'm also very interested in an answer to this question. The barrel distorsion on Canon A1 (which natively has the wide angle similar to that of the V1 with the 0.8x Sony wa adapter) is quite substantial; should I expect anything worse than that, and would the Raynox be better in this regard? __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

May 27th, 2007, 09:07 AM	#41
Adriano Moroni Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Rome Italy Posts: 676	Is it better Raynox HD7062Pro or Sony VCL-HG0862? Hi I have a Sony FX7 camera and in 10 days I have to buy a wide angle lens. In your opinon is it better Raynox HD7062Pro or Sony VCL-HG0862? I look for better image quality over all. thanks

May 27th, 2007, 09:15 AM	#42
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Adriano, between the two you mention, I'd definitely choose the Raynox (more effective). But add the "K" to the VCL-HG0862, and I have a dilemma - the "K" version of the Sony converter has this nice lens hood/shutter, which is so functional (and looks impressive, too:)) __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

May 21st, 2007, 05:29 PM	#31
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	The Raynox 6000ex is only .8x and will need a step ring. I'm interested to hear what you guys think about the 7062. Ideally, I'd like a .7x or stronger with better detail and resolution, but I really can't complain much. I like the minimal barrel distortion and the low price. The Century .7 zoom through is $490, the .65x non zoom is $340. I wouldn't mind paying the extra money as long as the barrel distortion is minimal and they have a usable increase in resolution over the 7062.

May 22nd, 2007, 01:20 AM	#33
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	And Raynox has done more than most manufacturers to try and combat barrel distortion in their converter lenses. The 6600PRO is a prime example of this, but in controlling the distortion there seems to be a price to pay - loss of image quality at the telephoto end. But you've bought a wideangle converter to give you more wide angle, and you certainly shouldn't shoot at 15mm (say) with the converter lens in place when your normal zoom will do a much better job at that focal length. tom.

May 22nd, 2007, 01:55 PM	#35
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	With the Z1 and the V1 alongside one another the extra long zoom of the V1 was quite an eye-opener on our testing day. The V1's 35 mm still-camera equivalent wide angle is 37.4 mm, compared to the Z1's 32.5 mm, but Sony supplied us testers with their bayonet-on 0.8x wide-angle converter for the V1, and this takes the V1 down to 30 mm. This is a beautifully coated, full zoom-through optic, giving very sharp results. I must say the size and weight of the converter lens didn't seem fair-trade for the extra wide-angle coverage it gives. This extra coverage is pretty darn feeble - there's no polite way to say it. The converter also adds to the barrel distortion; a no-no. It comes with it's own 16:9 hood that looks exactly like the stock hood only much bigger, and it too has barn-door shutters. Trouble is the hood/converter lens combo is now a very bulky affair, and all three of us testers gave it the thumbs down. Even if it was supplied free you'd still have to carry it about. tom.

May 22nd, 2007, 03:22 PM	#36
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	Tom, how is the barrel distortion and resolution of the Sony W/A lens compared to what you see on the Raynox 7062 clips we've provided ?

May 23rd, 2007, 01:52 AM	#38
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'd class the barrel distortion on the Sony 0.8x as slight, but then the lens is so mild I'd not expect otherwise. It's certainly evident on window and door frames, but for a lot of work it would go un-noticed. Unless you do a side-by-side comparison you can never tell which lens is worse. My 3 chip Panasonic's 12x zoom has godawful barrel distortion. The VX2000 is ok, but the Z1 has most noticeable barrel distortion. So most cameras start out with a disadvantage - a wide-angle converter tends to exagerate the inherrent distortion, making it even more obvious - even if the converter lens itself has zero distortion. It's a suck-it-and-see situation, but generally the rules are this: 1) If you want zoom through you'll have to accept distortion 2) If you want more power you'll accept more distortion 3) If you buy an aspheric you'll have less distortion But beware - some lenses such as RedEye are aspherics, but still distort heavily. Look here as the aspherics: http://www.lenswvl.com/ http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/ka...a/b_optike.php http://www.bolex.ch/NEW/?p=1 tom.

May 25th, 2007, 05:48 PM	#39
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	I guess we all have different acceptance levels when it comes to barrel distortion and resolution. That's why I like to post and see people's sample pics and/or videos. For $150, I'm happy with my Raynox. However, I would like better resolution and a wider angle, so despite Tom's bad experiences, I just ordered a .5x Redeye. It's not zoom through, so I will still keep the Raynox. My eye's and needs are not as critical as many on this board, so hopefully I will be happy with the Redeye. Either way, I'll be posting sample clips when I receive it.

May 26th, 2007, 05:27 AM	#40
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Yes, let us know how you get on with the Redeye. I tested the 0.7x and the 0.5x versions in 58mm fitting, neither of which are now available I hear. They are beautifully slim and light (high pressure plastic injection mouldings), have superb multi-coating and are sharp into the corners. The big problem comes with the barrel distortion on the 0.5x, and even shots taken in the garden show it up. They do indeed have one aspherical surface, but it's nowhere near aspherical enough to cancel the distortion. Still - they're not too dear and come with a beautifully padded case with a belt loop. tom.