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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adriano Moroni

But my first question was about image quality. ;)

I guess they are comparable, with a little bit more barrel distorsion on the Reynox (a trade-off for wider angle).

Tom Hardwick · May 28th, 2007, 01:29 AM

My only quibble with Sony's 0.8x is that it's just too feeble. The FX7 starts out with less wide angle than the FX1, the HVX200, the Canon A1 and so on, so really does cry out for something more powerful than a 0.8x.

The Sony lens is a good one though, and I had no complaints from a picture quality POV - though it does barrel distort slightly. What did bother me was the size and weight of the thing - especially with that huge hood with its barn doors.

The size/weight is probably ok if you fit the lens and leave it there (as Sony did on their trade stand at London's Video Forum), but it's a huge lump in your kit bag for a very mild wide-angle increase.

tom.

Ron Chau · May 31st, 2007, 07:44 PM

I took Tom's advice and used a brick wall for testing.

Tom Hardwick · June 1st, 2007, 02:12 AM

Raynox or Redeye, Ron? I'm guessing Raynox, but leaving us to guess doesn't help much.

Ron Chau · June 1st, 2007, 08:20 AM

Uh, I guess you didn't notice the file names.

"Standard.jpg" is just the camcorder lens.

"raynox.jpg" is with the raynox lens attached.

Ron Chau · June 1st, 2007, 02:42 PM

Did another brick test.

Raynox vs standard lens. But with the standard lens on, I positioned the camcorder further back to match the area covered.

I think this is a better test to compare resolution and I am now even more impressed with my $150 Raynox.

Tom Hardwick · June 3rd, 2007, 02:44 AM

I agree - you certainly have hit on a good combination there and when viewed big the Raynox looks sharp right into the corners. Do you know what aperture this was taken at? The 6600PRO I had seemed to have a single layer coating (a light blue) with nowhere near the 'depth' of the multicoating on competitor's lenses, so I was careful to hood it as best I could. But for a lens at this price with so little distortion that still left you with 60% of your zoom useable it is indeed a bargain.

My slight quibble is that I was never quite sure where this 60% point was, and because of it I never zoomed more than a few mill away from max wide. With my single element aspheric on the other hand the change from sharp to wildly blurry is distinct and very obvious indeed, so I'm much happier to use any focal length in that 60% range, knowing it's sharp.

tom.

Ron Chau · June 3rd, 2007, 07:37 AM

Aperture was F6.2. Why do you ask ?

Do you know of an easy way to get these aspheric lenses in the US ? I've seen the links you provided. One was in German, and the others did not look like they had online ordering.

Saman Gareeb · June 5th, 2007, 08:01 AM

this is my first post, greetings, I belive century 0HD-65CV-SH6 .65X is available from schneideroptics.com , has anybody got one and tested it for barrel distortion?

many thanks

saman

Doug Quance · July 29th, 2007, 05:59 AM

I'm with you, Saman.

Has anyone tried the Century 0HD-65CV-SH6 0.65x?

Tom Hardwick · July 29th, 2007, 06:16 AM

Yes, the Century 0.65x is a zoom through, so does barrel distort. Not by much, but then if your camcorder's zoom barrel distorts down the wide end (and most do) then the Century will add to that.

Piotr Wozniacki · July 29th, 2007, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Quance

I'm with you, Saman.

Has anyone tried the Century 0HD-65CV-SH6 0.65x?

Yes, I did:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....0&postcount=32

Doug Quance · July 29th, 2007, 06:27 AM

Thanks, Piotr.

That's sad, really. I was hoping for more out of that $500 lens.

The Sony just seems so weak in the wide angle department. :-(

Ralph Roberts · July 31st, 2007, 07:51 AM

from what I've seen so far, the Raynox is a real value at under $200... ordered mine today.

--Ralph

Piotr Wozniacki · July 31st, 2007, 08:34 AM

Ralph, please post some grabs, and your impressions on the Raynox!

May 31st, 2007, 07:44 PM	#48
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	I took Tom's advice and used a brick wall for testing. Attached Thumbnails

June 1st, 2007, 02:42 PM	#51
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	Did another brick test. Raynox vs standard lens. But with the standard lens on, I positioned the camcorder further back to match the area covered. I think this is a better test to compare resolution and I am now even more impressed with my $150 Raynox. Attached Thumbnails

June 3rd, 2007, 02:44 AM	#52
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I agree - you certainly have hit on a good combination there and when viewed big the Raynox looks sharp right into the corners. Do you know what aperture this was taken at? The 6600PRO I had seemed to have a single layer coating (a light blue) with nowhere near the 'depth' of the multicoating on competitor's lenses, so I was careful to hood it as best I could. But for a lens at this price with so little distortion that still left you with 60% of your zoom useable it is indeed a bargain. My slight quibble is that I was never quite sure where this 60% point was, and because of it I never zoomed more than a few mill away from max wide. With my single element aspheric on the other hand the change from sharp to wildly blurry is distinct and very obvious indeed, so I'm much happier to use any focal length in that 60% range, knowing it's sharp. tom. Attached Thumbnails

June 5th, 2007, 08:01 AM	#54
Saman Gareeb Tourist Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: london england Posts: 2	Century Optics .65x Wide Angle Convert Is Available! this is my first post, greetings, I belive century 0HD-65CV-SH6 .65X is available from schneideroptics.com , has anybody got one and tested it for barrel distortion? many thanks saman

July 29th, 2007, 05:59 AM	#55
Doug Quance Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 138	I'm with you, Saman. Has anyone tried the Century 0HD-65CV-SH6 0.65x? __________________ If you're not the lead dog... the scenery never changes

May 28th, 2007, 01:29 AM	#47
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	My only quibble with Sony's 0.8x is that it's just too feeble. The FX7 starts out with less wide angle than the FX1, the HVX200, the Canon A1 and so on, so really does cry out for something more powerful than a 0.8x. The Sony lens is a good one though, and I had no complaints from a picture quality POV - though it does barrel distort slightly. What did bother me was the size and weight of the thing - especially with that huge hood with its barn doors. The size/weight is probably ok if you fit the lens and leave it there (as Sony did on their trade stand at London's Video Forum), but it's a huge lump in your kit bag for a very mild wide-angle increase. tom.

June 1st, 2007, 02:12 AM	#49
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Raynox or Redeye, Ron? I'm guessing Raynox, but leaving us to guess doesn't help much.

June 1st, 2007, 08:20 AM	#50
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	Uh, I guess you didn't notice the file names. "Standard.jpg" is just the camcorder lens. "raynox.jpg" is with the raynox lens attached.

June 3rd, 2007, 07:37 AM	#53
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	Aperture was F6.2. Why do you ask ? Do you know of an easy way to get these aspheric lenses in the US ? I've seen the links you provided. One was in German, and the others did not look like they had online ordering.

July 29th, 2007, 06:16 AM	#56
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Yes, the Century 0.65x is a zoom through, so does barrel distort. Not by much, but then if your camcorder's zoom barrel distorts down the wide end (and most do) then the Century will add to that.

July 29th, 2007, 06:27 AM	#58
Doug Quance Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 138	Thanks, Piotr. That's sad, really. I was hoping for more out of that $500 lens. The Sony just seems so weak in the wide angle department. :-( __________________ If you're not the lead dog... the scenery never changes

July 31st, 2007, 07:51 AM	#59
Ralph Roberts Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Alexander, NC Posts: 188	from what I've seen so far, the Raynox is a real value at under $200... ordered mine today. --Ralph __________________ --Ralph Roberts, CEO 1VIDeo / aBOOKS / Creativity, Inc.

July 31st, 2007, 08:34 AM	#60
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Ralph, please post some grabs, and your impressions on the Raynox! __________________ 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