Sony's 0.8x wideangle on the V1 at DVinfo.net

Tom Hardwick · May 4th, 2007, 02:09 AM

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 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.

There are those that will fit the wide converter and leave it there permanently, but surely they would have been better off with the Canon A1? I'm not a fan of adding an extra three elements to an already long (quite possibly 15 element) zoom lens, especially when you consider the problems of flare.

But back to that telephoto reach. The V1 is most impressive in this regard, and although full tele will require a deliciously smooth tripod head, it left the Z1's zoom in the dust. And coming from the VX2000, I sure miss powerful tele shots now I have a Z1.

Another thing we noticed was that even though the Z1 was working at a half stop smaller aperture than the V1 (due to it's more sensitive, bigger chips) it gave quite noticeably less DoF for any given situation. The pot of flowers in the sunshine had soft-focus background in the Z1 shot, but a sharp background in the V1's shot. Make of this what you will, but bottom line is it's the laws of optics forcing the situation upon us.

tom.

Bob Grant · May 4th, 2007, 02:36 AM

Tom,
that's pretty much my view of the Sony 0.8 W.A. for the V1, it's just not enough to justify the cost and the weight. It looks nice but...
Have you tried the new Century 0.65 adaptor?
Seem a way more desirable W.A. adaptor.

Tom Hardwick · May 4th, 2007, 02:43 AM

It's certainly more desirable in that it gives a decent decrease in focal length, but the Century 0.65x zoom-through I tested on the VX2k - though beautifully built and coated - gave far too much barrel distortion for me. Super sharp, though.

I haven't tested the new one, so I'll hold fire on judgement, except to say that Sony limit their widie to a 0.8x to try and control this barrelling problem.

tom.

Craig Irving · May 4th, 2007, 06:16 AM

If it's the lens hood that contributes to making the add-on bulky, could you do without it? Because the consumer version (VCLHG0862) is another option since it doesn't have the hood.

Tom Hardwick · May 4th, 2007, 07:12 AM

Gosh Craig - looking at the Sony hood it must be a 28 part construction, and it's made good and deep and wide for good reason. I've always maintained that a lens hood is the cheapest, lightest accessory you can buy to improve the look of your movies, so no - don't be tempted to shoot without it. Especially now you've got an 18 element zoom...

tom.

Craig Irving · May 4th, 2007, 07:20 AM

That's a good point. I think I'll pick it up anyway for shooting films, but it sounds like it could be quite heavy for hand held shooting of events.

Tom Hardwick · May 4th, 2007, 07:41 AM

No, you won't think it heavy. Not unless you're under 12 or over 85.

Craig Irving · May 4th, 2007, 08:01 AM

On its own probably not, but I generally use it with the Rode NT3 and SM5 shock mount and that adds quite a bit of weight for extensive handheld shooting :)

I wish I could find a really nice, really light hyper cardioid that would fit nicely into the Sony mic mount so I wouldn't heed to bother with a shockmount at all.

Hey Tom, did you happen to capture any images comparing w/ the adapter on and with the adapter off?

Ron Little · May 4th, 2007, 08:22 AM

The weight is not an issue for me I use a tripod most of the time. I am concerned about barrel distortion. How noticeable is it on the Sony?

John Huebbe · May 4th, 2007, 06:23 PM

I have the Sony 0.8x wide angle converter. I came from a PD170 with the .7x Sony wide angle lens. I calculated it out and it is almost the same. For me, I just needed something a bit wider than stock and the Sony was my choice. So far so good.

I do agree, if you are wanting a VERY wide field of view, then the Sony will not be enough. But, for me it works great for interviews and run-n-gun shooting because of the mount. In the future when I get more money I'll most likely buy something super wide, like 0.5x.

Leslie Wand · May 4th, 2007, 10:54 PM

have to agree (after my first day shooting), the sony wa ISN'T worth the cost. then again:

a. it's remarkably light (relative to the sony wa for the 170).

b. it does give that LITTLE bit of width that makes the wide open spaces look, wide open ;-) (and yes there is barrel distortion, but considering i shoot mostly rural landscapes as background, the distortion actually looks good!)

c. and this is totally bullshit from a professional pov, it looks good.

d. but from a clients pov, it looks impressive. (gotta be worth another $200 a day - i mean LOOK AT THE SIZE OF IT!)

e. it's a bugger finding a 'comfortable' bag to carry it in. the kata range (cc 103 anyway), just isn't wide enough if you leave the lens on all the time.

as for the pics, more later when i finally get round to looking at what i've shot.

leslie

Piotr Wozniacki · May 5th, 2007, 01:51 AM

I agree with Leslie's points; if only for the lens hood with shutter lens cup, I'm decided to buy the Sony 0.8 converter and keep it always on when the camera is on tripod, but only when really needed - in hand-held situations. This way, the weight is less important.

Probably in future I will also buy another, very wide converter - only for those rare special occasions, so it can go without a hood.

I think this is a most practical attitude.

PS The new Sony LCS-G1BP bag accomodates the V1 with the mic on, and has the space for the converter and the HDD.

Stu Holmes · May 5th, 2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

It's certainly more desirable in that it gives a decent decrease in focal length, but the Century 0.65x zoom-through I tested on the VX2k - though beautifully built and coated - gave far too much barrel distortion for me. Super sharp, though.

I haven't tested the new one, so I'll hold fire on judgement, except to say that Sony limit their widie to a 0.8x to try and control this barrelling problem.

tom.

Tom if you could do a test of the new Raynox HD7062Pro 62mm 0.7x WA on your cam that would be terrific. I think it went on sale just very recently.

I know you have good experience of WA lenses and i would appreciate your evaulation if you can get hold of one of these new 62mm Raynox WA lenses.

Tom Hardwick · May 18th, 2007, 01:47 PM

I certainly would like to get hold of one of those Raynox lenses for test Stu. I'd also like to get hold of more lenses by Red Eye, Century, Cavision, Tecpro, Kenko, Schneider, Canon, Sony ... it's a long list.

But I don't want to be sent any more lenses that add to the barrel distortion, thank you. I've proved - with my aspherics - that you don't have to accept it.

Have a look here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=88767&page=2

Here is link to a raw clip shot with the Raynox 7062

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KKJV4MHI

tom.

May 4th, 2007, 02:09 AM	#1
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Sony's 0.8x wideangle on the V1 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 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. There are those that will fit the wide converter and leave it there permanently, but surely they would have been better off with the Canon A1? I'm not a fan of adding an extra three elements to an already long (quite possibly 15 element) zoom lens, especially when you consider the problems of flare. But back to that telephoto reach. The V1 is most impressive in this regard, and although full tele will require a deliciously smooth tripod head, it left the Z1's zoom in the dust. And coming from the VX2000, I sure miss powerful tele shots now I have a Z1. Another thing we noticed was that even though the Z1 was working at a half stop smaller aperture than the V1 (due to it's more sensitive, bigger chips) it gave quite noticeably less DoF for any given situation. The pot of flowers in the sunshine had soft-focus background in the Z1 shot, but a sharp background in the V1's shot. Make of this what you will, but bottom line is it's the laws of optics forcing the situation upon us. tom.

May 4th, 2007, 06:16 AM	#4
Craig Irving Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 539	If it's the lens hood that contributes to making the add-on bulky, could you do without it? Because the consumer version (VCLHG0862) is another option since it doesn't have the hood. Last edited by Craig Irving; May 4th, 2007 at 07:22 AM.

May 4th, 2007, 06:23 PM	#10
John Huebbe Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: St. Charles Posts: 141	I have the Sony 0.8x wide angle converter. I came from a PD170 with the .7x Sony wide angle lens. I calculated it out and it is almost the same. For me, I just needed something a bit wider than stock and the Sony was my choice. So far so good. I do agree, if you are wanting a VERY wide field of view, then the Sony will not be enough. But, for me it works great for interviews and run-n-gun shooting because of the mount. In the future when I get more money I'll most likely buy something super wide, like 0.5x. __________________ - John http://www.321govideo.com

May 5th, 2007, 01:51 AM	#12
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	I agree with Leslie's points; if only for the lens hood with shutter lens cup, I'm decided to buy the Sony 0.8 converter and keep it always on when the camera is on tripod, but only when really needed - in hand-held situations. This way, the weight is less important. Probably in future I will also buy another, very wide converter - only for those rare special occasions, so it can go without a hood. I think this is a most practical attitude. PS The new Sony LCS-G1BP bag accomodates the V1 with the mic on, and has the space for the converter and the HDD. __________________ 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 Last edited by Piotr Wozniacki; May 5th, 2007 at 03:28 AM.

May 4th, 2007, 02:36 AM	#2
Bob Grant Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,570	Tom, that's pretty much my view of the Sony 0.8 W.A. for the V1, it's just not enough to justify the cost and the weight. It looks nice but... Have you tried the new Century 0.65 adaptor? Seem a way more desirable W.A. adaptor.

May 4th, 2007, 02:43 AM	#3
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	It's certainly more desirable in that it gives a decent decrease in focal length, but the Century 0.65x zoom-through I tested on the VX2k - though beautifully built and coated - gave far too much barrel distortion for me. Super sharp, though. I haven't tested the new one, so I'll hold fire on judgement, except to say that Sony limit their widie to a 0.8x to try and control this barrelling problem. tom.

May 4th, 2007, 07:12 AM	#5
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Gosh Craig - looking at the Sony hood it must be a 28 part construction, and it's made good and deep and wide for good reason. I've always maintained that a lens hood is the cheapest, lightest accessory you can buy to improve the look of your movies, so no - don't be tempted to shoot without it. Especially now you've got an 18 element zoom... tom.

May 4th, 2007, 07:20 AM	#6
Craig Irving Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 539	That's a good point. I think I'll pick it up anyway for shooting films, but it sounds like it could be quite heavy for hand held shooting of events.

May 4th, 2007, 07:41 AM	#7
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	No, you won't think it heavy. Not unless you're under 12 or over 85.

May 4th, 2007, 08:01 AM	#8
Craig Irving Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 539	On its own probably not, but I generally use it with the Rode NT3 and SM5 shock mount and that adds quite a bit of weight for extensive handheld shooting :) I wish I could find a really nice, really light hyper cardioid that would fit nicely into the Sony mic mount so I wouldn't heed to bother with a shockmount at all. Hey Tom, did you happen to capture any images comparing w/ the adapter on and with the adapter off?

May 4th, 2007, 08:22 AM	#9
Ron Little Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pensacola Fl. Posts: 627	The weight is not an issue for me I use a tripod most of the time. I am concerned about barrel distortion. How noticeable is it on the Sony?

May 4th, 2007, 10:54 PM	#11
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	have to agree (after my first day shooting), the sony wa ISN'T worth the cost. then again: a. it's remarkably light (relative to the sony wa for the 170). b. it does give that LITTLE bit of width that makes the wide open spaces look, wide open ;-) (and yes there is barrel distortion, but considering i shoot mostly rural landscapes as background, the distortion actually looks good!) c. and this is totally bullshit from a professional pov, it looks good. d. but from a clients pov, it looks impressive. (gotta be worth another $200 a day - i mean LOOK AT THE SIZE OF IT!) e. it's a bugger finding a 'comfortable' bag to carry it in. the kata range (cc 103 anyway), just isn't wide enough if you leave the lens on all the time. as for the pics, more later when i finally get round to looking at what i've shot. leslie

May 18th, 2007, 01:47 PM	#14
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I certainly would like to get hold of one of those Raynox lenses for test Stu. I'd also like to get hold of more lenses by Red Eye, Century, Cavision, Tecpro, Kenko, Schneider, Canon, Sony ... it's a long list. But I don't want to be sent any more lenses that add to the barrel distortion, thank you. I've proved - with my aspherics - that you don't have to accept it. Have a look here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=88767&page=2 Here is link to a raw clip shot with the Raynox 7062 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KKJV4MHI tom.