More on fisheye lenses

[Tom Hardwick]

Joe - do you mean fisheye when you write fisheye? If you do mean fisheye, then vignetting is part of the deal - see my post about 5 up from here.

I agree with Boyd, going through all the hassle just to fit a mild 0.8x hardly seems worth the bother. Now fit a non-distorting 0.5x and you're talking - the FX1 now has (an equivalent) 16 mm focal length.

tom.

[Joe Lawry]

Sorry, i should of been clearer, i was meaning semi fish eye, not total fish eye, which is why im looking at the century which is 0.3x and the raynox which is 0.24x. I never had any vignetting when i was using my 0.3x raynox semi fish on my pd150. So im hoping that neither of the two lenses im looking at will vignet.

And yes, your both right about it not really being worth going with something around 0.8x, any suggestions on a nice 0.5x lens? The only ones that B&H seem to stock which are classed as a wideangle with a 72mm thread are both 0.8x, and i'd prefer to order from there.

thanks for the help so far, any more input is much Appreciated.

[Tom Hardwick]

Raynox have a neat website Joe, and it's worth a look.
http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/egindex.htm

[Gary Smith]

I have the Century .3x Ultra fisheye lens and use it on my FX-1 for hang gliding videos. I mount it on the glider and point it in the general direction of where I'd like to shoot. It is a great lens for this type of work. You can zoom through the vignetting (black corners) but there is a huge amout of barrel distortion with this lens. The image is not as crisp with the lens (as compared to without the lens) but there is a bunch of glass to work through so this is to be expected. I also use the lens for shots that require close foreground work with wide perspective shots. An example would be a very close shot of an object with cumulous clouds overhead whipping by in a time lapse. It gives an interesting perspective in a shot but a little bit of this lens goes a long way on the viewing end of things. When I view my footage of flying a spiraling dive in my glider I have to break out the Dramamine for sea sickness. I can do this all day long in the glider but when I watch it on the big screen It is almost too wide.
Another drawback to this lens, is of course it's cost and vulnerability. It is close to a grand retail. The lens is huge (in diameter) without any protection on the front of it. (No lens hood) It is very suceptible to damage from not so perfect glider landings. It also likes to collect dust and I seem to constantly have to clean the thing. Dog nose prints are a nightmare.

[Sean Seah]

I'm looking for a fisheye for weddings to capture those church exteriors n interiors. I'm considering the Raynox and Century.. could u guys recommend? I will not do much zooming but mostly panning.

[Tom Hardwick]

Oh do beware of fisheyes for buildings Sean - either interiors or exteriors. The barrel distortions are sort of fun, but a wedding movie is not really the time or place to go bending walls and windows.

If you get one of the aspherical elements shown here:
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/ka...a/b_optike.php
you'll get super-wide shots with very little barrel distortion, promise.

tom.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Joe Lawry

I never had any vignetting when i was using my 0.3x raynox semi fish on my pd150. So im hoping that neither of the two lenses im looking at will vignet.

Just remember that the Z1 and PD-150 are very different beasts! Using 35mm still camera equivalents, the wide end of the PD-150 zoom range is 43mm but the Z1 at full wide is 33mm. In other words, the Z1 has a 25% wider field of view to start with so don't assume that a lens which doesn't vignette on the PD will do the same on the Z1/FX1...

Have you looked at the Century .6x? Discussion is here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58525

[Joe Lawry]

Boyd,

I had forgotten about that thread, Yea the century 0.6x does look like it'd probably suit me, however with the price, and the fact you cant zoom with it (sounds weird, but i still like being able to zoom whenever even if a wide angle is on) i think what i'll do for now is just go for the raynox and if i find i need something wider than the z1 on its own i'll grab that century and the mattebox at a later date.

cheers.

[Boyd Ostroff]

You can zoom somewhere around halfway (maybe a little more) with the Century .6x before it loses focus IIRC...

[Tom Hardwick]

Boyd's right. My 0.5x single element 'non zoom-through' wide-angle converter allows me to zoom from Z00 (yes, it always reads as zoo to me) right up to Z68 on my Z1. So my 12 x zoom is now just less than a 7x zoom. A fair trade in my view. One extra element rather than three, so less weight, bulk, flare.

tom.

[Sean Seah]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Oh do beware of fisheyes for buildings Sean - either interiors or exteriors. The barrel distortions are sort of fun, but a wedding movie is not really the time or place to go bending walls and windows.

If you get one of the aspherical elements shown here:
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/ka...a/b_optike.php
you'll get super-wide shots with very little barrel distortion, promise.

tom.

Hi Tom, that is a nice site u recommended but its in German! Which one exactly do you recommend?

[Tom Hardwick]

Well spotted, German indeed. You have an FX1/Z1? then you'll need the
UWL IV (M77) auf Objektiv M72 adapter and the Original Schneider-Ersatzlinse für UWL III.

This means you'll get the aspherical lens element and a 72 mm threaded ring. Stick on to the other and you're away - super, non-distorting very powerful 0.55x wide-angle coverage.

You can buy the UWL version C in a mount. This ups the price a bit but makes it easier to attach.

Things you should know.

These lenses are very high quality injection mouldings, and are uncoated, so will need to be hooded effectively. The lack of barrel distortion is quite amazing, curing the distortion that come for free with Sony's (sorry, Zeiss') 12x zoom. I have 2 of these lenses. They're light, cheap and fun, and whole lot better than my Raynox, Century, Tecpro and Kenko - especially if you're shooting straight lines. I have a shot here:

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/tom-s...ider_Kreuznach

tom.

[Sean Seah]

Yeah I have a FX1e. Wow the results are amazing! Look at the straight edges! Its a real pity it doesnt come with coating. How is the image quality? THere was a mini debate on the quality of the Century Vs Raynox b4..

Original Schneider-Ersatzlinse für UWL III
Nur Linse, ohne Fassung, neu, selektierte Exemplare, "finished" in Produktionsqualität.
Front-ø/Lichteintritt ca. 90mm, Lichtaustritt (Rückseite) ø ca. 62,5mm.
Best.-Nr. 5106 - (80,00 EUR netto) 92,80 EUR brutto

UWL IV (M77) auf Objektiv M72
Best.-Nr. 17277 - (15,43 EUR netto) 17,90 EUR brutto

All that for a total of 110 EUR is a steal. Problem is how do I get them here in Singapore man. I'll have to get some German pals to help out. How did u get them in UK?

[Tom Hardwick]

I actually bought mine in Germany, nearly 30 years ago. I've filmed a lot of images through them! I tried to get them coated by an optician here in the UK, but for some reason met a lot of resistance so didn't get it done.

The image quality is very good, but being a single element there is chromatic aberation in the four corners of the image. This is why Century use a cemented doublet for their fisheyes - it ups the price alarmingly but removes a lot of the colour fringing.

But if you ask me, the most impressive thing is the lack of distortion. If I show footage shot with this lens it's the lack of distortion that's the wow factor, and not one person on 1000 will say, ''hey, is that colour fringing I can see in those leaves top left?'' Yet every Jack Toad of them will see the door frames bowing outward, of that you can be sure.

tom.

[Ken Johnes]

Very interesting lens, but having seen chromatic aberration from an older cheapo lens I had, I wonder if there is a more expensive choice with the least chromatic aberration and the least geometric distortion too –like a rectilinear. Does a quality lens that good exist out there or nobody thought …I would need one? :)

By the way, I would prefer to correct geometric distortion in post (like in digital photography) than having to deal with c.a, reflections and other flaws which I couldn't correct even if I wanted to.

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I actually bought mine in Germany, nearly 30 years ago. I've filmed a lot of images through them!

I recognize the sturdiness of this lens which makes it desirable in very harsh situations where you can clean it quickly and without care, almost with anything and as often you want -and you are not afraid that it will get damaged from the environment.

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I tried to get them coated by an optician here in the UK, but for some reason met a lot of resistance so didn't get it done.

If it's worth it, I'd recommend you to try another optician e.g from the service of a company of video/photo products.