VCL-308BWH Wide-Angle Lens Hood & Filter

Tom Hardwick · March 31st, 2009, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc De Wandel

24mm in it's widest angle. That is not really wide (I'm used to 14 mm on my photo cams).

I entirely agree - it's not *really* wide, just usefully wide. And to think the Panasonic 151 comes with a 28 mm wide end to the zoom right out of the box.

I'm of the opinion that if you go to the trouble of carrying, storing and fitting a wide-angle then it should be good and powerful. When my aspherical adapter is on my Z1 I have a 17 mm to 132mm (equivalent) f/1.6 to f/2.2. (7.8x zoom).

The 308BWH Sony lens is 24 - 192 mm, f/1.6 to f/2.4 as a reference (8x zoom).

tom.

Derran Rootring · March 31st, 2009, 04:30 AM

Thanks for the footage Gabor!

I would really appreciate it if you would make some comparison footage of the two lenses in use. Perhaps (if it's not to much trouble) you can also show a bit of pan and tilt movements of the wide lens in use.

Zach Love · March 31st, 2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc De Wandel

24mm in it's widest angle. That is not really wide (I'm used to 14 mm on my photo cams). Is it wide enough for you?

Are you using a 35mm camera or a DSLR with a full frame chip? Because most DSLRs today are using chips smaller than the frame of a 35mm negative. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a 14mm lens on a Canon Rebel or Nikon D40 (budget DSLR) will have the same Field-of-View as as 21mm lens on my 1970s Minolta 35mm SRT-102.

Greg Laves · March 31st, 2009, 08:27 PM

Zach, Nikon cameras with a DX sized image device are indeed a 1.5 FOV factor when compared to 35mm film. FYI Nikon D200's or D300's certainly can not be considered "budget DSLR's" even though they do use DX sized imagers. I am not a Canon guy, but I think some of their DSLR's were a 1.6 factor.

Luc De Wandel · April 1st, 2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Love

Are you using a 35mm camera or a DSLR with a full frame chip? Because most DSLRs today are using chips smaller than the frame of a 35mm negative. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a 14mm lens on a Canon Rebel or Nikon D40 (budget DSLR) will have the same Field-of-View as as 21mm lens on my 1970s Minolta 35mm SRT-102.

Yep, I'm using the Canon 5D, full frame. 14mm is 14mm. So I tend to find everything else 'not really wide enough'.

Luc De Wandel · April 1st, 2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I entirely agree - it's not *really* wide, just usefully wide. And to think the Panasonic 151 comes with a 28 mm wide end to the zoom right out of the box.

I'm of the opinion that if you go to the trouble of carrying, storing and fitting a wide-angle then it should be good and powerful. When my aspherical adapter is on my Z1 I have a 17 mm to 132mm (equivalent) f/1.6 to f/2.2. (7.8x zoom).

The 308BWH Sony lens is 24 - 192 mm, f/1.6 to f/2.4 as a reference (8x zoom).

tom.

Thanks for the info. I'd rather go for an aspherical adapter then, as soon as there is one for the Z7. Or am I mistaken and is there one already?

Stupid question: I had lots of problems with dust gathering on my Canon 5D's chip. I can imagine, when changing lenses on a Sony HVR-Z7 the problem is many times worse, given the small size of the chip. Do you clean the chip the same way I clean my 5D's? That is: with wet pads.

Greg Laves · April 1st, 2009, 04:58 PM

On the Z7, there is a prism that is exposed when you change lenses. The CMOS chips are not exposed at all.

Luc De Wandel · April 2nd, 2009, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

On the Z7, there is a prism that is exposed when you change lenses. The CMOS chips are not exposed at all.

Here's the next stupid question then: if dust gathers on the prism, what's the best method to get if off?

Derran Rootring · April 6th, 2009, 05:02 AM

On a camcorder a 3.5 mm (like the Fujinon 13x lens) or 3.3 mm (Sony VCL lens for the Z7) is really wide!
Sure, on a digital still camera you can go wider, but I wouldn't recommend it for a camcorder. Because you have to be able to make pan and tilt movements without to much wide distortion these lenses give on a digital still camera. I have a 12mm to 24mm on my photo camera and if I look through the eye piece and move the camera around it looks really weird. I don't want to record that on tape. But if you keep the camera still and take a photograph it looks great.
It's also more expensive to get a nice wide angle lens for camcorders. I've worked with converters, but I don't like the barrel distortion you get from it... it looks cheap. I also have a digital (SD 4:3) camera with a Canon 4,4mm wide angle lens. And if you start working with such a lens, you don't want to use converters anymore. But unfortunately sometimes you have no choice.

So that's why I'm interested in this lens for the Z7. If I want to go extreme wide I will get a fish eye lens. ;) Otherwise I want a good wide lens that will fit most filming situations that I can keep on the camera most of the time.

Tom Hardwick · April 6th, 2009, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derran Rootring

...and move the camera around it looks really weird. I don't want to record that on tape....

I know what you mean Derran. When you film a constantly moving vehicle passing a camera fitted with a non barrel-distorting superwide the vehicle decelerates towards the centre of the frame and accelerates away from it. Same if you pan across a static scene - objects decelerate towards frame centre as they get smaller and accelerate away from it as they become larger.

If you do the same thing with a barrel distorting lens you lose this effect. Objects appear to move across the frame at a constant speed, but they grow larger in the middle as they barrel. And telegraph poles bend one way and then the other.

But super-wides are often used in what I call 'frightening' situations, where people move room to room or run through mazes (The Shining). It's at times like these that the non-distorting super-wide really earns its keep.

tom.

Derran Rootring · April 6th, 2009, 05:55 AM

Yes absolutely.
Super wide is something you can't use for everything but their are moments you can really benefit from this effect. Also for a music shoot it can be useful. Same goes for a fish eye lens. You don't want to use it for your normal everyday shooting, but for action sports or music video's it can be a very useful effect.

Mike Paterson · April 6th, 2009, 06:39 AM

Luc - I would use an air canister. Very carefully.

Still waiting for someone to post some direct comparison shots of the two lenses. High res stills would be appreciated - thanks in advance.

Luc De Wandel · April 6th, 2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Paterson

Luc - I would use an air canister. Very carefully.

Still waiting for someone to post some direct comparison shots of the two lenses. High res stills would be appreciated - thanks in advance.

Thanks Mike.

Luc De Wandel · April 6th, 2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derran Rootring

On a camcorder a 3.5 mm (like the Fujinon 13x lens) or 3.3 mm (Sony VCL lens for the Z7) is really wide!
Sure, on a digital still camera you can go wider, but I wouldn't recommend it for a camcorder. Because you have to be able to make pan and tilt movements without to much wide distortion these lenses give on a digital still camera. I have a 12mm to 24mm on my photo camera and if I look through the eye piece and move the camera around it looks really weird. I don't want to record that on tape. But if you keep the camera still and take a photograph it looks great.
It's also more expensive to get a nice wide angle lens for camcorders. I've worked with converters, but I don't like the barrel distortion you get from it... it looks cheap. I also have a digital (SD 4:3) camera with a Canon 4,4mm wide angle lens. And if you start working with such a lens, you don't want to use converters anymore. But unfortunately sometimes you have no choice.

So that's why I'm interested in this lens for the Z7. If I want to go extreme wide I will get a fish eye lens. ;) Otherwise I want a good wide lens that will fit most filming situations that I can keep on the camera most of the time.

I see what you mean, I hate barrel or cushion distortion as much as you do. But, as I'm only filming for fun, I find all these nice wide angle lenses too expensive. Which is, in your opinion, an acceptable convertor for the Z7?

Derran Rootring · April 6th, 2009, 01:59 PM

Hi Luc. I don't have a Z7 yet, but hopefully I will own one soon. I now have two camera's and one is a Z1 (which I like to replace with the Z7). On the Z1 I use the 0.8x wide converter from Sony. It does gives a bit of barrel distortion.
I'm not sure, but I think that I've seen images of the Z7 with the Z1 wide converter mounted on the front. But perhaps someone else can confirm this. If this is indeed possible, I would recommend the Sony converter.

I've also used a few Century Optics converters the last couple of years and although they are very well build, I probably wouldn't use them again. The barrel distortion was to noticeable for me. I shoot a lot of real estate, so I need to have a wide angle of view without too much distortion. But still, it's a good piece of glass and I know people that are very happy with it and never take it of their lens.

April 6th, 2009, 06:39 AM	#27
Mike Paterson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 99	Luc - I would use an air canister. Very carefully. Still waiting for someone to post some direct comparison shots of the two lenses. High res stills would be appreciated - thanks in advance. __________________ www.pfilm.co.uk

March 31st, 2009, 04:30 AM	#17
Derran Rootring Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 204	Thanks for the footage Gabor! I would really appreciate it if you would make some comparison footage of the two lenses in use. Perhaps (if it's not to much trouble) you can also show a bit of pan and tilt movements of the wide lens in use.

March 31st, 2009, 08:27 PM	#19
Greg Laves Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 640	Zach, Nikon cameras with a DX sized image device are indeed a 1.5 FOV factor when compared to 35mm film. FYI Nikon D200's or D300's certainly can not be considered "budget DSLR's" even though they do use DX sized imagers. I am not a Canon guy, but I think some of their DSLR's were a 1.6 factor.

April 1st, 2009, 04:58 PM	#22
Greg Laves Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 640	On the Z7, there is a prism that is exposed when you change lenses. The CMOS chips are not exposed at all.

April 6th, 2009, 05:02 AM	#24
Derran Rootring Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 204	On a camcorder a 3.5 mm (like the Fujinon 13x lens) or 3.3 mm (Sony VCL lens for the Z7) is really wide! Sure, on a digital still camera you can go wider, but I wouldn't recommend it for a camcorder. Because you have to be able to make pan and tilt movements without to much wide distortion these lenses give on a digital still camera. I have a 12mm to 24mm on my photo camera and if I look through the eye piece and move the camera around it looks really weird. I don't want to record that on tape. But if you keep the camera still and take a photograph it looks great. It's also more expensive to get a nice wide angle lens for camcorders. I've worked with converters, but I don't like the barrel distortion you get from it... it looks cheap. I also have a digital (SD 4:3) camera with a Canon 4,4mm wide angle lens. And if you start working with such a lens, you don't want to use converters anymore. But unfortunately sometimes you have no choice. So that's why I'm interested in this lens for the Z7. If I want to go extreme wide I will get a fish eye lens. ;) Otherwise I want a good wide lens that will fit most filming situations that I can keep on the camera most of the time.

April 6th, 2009, 05:55 AM	#26
Derran Rootring Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 204	Yes absolutely. Super wide is something you can't use for everything but their are moments you can really benefit from this effect. Also for a music shoot it can be useful. Same goes for a fish eye lens. You don't want to use it for your normal everyday shooting, but for action sports or music video's it can be a very useful effect.

April 6th, 2009, 01:59 PM	#30
Derran Rootring Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 204	Hi Luc. I don't have a Z7 yet, but hopefully I will own one soon. I now have two camera's and one is a Z1 (which I like to replace with the Z7). On the Z1 I use the 0.8x wide converter from Sony. It does gives a bit of barrel distortion. I'm not sure, but I think that I've seen images of the Z7 with the Z1 wide converter mounted on the front. But perhaps someone else can confirm this. If this is indeed possible, I would recommend the Sony converter. I've also used a few Century Optics converters the last couple of years and although they are very well build, I probably wouldn't use them again. The barrel distortion was to noticeable for me. I shoot a lot of real estate, so I need to have a wide angle of view without too much distortion. But still, it's a good piece of glass and I know people that are very happy with it and never take it of their lens.