Wide Angle Adapter

[Vince Denali]

Tom,

I would *really* appreciate reading your review on the wide angle lenses. I'm using :
Raynox HD-6600Pro58 58mm 0.66x High Quality Wide Angle Converter Lens (Front filter size: 72 mm)

It really seems to soften the image. Overexposed areas
get a major angelic halo.

Thanks for any advice.

[Tom Hardwick]

You say it really seems to soften the image. Overexposed areas
get a major angelic halo. You mean at or near full telephoto, right? At wide angle the effects you describe are not there, are they?

Remember this lens is sold as a non-distorting yet pretty powerful partial zoom-through. Raynox can't stop you zooming the whole way but they do warn in all the literature that sharpness will be lost at longer focal lengths.

I'm pretty sure that this is due to a single element aspheric being used in the three group construction. You loose the distortion so common with these A-lenses, but also loose the facility of full zoom through.

I'll send you my writeup via email Vince.

tom.

[Bob Lake]

Howdy

I have three VX2000's and use the CANON WD-58 on all three, I have absolutely no complaints. They are full zoom-thru and I have never noticed the problems you describe at any focal length or f.stop. They have a very useable lens cap also, however, as my Sons point out to me every time they see my video "Clean your lens"... keep a can of air with you.

Good Luck

Bob

[Vince Denali]

Thanks, Tom. Thanks for sending me your reviews. They're a major help.

Yeah, the literature says the Raynox 0.66 can zoom through up to 6x, but my VX-2000 doesn't have a limit. If there were a way
to limit the zoom, I'd go for that. The angelic halos are kinda white and wispy, and they're caused by direct overhead lighting and overexposure (as you'd guessed). They only seem to show up at the higher zooms. I've improved the lighting and understand how to avoid this. My main problem is that often,
I'm the subject ot the videos. I'll have to train my friends !

I'll check out full zoom through lenses, such as the WD-58.
I'll trade some vignetting for full zoom through.

Also, I seem to have some autofocus problems. I'm trying to
find the culprit. I'm not sure if my FL-W filter or the Raynox 0.66
are the causes.

[Tom Hardwick]

There's no way you can limit how far the VX zoom ring goes Vince, but you can certainly turn off that dreadful digital zoom. The softness caused by the Raynox at long telephoto settings is very aperture dependant and wide apertures give big differences between centre and edge sharpness. Smaller apertures around f8 even up the frame but still there's this veiling flare look which can be very flattering to "ladies of a certain age".

It's one of the reasons I sold my Raynox, much as I liked the lack of distortion it produced. It really does cry out for a good lens hood and it's best to use it with any filter removed from the lens.

tom.

[Vince Denali]

Tom,

Even though I read all of your postings, it's a bit difficult to figure out which 0.7x you use. Actually, if you don't mind, please list model info on your 0.3x a 0,4x, a 0.5x and a 0.7x.

I only need a bit of a wide angle extension. The Raynox 0.66 is too much for my application, which is taping martial arts sparring in a two car garage. I think I need something >= 0.75x .
If I back up any more, I'm outside the garage and have a very narrow field of view.

Thanks for your fine advice.

[Tom Hardwick]

I don't actually have a 0.7x converter but I can understand your reasons for wanting one. There's no point in going wider than you need to but...

Why buy a 0.7x (say) rather than a 0.5X that you can set at the 0.7x point?

For a lot of folk the exaggerated perspective of the 0.5x zoom is just not needed, in the same way as 28mm wide-angles are more popular than 21mm lenses in 35mm photography. The latter are a lot more difficult to use creatively, and generally are bigger and heavier to boot.

It's the same with camcorder wide-angle converters. The more powerful the lens the more it's bending the light before passing on this light to the front element of your zoom lens. This means a 0.5x converter has to bend the light through much greater angles than a 0.66x or a milder 0.75x. And it's this bending of the light that's difficult to do without causing distortion or adding chromatic aberration or introducing flare or altering the flatness of field or reducing the aperture.

So a 0.5x converter will generally be heavier (more thick glass) bigger and more expensive than a lens of lesser power, especially if you want the same performance out of it.

But back to your post. I have a Schneider Kreuznach 0.65x which gives beautifully undistorted pictures but is uncoated so has to be used with great care (and great lens hoods) even indoors. I have a Kenko VTR MacroWide 0.6x which is a spherical element (non zoom through) but nicely coated. I have a 0.5x Tecpro that again is beautifully coated and very sharp. I hate the distortion at full wide though. And I have a home made 0.35x and a fisheye that gives cutoff to the circular image top and bottom of the frame.

tom.

[Vince Denali]

Thanks for the info, Tom.

I'm interested in limiting the Zoom because I'm doing
dynamic zooming. I want a fixed zoom range in
a somewhat specialized application: recording
martial arts sparring in a 15'x20' two car garage.
Since I'm not always operating the camera (I
participate!), I really don't want a full
zoom-out because it includes too darn much of
the garage. One fellow, despite lots of coaching,
just zooms out and forgets to follow the action
because he's busy watching it. I'd like to
"fire" him, but he's a regular and thus I think
I'm better off trying to train him. I'm bummed
that all of the fights save *mine* are well-framed
and properly zoomed.

Without the wide angle adapter, I'm
not able to frame two moving fighters in scene.
The vx-2000 full zoom-in causes too much
fuzziness with my Raynox 0.66 . With all of the
comments, I think I'll be able to solve this problem.

[Marc Martin]

I'm searching the best Wide Angle (58mm), the most sharp, with the less barrel distorsion as possible.

I know Optex and Century are very good, but which model?
I know also that 0.5 and 0.55 are not full zooming, but it's not a problem for me.

Thank in advance

[Mike Rehmus]

Marc,

Please do a search on the subject. It has been discussed in many threads in this forum.

If after the search, you still have questions, please feel free to ask them.

In fact, there is a good thread on WA use with good pointers to further information at http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11474

Thanks

P.S. Except for the spelling of your first name, did you know you share your name with one of our more famous NASCAR drivers?

[Dave Valencic]

I own the Century 0.55x and can tell you to avoid it if you don't want barrel distortion. Its fairly noticeable too..

For what I use it for, the barrel distortion isn't really a problem (mostly used for an on-stage camera for concerts or for shooting landscapes)

[Tom Hardwick]

To get "the most sharp with the least barrel distortion" you'll have to go for the Raynox 6600 Pro. It goes soft at full telephoto, but this is a wide-angle connverter, right?

It's cheaper than the Century 0.65x and it's not as heavy, as big or as well coated, but at wide it's just as sharp and it distorts straight lines a *lot* less.

tom.

[Lou Bruno]

I use the Canon WD-58. It is an excellent lens and not too costly. I recently purchased the Canon lens hood as well. Good investment for me.

[Dave Valencic]

Doesn't optex make a dual 0.7x combo lens that gets like 0.45x without any distortion? It uses a 72mm 0.7x lens, then uses a much larger one on top of that (one for ENG lenses...so probably like 95mm or so)

[Tom Hardwick]

I've tried this (very expensive) combo on my VX2k Dave. Sad to report that even at that price they're spherical lenses and the distortions are very apparemnt indeed. I was dissappointed.

tom.