Great idea.

PD-150 WA Soft Focus
 

I also have the Sony .7 wide angle lens and I too seem to have focus problems fully zoomed in through the wide angle lens. It does seem to mimic a back focus problem like broadcast cameras.

Pity it doesn't have a back focus adjustment like the broadcast cameras.

For whaterver it's worth, I took my lens and mounted it on someones VX-1000 and it did not have a focus problem like my 150. Wish I had a line into the Sony Engineers....

If you call the Sony pro help line, you can sometimes talk directly with a sony engineer through them.

FWIW, the 800 number pro hotline for we PD-150 owners is very useful.

tests to run on new pd-150
 

thanks mike for the tip on testing focus with adapter. i'll test the back focus as well.
any other tests you think i should try before using the pd for a shoot / warranty expires?

Canon's WA
 

I just got a Canon WD-58H which I use with my pd150 and it's great, I haven't had any of these focusing problems and there is surprisingly little distortion around the edges when at full WA. The best part is that is came with a lens hood which means I don't have to use any more tin can lens hoods for my old WA lens and TRV900.

does the Century lense have a much wider angle than the Canon one?

Century Optics makes a .55x .65x and .3x (fish eye). Where as the Canon is .7x the same as the Sony .7x but at half the cost. I paid about $350 CND before taxes for the Canon, Sony wanted something like $650 CND before taxes. Both provide the same image quality and the Canon even comes with a lens hood.

The only thing that seperates the different Century optics wide angle lens's is their ability to zoom. With the .65x lens you have full zoom capability, the .55x only has partial, and I don't believe that the fish eye has any zoom. Most of the Century Optics WA's are over $900 CND.

So yeah the Century lense does have a much wider angle than the Canon, but you must be prepared to pay for it.

65x Century wide angle converter
 

I am hesistant about ordering this expensive lense. Some users are pleased with it and for others it gives too much distortion making their footage look "amateurish".

Anyone know any really good honest examples up on the web so I can make a better judgment?

Would anyone recommend this lense for filmmaking - dramatic story telling?

That's the best wide angle available for the VX, I think. However, it has no filter threads in the front---if that's important. A friend of mine has the Kenko, the top grade model. It's mich cheaper, very solid, no distortion that I can see, and also comes with filter threads.

Tiffens are very good. I don't know if they make one for the VX size, though. I believe Canon and Optex also make good ones.

65x Century wide angle converter
 

I've searched my bookmarks in vain for the article that persuaded me to buy the Canon WD-58 (0.7 x 58) lens. It was written by a pro shooter whose opinion was that for the money it was the best value. I've used it for some months now with complete satisfaction - but I'm not making my living through the viewfinder [yet :-) ].

I am a bit displeased with my Century 0.65 WA.

I think it is a bit too soft even though it is a zoom-through.

I'm going to test it with a waveform monitor (focus check) when I get my PD150 back from Sony.

so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost?

I think just as good, but sharper and with filter threads. I've seen a lot of VX2000/Kenko wide angle footage played back on my friend's Sony deck. In fact hours and hours of the stuff. His Kenko wide and tele are very well made. Keep in mind that there are 3 lines of Kenko adaptors, their high-end line is best. And yes, they are a lot cheaper than the Century adaptors. The Century uses German glass. I think this is Century's strong point. But I doubt this makes a difference for VX shot video. I would also check out Tiffen adaptors. They are even better, but I am not sure if they make them for the VX filter size. I don't know anything about the Canon, but I have also heard good things about them.

Oh, and one more thing. I know this poor guy in Hawaii with a PD150 and O'Connor tripod. He bought a Century tele. When he got it, it was defective and had to send it back to B&H. When he got the second one, it was defective too, and sent it back. Lucky with the 3rd time around, it was fine. However, because the Century does not have filter threads (unlike the Kenko and Tiffens), the adaptor's lens got destroyed. He did a lot of surf shooting at his local beach, and the fine sand particles in the air ate away his lens. My friend and his Kenkos are protected with filters: UV or polarizer, depending on the conditions. And with wides, filters can cause darks around the edges, but I found that this is not the case with Kenkos. I don't know about the others about this.

<<<-- Originally posted by walesfilmclub : so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost? -->>>

I can't vouch for the Kenko, but I have a Century Optics .65 Wide Angle adapter for my PD-150... and I am pleased with it.

It has a bayonet mount (which I consider to be superior to threads... but that's just my opinion) which attaches with a 1/4 turn.

The focus is sharp throughout the entire zoom range. I never take it off the camera!

There is only a slight bit of barrel distortion (which I have found that the average Joe will not see) at full wide angle... but at .65, I suppose that is to be expected.

Like anything else, each piece of equipment is unique... and I could have just as easily been one of those people who bought one that is too "soft"... but, luckily, I was not.

Mine ran me $365, if I remember right. Well worth it, as I'm happy with the results. ($100 would be too much if I wasn't.)

I attach a 4x4 filter box to mine, which I always have at least the UV filter in. Call me crazy, but I used to live in Hawaii... and no matter where you are, the wind could blow something into your expensive lens and screw it up. I'd rather be safe, than sorry.

If you cruise this bbs, you will find many people (who, by the way, are far more experienced than me) that will disagree. That's okay. In the final analysis, it's YOUR money... and YOUR product... so the decision will be YOURS.

I live by this credo:

"Nothing is more expensive than the product that doesn't work."

Good luck with your decision... no matter what it is!

I've tried the Kenko, but found it pretty poor -- lots of chromatic distortion and very soft focus at the edges. I wound up with an Optex .65x converter (from ZGC for $299). It's also a bayonet mount, and has front threads. Best of all, it doesn't vignette, even with standard filters screwed in front.

It's much better than the Kenko -- some slight chromatic distortion at the edges, but much sharper at the edges. I leave it attached all the time.

You can see examples of shots taken with the Kenko here:

http://members.cox.net/tauger.paul/Video%20Page/Kenko%20Comparison.htm

Thanks. Which Kenko was that? They make 3 different grades.

I don't know about the different grades of Kenko lenses. The one on the website was a KRW-065 Pro, about $159 from B&H.

I think that's their top end. Like I said, the VX/Kenko footage looked great. However, on a high-end monitor, it might not look as great as the German glass adaptor. It's just too bad the Century doesn't have filter threads, like when you're shooting at a beach.

Has anyone tried any of Tiffens wide angle adaptors? Their glass/design is supposed to be better. I've only looked and tried the Tiffen in the 37mm and 43mm size.

http://www.tiffen.com

I'm lost here...

Are bayonet adapters subject to leakage by sand, etc? Is that why some people WANT threaded adapters?

I was under the belief that the threads may become worn... as well as being slower in general to change lenses.

I was talking about filter threads on the front of the adaptor, so you can screw on a UV or polarizer etc. This will also protect the front glass of the adaptor.

just a question a little off topic... but i recently purchased a century optics 65 WA adapter and became a little conserned after reading a few posts up about defected lenses.
what defects were these?

are there any tests i can run on my WA adapter to see if its ok?

i have a shoot scheduled in two days. first time out with my pd150 and new accessories. i want to bring unexpted problems to a minimum, expecially if it has to to with camera equipment.

thanks.

I am inclined to go with the Kenko now if it is "just as good" and half the price.

no, no, I just cancelled the Kenko one after some bad reviews.

What about the Raynox 66x? is that better? Maybe I should order all three and send the others back.

in what way can a wide angle adapter be defected?

Re: wide angle adaptor
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Adi Head : i just bought a century optics 0.65x and a B+W UV filter for my pd150.
i guess this may be a silly question, but after trying i can't help but come to the conclusion that in order to fit on the WA adaptor, i have to first remove the UV filter which is usually screwed on to protect the camera lense. is this true? i didn't want to try too hard to place the WA adaptor on top of the filter, for fear of scratching the filter. -->>>

I just received the Raynox 65x lense which I am happy with. See nothing wrong with it. I screwed it right on over my uv filter and the pressure cracked the filter. So I will make sure to take all filters off of the camera before mounting a lense.

Wide Angel Conversion Lens
 

I have Century Wide Angel Conversion lens, the same one as Mike's. I go shoot video and I get a lot of vending effect where the thing on the top edge of the video looks big, and things in the middle is small. So if I shoot a person, and framed such that head is near the top of the frame, then the subject's head is SO MUCH larger than body, it looks like a marsian.

Is there a way to avoid this, but still be able to stand closer to the subject.

I use the WD-58 not the Century but from reading pasts posts here the Century did not seem to distort the image any and as far as i know its a full zoom thru lens (.65).
If its a screw on mount be sure that it is threaded properly and i would screw it directly on the lens and not stacked on top say a UV filter etc.

Thank you,

Yes, it's screwed right on the lens with bayonet mount. I checks just before I start shoot everytime. Is it because I am standing from the arm length away from the talent trying to get wast up body shot? If so, is there any lens that does let me tape it without distoriton.

Anne,
perspective distortion with a WA or fisheye lens can be hard to get around. With a WA lens the closer you get to you subject the more distortion and more out of perspective the subject will look. Try this; with the lens on and the cam on a tripod, get in really close to an object. Focus on the near point of the object and then look at the perspective, then move back a foot or two and focus in on it again. You'll probably see less perspective distortion but you're shot will have changed so try a little zoom for framing. Generally with a WA lens have to back off just a little so as not to have the distortion.
Hope this helps,
Don

This may be an impertenant question but if you are shooting with a WA lens why are you so close to the object or person that you are taping? Wide angle and particularly fisheys lens are used to create 'artistic' distortion close up. If you are close why not just take the lens off? Or am I missing something?

I use WA so that even when I am standing up against the stage, I will stil be able to frame wide enough to get a shot that has knee up to the head of the subject. Isn't that what WA supposed to do though?

If you are close enough with a wide enough angle lens you will get distortion. The distortion can be fine if that is what you are going for. Otherwise take off the adapter and go for the close up or move back from the subject.

<<<-- Originally posted by RagadyAnne : I use WA so that even when I am standing up against the stage, I will stil be able to frame wide enough to get a shot that has knee up to the head of the subject. Isn't that what WA supposed to do though? -->>>

"Standing at the edge of the stage"??? Does this mean you are standing in the audience below stage level looking up at your subject? If so, yes, any wide angle lens will distort from this angle. You see it very often in rock concerts on television.

If you are standing eye to eye with your subject at arms length, and getting distortion, try zooming in a bit. It should help eliminate some of the distortion. Also be aware to hold your camera as level as possible to help eliminate the "parallax" effect with the wide lens.

Does the footage I did last night looks distorted? I shot 2 song without WA. The following footage is how the thing looks. I followed advice, first forcused on how I want frame, the stepped back 2 feet then reframed it. the result looks like this:

http://207.44.160.90/~admin8/testmedia/testfile.wmv

Thanks for advice.

Wide Angle Lens Sony vs. Canon
 

Which lens do you think is better the Canon wide angel or the Sony
wide angel? Is there a third choice?

I know nothing about the Canon except that it doesn't have filter threads. The Sony is made by Kenko, and is basically the same as the Kenko Pro, except that the Sony doesn't have filter threads, whereas the Kenko Pro does. Plus, for the lack of the treads, Sony charges extra for this. Go figure. Century also makes adaptors for the VX2000, but no filter threads.

Wide Angle Lens Sony vs. Canon
 

Despite owning the Canon WA-58 my experience isn't sufficient to qualify me as the answer source, but my reading over many months echos what I've come to believe, that the Canon is a great piece of glass for the money. I understand it now comes in a kit form complete with lens hood.

Joe:
I've used the Sony once, and I own the WA-58 Canon. I can say the Canon is an exceptional WA adapter - smooth zoom through with no distortion and/or aberrations at either end of the zoom range (no vignetting, no fall-off, no nothing). David is correct, it now comes with a lens hood thrown in as part of the kit. The lack of filter threads can be a nuisance, but hey, you can't have it all! :-)
Hope this helps...
Ram

I bought a Sony WA adapter for my VX1000 and a Canon WA adapter for my PD150.

I like the Canon better. The Sony vinettes far more easily. I find I can stack two filters behind the Canon without problems. The Canon is an excellent value for the money.

I wouldn't think the design would allow for filters between it and the camera lens. At best there must be some type of distortion even if not readilly detectible.