Wide Angle Adapter

[Joe Moore]

Thanks Boyd that is what I needed to know. Have a good one.

[Pat Sherman]

Hey All..

This may be a dumb question.. But I figure no question is dumb..

Regarding the PD-170 with it's standard lens and the Sony Wide Lens adapter it comes with. Is there any reason why I shouldn't just keep the wide lens on it 24x7? Do I lose anything by using the wide lens over the standard lens? If so, what are the pro's and con's to using the wide all the time?

Thanks

[Boyd Ostroff]

I know that some people do leave the wide lenses on all the time. I have that Sony wide lens for my VX-2000 and the image does seem very nice. However, any glass that you add in front of the builtin lens has to degrade the image somewhat. I think it will be more of an issue when you're shooting towards a light source because of internal reflections. Of course it's also big and heavy. Personally, I'd only put it on when you need it.

[Laurence Kingston]

I leave my wide angle lens on pretty much all the time. It really makes sense to do this if your main thing is run and gun work. The stock lense simply isn't wide enough for this type of work. Not only can you get more in the shot, but handheld camera work is smoothed out as well. Think of this: if you are on a film set, walls are missing and you can get away from the action a little and still frame the shot. The audio boom guy will get the mic in close in spite of how far back the camera is. In a run and gun situation, there isn't room to get far enough back to frame a shot, and even if you could, you'd be to far away to get decent audio with the camera mic.

[Richard Zlamany]

When I first started using the pd170 I kept the WA lens on all the time until I recorded an event and the focus looked soft when optically zoomed all the way in. So I stopped zooming in all the way to stop this and zoomed in only three quaters. Now when I do an event that will have full zoom I keep the WA lens off and the focus is perfect. In short I only use the WA lens when necessary otherwise I feel it compromises the zoom shot. It might compromise other aspects of the video as well.

[Tom Hardwick]

All the replies raise valid points and all of them are true of course. The Panasonic DVX100 saw Sony's 'mistake' in having a lens with not much wide-angle coverage, and their zoom starts a lot wider.

I'm firmly of the opinion that having any extra glass (including filters) in front of your Sony zoom degrades the image, albeit only slightly. But if you need an anamorphic or you need more telephoto, then there's no way around this, you must shoot through more glass.

You'll also notice Pat that the 170's wide-angle adapter exagerates the barrel distortion that's inherrent in the Sony 12x zoom. This won't be noticeable with a lot of subjects, but horizons, buildings, telegraph poles will all show it up. This is one of the downsides in my view.

tom.

[Pat Sherman]

Hey all thanks for your replies..

This PD-170 in question is mainly used for weddings as the 1st camera up near the B&G while the PD-150 without any lenses is used for the back of the church/venue on the B&G.

I also have a Century .65x Wide Angle for the camera as well. I have used it on the PD-150 before I thought that the full zoom looked a bit funny and soft with that on. However shooting with the DV Sunshade and UV-410 4x4 glass filter I wasn't sure if it was the lens or the filter that caused this..

Now on the 170 with the Sony wide I don't notice it as much as I do with the century but I'm glad it's not just me when it comes to 100% pefect focus with these wide angles..

So in your professional opinions shooting weddings and specifically close up since this camera is usually at the front of the action it should be ok with the Wide and just try to avoid longer zooms with it?

I guess my only gripe with the 170 WA is the sunhood that comes with it and that you have to take it apart in 3 pieces to remove the lens and put the sunhood back together again or just don't use it at all.. Which brings up another question.. How many shoot with the hood and/or without the hood?

These are all pretty basic questions probably, but a little background I have spent over 6 years in editing and just started within the last year doing producing and camera work.. So forgive my ignorance..

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

The Panasonic DVX100 saw Sony's 'mistake' in having a lens with not much wide-angle coverage, and their zoom starts a lot wider.

And of course Sony also addressed this on the FX1 and Z1 with a wider standard lens which I think is pretty similar to the DVX. But I have some mixed feelings about this. The shorter focal length helps in many situations, but it's still not like the effect of a wide angle lens. The long end of the zoom is rather lacking. This is a problem for event work, like filming a show from 100' away, and the 72mm telephoto adaptors are real monsters.

I guess it's hard to have your cake and eat it to...

[Pat Sherman]

LOL! As long as stuff costs money it's will always be hard to have your cake and eat it too..

Anyways, for shows such as a seminar I have had real good success with the Century 2x Teleconvertor lens. Although you need to zoom at least halfway in order to use it, but I find it adds some distance to your zoom and at full zooms looks really good.. I guess if I taped more seminars than I do I would probably look atleast at the DSR-250 or 500, not having used those myself I could only assume quality and possible lens attachments should or would offer more of a selection and better quality?

[Tom Hardwick]

I shoot a lot of weddings with my two VX2000s. Like you Pat the one at the back / off to the side is always devoid of any lens attachments, whereas the one that's under my control is the one that (sometimes) has to be fitted with a wide-angle converter.

I say sometimes because if I can get away without using the 0.5x wide-angle, I will. With it in place I'm reduced to having a 7.5x zoom (3 mm to 23 mm), and suddeny you can't get big, bold closeups of the ring being fitted, the tear in her mother's eye and so on. But as I say - there are times when the situation is so cramped there really is no alternative, and it's at times like these that the VX/PD focal range is not ideal.

Why the reduction from a 12x zoom to a 7.5x zoom? Because I insist on having no barrel distortion and consequently use a single element aspheric. This means the church pillars remain straight and true and the registry office ceiling remains unbowed. People satand upright rather than bending outwards in the middle.

I've looked long and hard at the FX1/Z1 as a replacement, but as a wedding and events photographer my need is for the telephoto end to be good, fast and powerful. I can always add a wide-angle when needs be, but I don't want to be having to carry a wide and a tele converter. The 12x zoom of the FX1 is from semi-wide to so-so tele. The DVX100 is even worse - the telephoto peters out at 45 mm (72 mm on the VX) so it's not for me.

For any sort of differential focus control you need long focal lengths (VX) and fast lenses (VX). And an excellent Steadyshot.

[Craig Terott]

I leave it on 24/7. Perhaps I should start a new thread but... my PD-170 wide lens seems to have a problem. There's a small spec that keeps re-appearing in the same spot and I believe it's caused by a very shallow dent or something. I can clean it off and it will go away but it keeps re-appearing when I go outside and the lens picks up stuff in the air. Anyway I understand this little tiny spec is not normal and my question is this... is the only cure to purchase a new one or is there some lens maintenance method or kit that can bring it back to life?

[Craig Terott]

never mind, bought a new one.

[Tom Hardwick]

It sounds as if there was some foreign matter between the 3 elements of the w'angle converter you had Craig - or maybe as you say a damage to one of the lens element surfaces. I had tiny specks inside two Cavision 0.5x lenses and returned them both.

When you go outside (as you mention) you camera is much more likely to be using smaller apertures, and these bring the foreign matter into sharper perspective simply because of the huge depth of field. This then shadows the image and you get the specks.

Just 2 days ago on TV there were many scenes (shot in a re-enactment of a 1960s holiday camp) where a creepy-crawly was happily walking all over the front element of the camera. The way it appeared and disappeared showed the editing order quite well.

tom.

[Craig Terott]

Thanks Tom, no it wouldn't be between anything - it keeps showing up on the outside surface of the lens. I'll can clean it away but in no time it seems to collect debris again in that same tiny spot. Must be a dent.

I think I'm out $300 cookies on this one.

[Mike Rehmus]

You might try and clean the surface of the lens with something that will drain off the static charge if there is any. Have you looked at the surface with a magnifier to see what might be there?