Best Wide Angle for EX1

Mitchell Lewis · February 21st, 2010, 11:01 AM

I screwed up and bought the Century .75 adapter. While the image looks fine in my opinion, the difference is very small. In hindsight I should have bought the .6. But I didn't buy it because it's not a zoom through adapter....right? In hindsight, that wouldn't have mattered. Anyone wanna trade?

Jonathan Bland · February 21st, 2010, 01:59 PM

Hey Boyd, Thanks for the note :)
For sure there is going to be distortion..... I guess I'm thinking that one has to decide if it motivates or just what one CAN do to use this effect. I think I've decide it will work well for what I'm going after.

That's funny Mitchell.... from the posts I've combed through it seems most want to go in the opposite direction your headed so maybe you can find a trade.

Boyd Ostroff · February 21st, 2010, 02:11 PM

I have come to the conclusion that if I really want a nice, undistorted wide for my EX1, I'm going to need a 35mm adaptor. I have a Nikon 14mm f2 lens which is really nice. But I don't think I'm quite ready to deal with all the issues (and cost) of a 35mm adaptor at this point.

Jonathan Bland · February 21st, 2010, 02:47 PM

Fully agreed Boyd.

My original question still stands.... does can anyone comment on which 0.6X wide angle they would go with and why?

sony ex1 0.6x

Mitchell Lewis · February 21st, 2010, 07:41 PM

Remember if you go with a 35mm adaptor, you loose a lot of light. This is fine if you're shooting outdoors, but indoors is a pain. To get a decent depth of field (something other than wide open) you need a lot of light.

I'd buy a Canon 5D MkII and a 16-35mm zoom before I'd buy a 35mm adaptor. (don't ask how I know)

Jonathan Bland · February 25th, 2010, 01:48 PM

Hi Folks,

I'm getting ready to order a 0.6X Wide Angle for the EX1 and am thinking of going with 16x9 Inc.
16x9 Inc. | 169-HDWA6X-EX EXII 0.6x Wide Angle | 169-HDWA6X-EX

Does anyone know the outside diameter of this adaptor?
I mailed B&H and they are suggesting the:
16x9 Inc. 169HU104 Lens Hood Shade.... but it's $170 and that seems a little much when you have all the Cavisions ones going for much less. My old Cavision hood was well made and stood up to everything thrown at it..... but it's a million miles from me now.

Again... what the outside diameter of the 16x9 Inc's 0.6x wide angle for the EX1?

Big thanks :)

Tom Hardwick · February 25th, 2010, 02:51 PM

I'm with Mitchell - if I bother to carry and fit a wide converter / adapter I want it to be good and wide, not a mild 0.8x that costs a bomb and weighs a ton. I'm prepared to accept that I'll be down to 60% of my zoom range.

Have you seen this 16:9 lens in action Jonathan? My strong hunch is that you'll be given oodles of barrel distortion which you'll love on the skateboard but hate in the cathedral.

You'll want a 16:9 hood (the aspect ratio, not the manufacturer). All the Cavision hoods I've seen are 4:3. Of course you'll be shooting with the equivalent of a 19 mm lens, so you won't be able to have much hooding anyway. You'll be relying on the element's super multi-coating. And this 0.6x is SMC, is it? I can find no mention in the words.

tom.

Tom Hardwick · February 25th, 2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Daviss

Edge to edge sharpness, zero chromatic aberration and no distortion? Without spending $25k? Nope. EX1 lens suffers distortion when wide as it stands, and any wangle will simply enhance that

I agree with your first sentence and the first part of your second Matt, but you don't have to accept an increase in the barrel distortion - not if you use a powerful aspherical element. My Z1 barrels quite unacceptably (in my view) at the wide end, but my 0.52x aspheric cures that.

tom.

Jonathan Bland · February 25th, 2010, 03:06 PM

Good points all around Tom.

No I haven't seen the lens in action.
As far as those straight cathedrals go... I'm lens a doc in a country where everything is bent, crooked, corrupted, dilapidated and covered is a heavy fecal coliform bacterial soot..... I'm hoping the 0.6 will help take this right over the edge.... but I need one that is sharp at full wide with zero or almost zero vignetting.

Any other thought greatly appreciated :)

February 21st, 2010, 11:01 AM	#16
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	I screwed up and bought the Century .75 adapter. While the image looks fine in my opinion, the difference is very small. In hindsight I should have bought the .6. But I didn't buy it because it's not a zoom through adapter....right? In hindsight, that wouldn't have mattered. Anyone wanna trade? __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

February 21st, 2010, 07:41 PM	#20
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	Remember if you go with a 35mm adaptor, you loose a lot of light. This is fine if you're shooting outdoors, but indoors is a pain. To get a decent depth of field (something other than wide open) you need a lot of light. I'd buy a Canon 5D MkII and a 16-35mm zoom before I'd buy a 35mm adaptor. (don't ask how I know) __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

February 21st, 2010, 01:59 PM	#17
Jonathan Bland Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Way Far Away Posts: 230	Hey Boyd, Thanks for the note :) For sure there is going to be distortion..... I guess I'm thinking that one has to decide if it motivates or just what one CAN do to use this effect. I think I've decide it will work well for what I'm going after. That's funny Mitchell.... from the posts I've combed through it seems most want to go in the opposite direction your headed so maybe you can find a trade.

February 21st, 2010, 02:11 PM	#18
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,798	I have come to the conclusion that if I really want a nice, undistorted wide for my EX1, I'm going to need a 35mm adaptor. I have a Nikon 14mm f2 lens which is really nice. But I don't think I'm quite ready to deal with all the issues (and cost) of a 35mm adaptor at this point.

February 21st, 2010, 02:47 PM	#19
Jonathan Bland Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Way Far Away Posts: 230	Fully agreed Boyd. My original question still stands.... does can anyone comment on which 0.6X wide angle they would go with and why? sony ex1 0.6x

February 25th, 2010, 01:48 PM	#21
Jonathan Bland Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Way Far Away Posts: 230	Hi Folks, I'm getting ready to order a 0.6X Wide Angle for the EX1 and am thinking of going with 16x9 Inc. 16x9 Inc. \| 169-HDWA6X-EX EXII 0.6x Wide Angle \| 169-HDWA6X-EX Does anyone know the outside diameter of this adaptor? I mailed B&H and they are suggesting the: 16x9 Inc. 169HU104 Lens Hood Shade.... but it's $170 and that seems a little much when you have all the Cavisions ones going for much less. My old Cavision hood was well made and stood up to everything thrown at it..... but it's a million miles from me now. Again... what the outside diameter of the 16x9 Inc's 0.6x wide angle for the EX1? Big thanks :)

February 25th, 2010, 02:51 PM	#22
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'm with Mitchell - if I bother to carry and fit a wide converter / adapter I want it to be good and wide, not a mild 0.8x that costs a bomb and weighs a ton. I'm prepared to accept that I'll be down to 60% of my zoom range. Have you seen this 16:9 lens in action Jonathan? My strong hunch is that you'll be given oodles of barrel distortion which you'll love on the skateboard but hate in the cathedral. You'll want a 16:9 hood (the aspect ratio, not the manufacturer). All the Cavision hoods I've seen are 4:3. Of course you'll be shooting with the equivalent of a 19 mm lens, so you won't be able to have much hooding anyway. You'll be relying on the element's super multi-coating. And this 0.6x is SMC, is it? I can find no mention in the words. tom.

February 25th, 2010, 03:06 PM	#24
Jonathan Bland Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Way Far Away Posts: 230	Good points all around Tom. No I haven't seen the lens in action. As far as those straight cathedrals go... I'm lens a doc in a country where everything is bent, crooked, corrupted, dilapidated and covered is a heavy fecal coliform bacterial soot..... I'm hoping the 0.6 will help take this right over the edge.... but I need one that is sharp at full wide with zero or almost zero vignetting. Any other thought greatly appreciated :)