Hi Miles,
Very interesting stuff. let us know when you have the xm2/gl2 working.

We're Wandering A Bit...
 

Brad's original question related to DOF using the WD58H adapter on his GL2. If anyone has anything to add specifically to this subject, please do so.

Otherwise, please start a new thread if you really have something new to add to the general, and enormous, body of depth-of-field information we already have on the boards.

Thanks again to you all, especially Jeff for summarizing the necessary steps to get the most DOF from the GL2. With no photography background, as many of you obviously have, the DOF that I have seen from the GL2 is impressive. Perhaps writers set the bar a little lower, or maybe ignorance truly is bliss.

Thanks again,

Brad

Brad,

it's apparent you are happy with the DOF you are achieving. Besides implementing Jeff's suggestions, are you using ND filters or polarizer?

Val,

I just received two ND filters, and our polarizer has been great. The DOF appears to be good when we take the time to work for it. My only major complaint is that I like the image stabilizer when used with the WD-58H, and I am a little disappointed that shallow DOF is achieved better without the adaptor attached.

I look forward to using the ND filters in the days ahead.

Brad

My WD-58H vs. Century .65x Tests -- Updated
 

For those of you looking to save a few bucks, but still get good quality, I'm sure this is one of the points where we all ask ourselves -- "Is it really worth that much more?!"

In a nutshell, the answer is no. I shot identical video last week using my GL2 with both the Century Optics' $400 .65x bayonet W/A adapter and Canon's $170 0.7x screw-mount W/A adapter. The only difference was that the Century was imperceptibly wider and had a hair more barrel distortion all the way out (both have noticeable distortion, there's no getting around it).

The Canon was just as sharp all the way through to max zoom. There is a slight, but noticeable, drop-off in sharpness when zoomed all the way in while using the adapters as well. I reviewed the video on my new Sony HDTV monitor and the video was of the same subject using the same settings.

Best of all -- the Canon will used the same Century accessories! I am using the Century matte box fastened to the Canon WD-58 and it fits PERFECTLY! I will post a link to a photo later. Also, if you won't be using filters the Canon comes with a very nice, very usable HOOD that is an absolute necessity as both W/A adapters are HIGHLY flare-prone without adequate shading.

Just a quick FYI for those interested. Naturally, if you need a teleconverter/extender, a 16:9 adapter, or fisheye Canon has no options and you'll need either the Century or Optex, but in this case feel absolutely safe and free to save $200 and get the Canon over the Century. I went in thinking I was going to buy the Century and almost didn't even bother to test the WD-58, but I'm glad I did as it is a really impressive adapter -- regardless of price.

PS. I can post screen shots of each zoomed all the way in if any wish them. It'll take me a few days as I'm still reviewing the video we shot at the Rain Forest in Olympic Nat'l Park, Ruby and Second Beaches, Eagle Creek, Punch Bowl, and Cape Flattery.

==========
REVISED
==========

I thought I would add a couple of important notes. The first would be regarding the use of the optical image stabilizer and any W/A adapter. The use of any W/A adapter on either the GL2 or the VX2000 seriously degrades the stabilizer's performance in either of these cameras. I have the Sony 0.7x W/A adapter on the VX2000 and both the Canon WD-58H and Century 0.65x with the GL2. Using the adapters renders the IS on both cameras virtually ineffective, so be aware and take this into account if you're shooting handheld.

The second point is to emphasize the optical abberations that all of these adapters introduce. No matter how good the optics of the adapter are you're still putting a lot more glass in front of the stock lens. Not only is the barrel distortion pronounced and readily visible when zoomed all the way out (widest), but when shooting either horizontal or vertical lines they really advertise the distortion to even the untrained eye. It's not fisheye, by any mean, but as the old saying goes "you need to give a little to get a little." Also, all of these adapters visibly reduce sharpness at the long end (max zoom) -- there's just no avoiding it. If you don't have anything to directly compare it to, then it looks pretty sharp, but if you compare identical, full-zoom shots with and without an adapter you can see some image softening. It's not dramatic, but if you're a stickler for ultimate sharpness you need to know that there is degradation.

Thanks for the info. I was looking at that choice for the next month or so. I'll save my money.

WD-58H Wide Angle Lens
 

I have this wide angle lens, but when I got it there was not the small hood that I was told that comes with it now. Has anybody picked this lens up with the hood, and where did you get it. I would like to see if I can get just the hood.

Mark

Just did that myself, through B&H in NYC (I bought on-line). It was about $39USD and I had to phone to get a part # to search with as I couldn't find the item offered anywhere on the site.
I'm probably the only poor sap who would do this but I'll mention that while it fits in any position there's only one right way to mount it. Viewing my footage after first using it I discovered I had caught edges both left and right in full wide, because I had it at 90 degrees to the correct position. The tightening screw should be at 3 o'clock, like the hood that comes with the camera - I should have seen that as a clue.

David Hurdon

Mark,

if you bought it as "WD-58H" the hood should definititely be in the package. Otherwise you bought the "older" version, the WD-58 and you'll have to order the hood seperately.

Chris

Thanks Chris
 

I bought the lens about a year ago and it did not have the "H"on it, so unless I hear back from someone else with a better place to get the hood, I'll just contact Canon.

Kind regards,

Mark

A year ago the hood wasn't available. It wasn't introduced until the GL2 came out last July. The hood is always available as a separate item from any authorized Canon dealer. I urge you to consider purchasing from any of our DV Info Net Community Sponsors, as you'll be supporting this message board when you buy from them. Hope this helps,

Chris, what happened to Lyle Pendy's post with the B&H URL for buying the WD-58 lens hood? I no sooner read it than it disappeared, when yours arrived with the comment about forum sponsors.

David Hurdon

David, it's my policy to point readers to our sponsors. I removed the B&H link because it's detrimental to the folks who are paying for these boards... our site sponsors, who are dealers every bit as good as the "Big & Huge." I promote small businesses because I myself am a small business. Many of our members are small business people. B&H is not going to suffer in the interim. Meanwhile, our site sponsors have the same item in stock at the same price. I've stated before many times, and will state once again now, that as the owner of the boards, I reserve the right of having the final say on all where-to-buy questions. Hope this helps,

Raynox .3 wide angle clip on lens. Good or bad?
 

Recently, I purchased a .3 Raynox wide angle clip on lens for my Gl2 for $100. I could of gotten a more expensive one but recently, all I have been shooting is shots for my upcoming rollerblading video and I really don't need the "best". Anyway, people have been saying that the clip on is a bad lens but I really don't see a problem with it. I just found out they made a screw on .3. I had heard about it a while ago but I just found it a few days after I got my clip on. What is better about the screw on then the clip on. Since I will be getting closer shots, I think its good to have the clip on incase someone hits my camera, that way only the lens would come off. Reply back, thank you. :)