Wide Angle Lens Converter for GL / XM

[John Lee]

Hey Patrick,

Are you referring to the DS-55WA-GL from century optics? BH has it listed at $250. I didn't know you could reverse it to fisheye. How does it look as a fisheye?

[Patrick MCMurray]

thats the one. I just got my gl2 yesterday!I bought the lens when i thought i was getting the camera awhile ago, but all i did get was a lesson about trusting low prices over the internet!

It says its reversible, but i cant get it apart. The mounting ring is suppose to come off and flip around... any one have this lens? just holding it up to the front LOOKS cool but not very practical for shooting.

[Patrick MCMurray]

i just went and looked at b+hs web site. i think they sent me the wrong lens with the insructions for the reversable one!

[Nicholi Brossia]

There is a difference between the .55x for the GL2 and the reversible .55x. The one made specifically for GL2 bayonet mount is only the .55x wide angle lens (DS-55WA-GL). The reversible bayonet mount (DS-55WA-00) is made specifically for Sony cameras - VX1000, DSR-200. If you bought the bayonet mount that fits the GL2, then it isn't reversible, as far as I understand.
However, there is both regular and reversible 58mm thread mount. Technically, according to www.centuryoptics.com, the reversible is made for Sony and JVC cameras, but it will probably work on a GL2. 58mm works with 58mm right?
Personally, I would much rather have the reversible (kill two birds with one stone) but at the same time really like the security of the bayonet mount. The reversible bayonet mount (DS-55WA-00) wouldn't randomly happen to work on the GL2 would it?

[Nicholi Brossia]

Actually, after looking at the stats on Century's site, the reversible's "fisheye" configuration is no where near that of the .3x fisheye. Honestly, it doesn't seem to be much wider than the regular .55x (20 degrees horizontally), but just has more barrel distortion. I wasn't expecting the same .3x effect, but hoped for something.
I'm sticking with the GL2 bayonet mount .55x.

[Patrick MCMurray]

its probably to late to return the lens... over a year. like i said it gives a good fisheye effect by just holding it on backwards... if i ever find it absolutly required, ill duct-tape it on.

[John Lee]

I'm considering buying the reversible .55x for the sony cameras, but I own a GL2. What's the advantage to the bayonet mount? More stable?

I realize the fish eye on the reversed lens isn't as good as a real fish eye, but I'd like to have the ability to give it a try, especially if the 58mm sony version of this lens will work with a GL2.

[John Lee]

I sent an e-mail off to century optics about the difference between their reversible -58 lens and their non-reversible -GL wide angle lens. Hopefully, they'll get back to me soon. My principal concern is that the -GL glass may be specifically designed to work with the GL2 and the 58mm WA may not work as well for whatever reason.

Also, rather than post *another* one of these WA topics in the forum, I was wondering if anyone could help me choose which WA to get.

I'm looking at either the .55 Century optics or the Canon WD58h. I need the lens for shooting in tight spaces, like apartments and bedrooms. I wouldn't mind there being a little barrel distortion, but not too much. I've read that the .75 WD-58 really doesn't offer a whole lot of enlargement and that .65 or .55 lenses are better.

[Ken Tanaka]

Personally, John, I really like Canon's WD58H wide angle adapter for the GL2. It's not too heavy, is very good in tight spaces, imposes very little barrel distortion, has no apparent chromatic aberration around the edges, and had a very good price. I actually leave it on my GL2 nearly all of the time.

I've not used any of the Century lenses but I do know they have an excellent rep, as well.

[John Lee]

Thanks for the info Ken. I'm really torn between these two lenses. I wish I could buy them both!

I received a very quick response from Century Optics that read:

"Hello John,

The only difference between the two is the bayonet verses the 58mm thread mount and the design that the optic in the 58mm threaded version will reverse for a simi fisheye look. The optical element is the same in both units, you will not have a drop off in performance. Either version will work just fine on the Canon GL2."

So apparantly both lenses are exactly the same piece of glass, and the only difference is the mount.

[John Lee]

I ended up purchasing the century optics -58 model for the time being. As soon as I make some more money I plan on getting the Canon WD58H as well.

I'll probably be taking this lens off and putting it on a lot, so I was wondering if anyone here has tried getting a UV filter to snap onto the front of it.

I measured the internal diameter of the snap on plastic cover which came with the lens, and it was around 75mm, so I think a 77mm UV lens with a little gaffer's tape around the WA lens might fit on front snugly. Has anyone tried this?

I really want to protect the lens, I'm almost too paranoid to even use my camera until I can get some glass in front of it. The thought of a speck of dust or an accidental fingerprint on it is driving me crazy!

[Colin Sze]

Canon's 0.7X wide adaptor is not threaded on front, so whenever you need a filter, it has to be mounted on the 58mm filter between the lens. Now the question is, does this extra gap (thickness of the filter rim) affect optical quality no matter how minimal?
If the filter is a polarizer, how can you deal with it when the 0.7X hood comes in sight when you rotate the filter?

[Frank Granovski]

The reason why many wide angle adaptors don't come with filter threads in the front is because the adaptor makers know that most people know that filters cause vignetting on wide angle adaptors, or at least on "their" wide angle adapotors. :-))

But most people want the thread option anyway, so some makers do put on the threads. With threads, you can also screw on a hood, instead of being clamped on.

It's not a good idea to stick a filter in-between the cam's lens and adaptor.

[Colin Sze]

So what should I do?
I have already bought the Canon 0.7X wide adaptor for my XM2. Will a matte box solve the problem whenever a polarizer is needed with wide adaptor on? Or if there is any alternatives?
Appreciate any advices!!

[Frank Granovski]

Get a matte box. Cokin might be the way to go because:

1) They work
2) They're inexpensive