Wide Angle Lens Converter for GL / XM

[Prech Marton]

I have tested 2 wide lens for GL-2.
One Raynox 0,6x or 0,7x i dont rememeber:
http://www.relaxvideo.hu/raynox.jpg

There is a small vignetting, a small distorsion, the price is between the cheapest and the wd58h, about $200.

The other was the kenko 0,5/macro.
http://www.relaxvideo.hu/kenko-1.jpg

Macro: the cam was very near (1cm) to the subject:
http://www.relaxvideo.hu/kenko-2.jpg

There is more vignetting, more distorsion, and the price is fantastic:
about $100.

I do not buy, just tested.

TOM:
I see this Ultra Wide Lens Aspheric II (UWL II) 58mm.
Is this good for my xm2, and the price is only 100 EUR?
Do i need anything else? I will order one!

thx,
Marton

[Tom Hardwick]

The Ultra Wide Lens Aspheric II (UWL II) 58mm will work very well on your XM2 Prech, and I have two of them. There are some points worth noting. These UWL II lenses are high pressure injection mouldings (like the Red Eye lenses) but they're not coated at all, so you'll have to be careful about hooding and flare spots.

You shouldn't use them with filters between the aspheric and your XM2's zoom. I was surprised to see the Kenko and Raynox vignetting in your shots - did you have a UV filter in place maybe?

If you do order one then you should make sure you can return it if you're unhappy, but I really like mine and for buildings and interiors it looks superb - no vignetting or barrel distortion.

tom.

[Prech Marton]

Hi.

No, it wasnt any filter between xm2 and the wide lenses.
I dont use UV filter.
I see the vignetting only in pc when editing, and of course on the wall with a projector.

You say, carefully hooding. Did you mean these 20 EUR Sonnenblende?
Do you have in 58mm?
I want to use it in nature, landscapes.

What is the ratio? 0,5-0,7??
I dont want to make a quick decision because i'm afraid, when i buy it, and after a few month i have a new cam (hc-1, hc-3, or another cheap hd cam),
this lens will not fit on these. Or can i buy a step up ring, and for every camcorder that has less than 58mm diameter, i can use this lens?
That would be GOOD!

[Tom Hardwick]

Yes, the 20 EUR Sonnenblende. But this may cause vignetting as the Schneider is a 0.6x so sees very wide. You can see the results of my test here:

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/v/tom...znach.jpg.html

And yes, with an adapter ring you can use it on any number of cameras - I use it on the Panasonic MX300 with a 43 mm thread.

tom.

[Prech Marton]

And what about picture quality in high definition?
As i see, almost every brand has their wide angle lens in more expensive HD version. I dont want to degrade the resolution with "DV optics".

(sorry for my english)

[Tom Hardwick]

You're believing the marketing department too much. These Schneider Kreutznach lenses were originally made for the Super-8 format, and a Super-8 frame is much more like an HDV chip than a DV chip. At 4.1 x 5.4 mm, it's also considerably bigger.

I have recently changed over from a VX2000 to a Z1. If I film with them both in the standard definition mode, I can tell you that the VX2k gives better picture quality. The Z1 has a 'Hi-Def' lens OK, but the camera itself is only backwards compatible for good solid marketing reasons.

So don't worry that Schneider made lo-def and hi-def versions of the UWII - they didn't. The injection moulding tools were very expensive to produce with their complex aspheric surface, and there's no point in 'degrading' that because it doesn't make any of the lenses any cheaper.


Nothing wrong with your English Prech.

tom.

[Nick Carr]

So annoyed, I just about a WD58H lens off an Amazon seller, and despite the H, it shipped without the tulip lens hood. I'm waiting to hear back from him now, but I'm also looking online and having trouble finding anyone who sells it. I called Canon, and they have the part for $20 + shipping + tax...So I figure I must be able to buy it cheaper online. But I don't know much about lens hoods.

The part number from Canon is D52-0210-000.

Thanks!

Also, when the zoom is at full wide angle, I see rounded lines on the sides. I read that most people could use the full zoom with the lens in. Is this normal?

[Greg Boston]

Best bet is to buy from Canon since they are the ones who make it. $20 is cheap compared to the $52 it cost me for a replacement lens hood on the 16X manual.

You likely won't find it anywhere else online.

-gb-

[Nick Carr]

Thanks for the advice. $52??? That's highway robbery!

[Chris Hurd]

It's highway robbery only if you don't actually receive the item. Otherwise it's known as charging what the market will bear... which is a very common thing in this industry. $20 is a bargain.

[Greg Peters]

It seems my white balance is a bit blue when I am using the Canon Wideangle lens.

I use the auto setting.
When I remove the wide angle lens, the white balance seems good.

Anyone else notice this?

[Graham Bernard]

How are you testing this? The WD will also reduce light levels, maybe this is what you are seeing too? It is a big piece of glass.

[Greg Peters]

I can tell by the viewfinder and the resultant image on the screen.

I am new to DV cameras, but have used 35mm for years.
I agree that the lens might reduce the light available, but why would this shift the color on the white balance?

[Graham Bernard]

Originally Posted by Greg Peters

I can tell by the viewfinder and the resultant image on the screen.

I understand. So you haven't put this through any Test & Measurement [T&M] software?

Originally Posted by Greg Peters

I am new to DV cameras, but have used 35mm for years.

- I've only been with DV for 4 years. No 35mm experience here - so you have the "jump" on me in that dept!

Originally Posted by Greg Peters

I agree that the lens might reduce the light available, . . .

- Well it does. Not a lot, but it is noticeable on the EXPOSURE scale. I got about 0.25 DOWN of one of the exposure "notches". That is a quarter OF a quarter!

Originally Posted by Greg Peters

. . . but why would this shift the color on the white balance?

Well, maybe what you see on the screen is sensitive to the light levels and the actual LCD is reacting to that. See? The less light, the MORE of the BLUE spectrum you would see - yeah?

But anyway, I was making conjecture. What I really wanted to do was set up a T&M session.

OK, I just spent an interesting hour setting up HAMLET T&M software using my XM2 as the device and sent a signal WITH and WITHOUT the wide-angle.

In a controlled, artificially light environment I white balanced. I used my Pro White Cards for white balancing and executed the correct white balance procedure. White balanced locked and stayed locked.

Exposure was kept to the optimum setting of F4.4. All settings were MANUAL.

Using the RGB Parade manifest of HAMLET T&M, the results indicate that there is no "apparent" difference from WIDE to non-WIDE angle. Each of the Red, Green and Blue wave forms have the similar distribution - both "visually ( ie LOOKING at the curves weight and density!) AND the scalar values.

As it happens I DO have an opportunity to visit HAMLET very soon, and as I have "printed-off" a colour copy of the screens, I shall be quizzing the professional T&M specialist on our behalf.

Interesting, if only to have got me off my bum and do some empirical testing for once!

Grazie

[Prech Marton]

when i attach a wd58h the whitebalance doesn't change.