Wide Angle solutions at DVinfo.net

Christopher Hughes · September 29th, 2003, 03:32 PM

I'm looking to see what options there are for a nice wide, or more so the cheaper option but without poor quality.

I'm interested in have nice wide angles but without going to far to the extreme of a fisheye with barrel destortion. So I'm thinking of a nice wide around 0.5x. I see that one option is the OPTEX double set to give 0.5. Anyone used these? What other options are there????

I also read that with those 35mm adapters that they are 2x, but remove effects of fisheye....that true, or just a sales type gimic???

What do people use? I primarily want nice wide angle to use in countryside and country to get in the lovely scenes, perhaps then crop to 1.85 or 2.85 to give an almost panoramic type feel to the shots. But I'm just interested in getting the best out of landscapes and also use for nice wide groups shots or scenes in film.

I have 16x lens IS II, and would like options with this lens, rather than 3x lens which still would not be that wide. Perhaps later when money comes I can get 3x lens and use WA adapters later on that. Though I would prefer 16x manual than 3x cos of things I have heard about it.

So let me know what setups you have and what works the best for you.

Thanks!

Dean Sensui · September 30th, 2003, 02:52 AM

I use a Century 0.7 wide angle adapter and get good results. In fact, I seldom take it off. Most of the time I'm shooting in confined spaces.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

Dan O'Bannon · October 26th, 2003, 01:37 PM

Does the century 0.7 work on the 16X manual lens

thanks, Dan O'Bannon

Dean Sensui · October 26th, 2003, 01:46 PM

Canon's 16x manual lens has a different front bayonet from the stock lens, but Century does make a specific model of the 0.7x wide angle converter for it.

And they can also modify a 0.7x converter to fit the manual lens. However, once it's converted, it'll fit only the manual lens and not the stock IS II lens.

Don't know why Canon didn't make both lenses with identical front bayonet mounts.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions.

Dan O'Bannon · October 26th, 2003, 04:21 PM

Thanks Dean, do you think the 0.7 convertor is the best way to go for wide angle with the XL1s?

Dan O'Bannon

Dean Sensui · October 26th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Hi Dan...

I like the 0.7 and have it almost permanently mounted on the front of the lens. It allows me to use the full zoom range of the lens and with the way I shoot -- at short ranges and often in small spaces -- it's a great help.

It also allows me to shoot nicer wide angle panoramic shots as I prefer the perspective of a wide angle lens.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions.

Dan O'Bannon · October 27th, 2003, 12:43 AM

Thanks Dean, do you know anything about the .6 adapter, I understand you only get partial zoom capabilities, but 40% wider angle as opposed to the 30% with the .7

Dan OBannon

Chris Harring · October 27th, 2003, 09:07 AM

The wide angle converter sounds like a great piece of equipment...do you have any recommendations for retailers, online or otherwise? According to Century's website, there are any near me.

If you have any recommendations, I'd be glad to hear them.

Thanks

Dean Sensui · October 27th, 2003, 10:33 AM

I hadn't tried the .6 adapter so I can't say if it has more barrel distortion than the .7 or if it's the same.

The disadvantage, as you pointed out Dan, is that you can't use the full zoom range. But if the coverage of a wider lens is essential, then it's certainly the better option.

For me, personally, I'd prefer to have the option of a full zoom for something that's semi-permanently attached to the lens.

I wouldn't mind getting something even wider for certain shots.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions.

Charles Papert · October 27th, 2003, 12:15 PM

I too use the Century .7x adaptor. It would be nice if the .6x was a full zoomthru, but like Dean I tend to leave the adaptor on much of the time and considered the need to have to pull the adaptor to be a deal-breaker.

However, you are giving away a bit of optical quality this way. In retrospect, for the type of shooting I do with the camera (i.e. not run-and-gun), I would be better off with using the .6x and forcing myself to remove it when not shooting wide-angle. Who knows, maybe I will trade in my .7x for a .6x!

September 29th, 2003, 03:32 PM	#1
Christopher Hughes Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Sunderland, England (y Merida, Mexico) Posts: 269	Wide Angle solutions I'm looking to see what options there are for a nice wide, or more so the cheaper option but without poor quality. I'm interested in have nice wide angles but without going to far to the extreme of a fisheye with barrel destortion. So I'm thinking of a nice wide around 0.5x. I see that one option is the OPTEX double set to give 0.5. Anyone used these? What other options are there???? I also read that with those 35mm adapters that they are 2x, but remove effects of fisheye....that true, or just a sales type gimic??? What do people use? I primarily want nice wide angle to use in countryside and country to get in the lovely scenes, perhaps then crop to 1.85 or 2.85 to give an almost panoramic type feel to the shots. But I'm just interested in getting the best out of landscapes and also use for nice wide groups shots or scenes in film. I have 16x lens IS II, and would like options with this lens, rather than 3x lens which still would not be that wide. Perhaps later when money comes I can get 3x lens and use WA adapters later on that. Though I would prefer 16x manual than 3x cos of things I have heard about it. So let me know what setups you have and what works the best for you. Thanks!

October 26th, 2003, 01:37 PM	#3
Dan O'Bannon Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 68	0.7 convertor Does the century 0.7 work on the 16X manual lens thanks, Dan O'Bannon

October 26th, 2003, 04:21 PM	#5
Dan O'Bannon Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 68	0.7 convertor Thanks Dean, do you think the 0.7 convertor is the best way to go for wide angle with the XL1s? Dan O'Bannon

October 27th, 2003, 09:07 AM	#8
Chris Harring New Boot Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 19	Retailers for Century Optics The wide angle converter sounds like a great piece of equipment...do you have any recommendations for retailers, online or otherwise? According to Century's website, there are any near me. If you have any recommendations, I'd be glad to hear them. Thanks __________________ Chris Robot

October 27th, 2003, 12:15 PM	#10
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	I too use the Century .7x adaptor. It would be nice if the .6x was a full zoomthru, but like Dean I tend to leave the adaptor on much of the time and considered the need to have to pull the adaptor to be a deal-breaker. However, you are giving away a bit of optical quality this way. In retrospect, for the type of shooting I do with the camera (i.e. not run-and-gun), I would be better off with using the .6x and forcing myself to remove it when not shooting wide-angle. Who knows, maybe I will trade in my .7x for a .6x! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 30th, 2003, 02:52 AM	#2
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	I use a Century 0.7 wide angle adapter and get good results. In fact, I seldom take it off. Most of the time I'm shooting in confined spaces. Dean Sensui Base Two Productions

October 26th, 2003, 01:46 PM	#4
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	Canon's 16x manual lens has a different front bayonet from the stock lens, but Century does make a specific model of the 0.7x wide angle converter for it. And they can also modify a 0.7x converter to fit the manual lens. However, once it's converted, it'll fit only the manual lens and not the stock IS II lens. Don't know why Canon didn't make both lenses with identical front bayonet mounts. Dean Sensui Base Two Productions.

October 26th, 2003, 10:39 PM	#6
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	Hi Dan... I like the 0.7 and have it almost permanently mounted on the front of the lens. It allows me to use the full zoom range of the lens and with the way I shoot -- at short ranges and often in small spaces -- it's a great help. It also allows me to shoot nicer wide angle panoramic shots as I prefer the perspective of a wide angle lens. Dean Sensui Base Two Productions.

October 27th, 2003, 12:43 AM	#7
Dan O'Bannon Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 68	Thanks Dean, do you know anything about the .6 adapter, I understand you only get partial zoom capabilities, but 40% wider angle as opposed to the 30% with the .7 Dan OBannon

October 27th, 2003, 10:33 AM	#9
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	I hadn't tried the .6 adapter so I can't say if it has more barrel distortion than the .7 or if it's the same. The disadvantage, as you pointed out Dan, is that you can't use the full zoom range. But if the coverage of a wider lens is essential, then it's certainly the better option. For me, personally, I'd prefer to have the option of a full zoom for something that's semi-permanently attached to the lens. I wouldn't mind getting something even wider for certain shots. Dean Sensui Base Two Productions.