What's the cheapest/best way to get wide angle shots? at DVinfo.net

John Vincent · September 16th, 2008, 02:01 PM

Owned the JVC100 for a few years now and am very happy with it. been using the stock lens and - considering the price point - am very happy with that as well.

But I'm longing for some wide angle shots w/o breaking the bank - esp because I'm thinking about upgrading to the new Sony 1/2" camera.

Any tips or suggestions about which way I should go? Thanks!

john

Richard Gooderick · September 16th, 2008, 02:13 PM

If you can get a clip-on wide angle converter that will be the cheapest way. They work fine and are cheap. You just can't zoom through them that's all.

Brian Standing · September 16th, 2008, 04:07 PM

The JVC/Fujinon .8x wa adapter is zoom-through and costs about $500 new. I bought one used off this forum for $350. Not super-wide, but good optics. Certainly cheaper than the 13x I can only dream about!

Kennedy Maxwell · September 16th, 2008, 04:16 PM

I have the JVC/Fujinon converter. It help greatly. FYI a WA converter is a zoom-thru while a WA adapter is not.
Good Luck.
Ken

John Vincent · September 17th, 2008, 12:44 PM

Thanks a lot guys...

john

Liam Hall · September 17th, 2008, 03:10 PM

If you are doing any work where quality is a premium then you should avoid wide-angle adapters/converters. If you can put up with some additional chromatic aberration and vignetting then by all means go for it. But be aware, when it comes to optics, you get what you pay for.

Dennis Robinson · September 18th, 2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Vincent

Owned the JVC100 for a few years now and am very happy with it. been using the stock lens and - considering the price point - am very happy with that as well.

But I'm longing for some wide angle shots w/o breaking the bank - esp because I'm thinking about upgrading to the new Sony 1/2" camera.

Any tips or suggestions about which way I should go? Thanks!

john

I know what you are saying as I recently had the same feelings. After trying the EX1 from Sony I was disappointed with the low light and stock lens on my JVC 111. I hated the small form handycam look however and after trying the Fujinon wide angle lens I went and bought one. I love the camera again. The lens is fantastic and as well as super wide, the low light capabilities are improved out of sight. At the end of the day this lens will pay for itself in a very short time. It has allowed me to keep the JVC for a while till something better comes out. The lens is now half of the price from when I bought the camera 18 months ago and well worth it.

Werner Wesp · September 29th, 2008, 05:29 AM

The fujinon Th13x3.5 is indeed quite impressive. I have one on the cam all the time. It might be a bit out of the price range, yet I think you might be better off investing in that lens rather then in another cam (you'd be buying another cam with a stock lens of its own).

John Vincent · September 29th, 2008, 03:03 PM

Which DVInfo dealer would have them used? I know they were what, around $10 grand new a while ago - simply beyond my price range.

john

Jason McCormy · September 30th, 2008, 09:09 AM

Perhaps an ignorant question, but is the 17x lens any wider than the 16.5x stock lens?

I noticed it is cheaper and people also say it is sharper and brighter.

Jeff Clegg · September 30th, 2008, 10:32 AM

I just got in a 17X, seems to be marginally wider, 5.5mm for the 16x and 5mm for the 17x. Not a huge difference on that end.

Jason McCormy · September 30th, 2008, 11:28 AM

Is it a lot brighter?

Jeff Clegg · September 30th, 2008, 11:37 AM

I don't believe it is any brighter. To avoid hijacking the thread Take a look here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-pro-h...17x5-lens.html

Pretty good rundown on the lens, matches my (limited so far) experience with the lens.

Jason McCormy · September 30th, 2008, 11:43 AM

Thank you!

Ted Ramasola · September 30th, 2008, 11:51 AM

Isnt it that the smaller number in lens "mm" is wider? Thus 10mm is wider than 15mm? So i think 16x is wider than 17X?

September 16th, 2008, 02:01 PM	#1
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	What's the cheapest/best way to get wide angle shots? Owned the JVC100 for a few years now and am very happy with it. been using the stock lens and - considering the price point - am very happy with that as well. But I'm longing for some wide angle shots w/o breaking the bank - esp because I'm thinking about upgrading to the new Sony 1/2" camera. Any tips or suggestions about which way I should go? Thanks! john

September 16th, 2008, 02:13 PM	#2
Richard Gooderick Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: London, UK Posts: 795	If you can get a clip-on wide angle converter that will be the cheapest way. They work fine and are cheap. You just can't zoom through them that's all. __________________ http://www.gooderick.com

September 16th, 2008, 04:07 PM	#3
Brian Standing Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 621	The JVC/Fujinon .8x wa adapter is zoom-through and costs about $500 new. I bought one used off this forum for $350. Not super-wide, but good optics. Certainly cheaper than the 13x I can only dream about! __________________ http://www.prolefeedstudios.com/blog/ Documentary for the masses!

September 16th, 2008, 04:16 PM	#4
Kennedy Maxwell Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Maryville, Tennessee Posts: 65	I have the JVC/Fujinon converter. It help greatly. FYI a WA converter is a zoom-thru while a WA adapter is not. Good Luck. Ken __________________ Ken

September 17th, 2008, 03:10 PM	#6
Liam Hall Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 969	If you are doing any work where quality is a premium then you should avoid wide-angle adapters/converters. If you can put up with some additional chromatic aberration and vignetting then by all means go for it. But be aware, when it comes to optics, you get what you pay for. __________________ Writer-Director-DOP www.liamhall.net

September 17th, 2008, 12:44 PM	#5
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	Thanks a lot guys... john

September 29th, 2008, 05:29 AM	#8
Werner Wesp Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 497	The fujinon Th13x3.5 is indeed quite impressive. I have one on the cam all the time. It might be a bit out of the price range, yet I think you might be better off investing in that lens rather then in another cam (you'd be buying another cam with a stock lens of its own). __________________ High-Definition Video Consultant - CEO of Delimex NV - http://www.delimex.be gear of choice : http://www.wespgear.com

September 29th, 2008, 03:03 PM	#9
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	Which DVInfo dealer would have them used? I know they were what, around $10 grand new a while ago - simply beyond my price range. john

September 30th, 2008, 09:09 AM	#10
Jason McCormy Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Agoura California Posts: 268	Perhaps an ignorant question, but is the 17x lens any wider than the 16.5x stock lens? I noticed it is cheaper and people also say it is sharper and brighter.

September 30th, 2008, 10:32 AM	#11
Jeff Clegg New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hudson, NH Posts: 8	I just got in a 17X, seems to be marginally wider, 5.5mm for the 16x and 5mm for the 17x. Not a huge difference on that end. __________________ Jeff Clegg JLNC Video Production

September 30th, 2008, 11:28 AM	#12
Jason McCormy Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Agoura California Posts: 268	Is it a lot brighter?

September 30th, 2008, 11:37 AM	#13
Jeff Clegg New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hudson, NH Posts: 8	I don't believe it is any brighter. To avoid hijacking the thread Take a look here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-pro-h...17x5-lens.html Pretty good rundown on the lens, matches my (limited so far) experience with the lens. __________________ Jeff Clegg JLNC Video Production

September 30th, 2008, 11:43 AM	#14
Jason McCormy Major Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Agoura California Posts: 268	Thank you!

September 30th, 2008, 11:51 AM	#15
Ted Ramasola Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Allen, Texas U.S.A Posts: 1,117	Isnt it that the smaller number in lens "mm" is wider? Thus 10mm is wider than 15mm? So i think 16x is wider than 17X?