43mm wide angle lenses - choices & prices

Tom Hardwick · September 28th, 2003, 02:09 AM

Yes, you're right about the coating and it seems to be single layer to me. Raynox obviously find it cheaper to put on a filter thread rather than multi-coat the glass, but this filter thread is really good in that it allows you to go fit a proper lens hood, and this is a miles better solution to lens flare than ever multi-coating is. If you can shade that front element from non-image forming light - you'll be all the better for it.

I make all my students put on a peaked cap as they look at me. The peak cuts out the overhead lighting and immediately improves my image (!) It's a great and simple way of demonstrating the simplicity and effectiveness of a lens hood.

tom.

Frank Granovski · September 28th, 2003, 03:09 AM

Tom, that's certainly the most creative method I've heard yet with keeping one's students focused! I would use the feinting method: slow your actions, lower your voice, then WHAM! Blast something out. :)

Lincoln Norris · September 29th, 2003, 12:13 AM

I have the raxnox 6600pro attached to my pana 100 Pana GS100k and bought a Hakuba Roll out Rubber Hood...only 500yen...

Had a good day yesterday.....Strapped the Tripod to my Motorbike Helmet with Gaf Tape....Only one of those small Tripods mounted the Camera and went cruising down town Tokyo...

Lots of lookers at the wierd foriegner!!

The first time to use the wide angle and noticed quit a lot of flaring too!

I liked the sunny flaring however...kind of showed the heat of the day...

I havnt attached any filters to it yet and am lucky I didnt get any chips from teh traffic....I bought a Kenko UV Filter and havnt tried it yet......

Maybe that will cut down the flaring.....and save the lense from flying debri too!

Definatly can feel the 190gm of the Raynox 6600 weighing down the head of the cam....it even started pulling my helmet over my eyes....

Cheers,

Lincoln......very happy with my Raynox

Frank Granovski · September 29th, 2003, 01:08 AM

Putting any filter on a wide angle adaptor can cause further problems, like vignetting.

Shawn Mielke · September 29th, 2003, 02:56 AM

Bill,

I'm dying to know all about the Xi. Please do post your findings! Much appreciated.
Regards,
Shawn

Donald Craig Forbes · September 29th, 2003, 08:59 PM

I got the Raynox 6600 from B&H and use a Tiffen uv filter I ordered with it.

At 10x zoom a very slight shadow begins to form at the extream corners while filming in cinema mode with the uv filter attached.

I havn't seen any viginetting at all without the filter.

Gints Klimanis · December 10th, 2003, 05:29 PM

>For my purpose (shooting sports events mostly - indoors and outdoors) I think the less distortion the better. Since I'll mostly be close to the action high zoom is not so important

I started with the Raynoxx 6600 for my VX2000. For vtaping martial arts action footage in areas roughly the size of a two car garage. Zooming in for fight action at the far corner of the garage revealed the softening of the non-zoom through Raynox.
Switching to a Canon WD58H was a major improvement.

Frank Granovski · December 10th, 2003, 05:36 PM

I see you are another fellow martial artist, Gints. A while back I discoved that slow shutters miss too much action and higher shutters steal too much light. So I shoot my "action" footage at 1/60th. How do you like to shoot fast kicks and punches?

Rick Tugman · December 10th, 2003, 11:42 PM

So there I was, like a kid in a candy store. I'm talking about being at B & H in New York City last week. While there with some friends from Europe I finally decided to look at wide angle lenses for my DV953.

As I posted earlier in this thread, I wanted something that I could use on the live sports events that I work on. I told the B & H representative what I wanted and he suggested a Kenko SGW-05 "PRO" 0.5x - I was a little skeptical, but when I looked at it in the shop (they were very helpful) it seemed to be just the right thing. It is a solid lense that didn't add too much weight to the camera. I didn't want a fisheye effect and one of my colleagues suggested a .8 but in looking at it today in the hockey arena the 0.5x really does the job nicely for what I was looking for.

I have yet to really put it through it's paces or even look at it on a scope, but it seems like it was a good choice as everything I saw from my little test today seemed to be quite clear. No distortion from the naked eye and zooming was no problem. I was even able to keep the lense hood attached to the DV953 and could also remove it if I wanted... there didn't seem to be too much difference.

I think all in all it was a nice choice for the price which was under 80.00 US dollars. FYI, a stepdown ring (6.95) was necessary from 37mm to 43 mm for the DV953 although it did come with 3 stepping rings, 28-37mm, 30-37mm, 30.5-37mm, lense caps and pouch. Just one problem.... the back lense cap doesn't fit the step rings as it was just made for 37mm.

Dave Largent · December 11th, 2003, 02:48 AM

Or is that step up. I haven't read the earlier posts in this
thread. Are you saying the 953 has 43mm front threads?
I'm going to be taking a look at a Canon 0.7X 43mm
wide this weekend. I checked out the Canon 1.7X 43mm
tele briefly and it looked pretty good.

Rick Tugman · December 11th, 2003, 12:37 PM

YES the DV953 has 43mm threads so I had to go from 37-43mm which is a small ring that screws on the wide angle adapeter then on either the DV953 lense hood or the lense itself without the lense hood that was supplied with the camera.

Step up... step down ... 220....221 whatever it takes. I just repeated what the B & H rep said and didn't think about it being up or down.

Let us know how the Canon is!

Dave Largent · December 11th, 2003, 02:27 PM

Now I understand. I know this has been discussed
before regarding is it "up" or "down". I believe stepdown is correct in the case of your 953.
Just got the Canon in. After I've taken a close look
at it I'll get back here about what I find.

Dave Largent · December 17th, 2003, 03:37 AM

Rick, and others, I just posted my review of the Canon
43mm 0.7X wide angle over at the "Open DV Discussion" thread.
Hope it helps.

Frank Granovski · December 17th, 2003, 03:49 AM

Thanks, Dave. I saw that.

Dave Largent · December 17th, 2003, 03:55 AM

That 43mm is a pretty common front size, isn't it?

September 29th, 2003, 02:56 AM	#35
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Bill, I'm dying to know all about the Xi. Please do post your findings! Much appreciated. Regards, Shawn __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

September 29th, 2003, 08:59 PM	#36
Donald Craig Forbes Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hoboken, NJ. USA Posts: 26	Raynox 6600 with filter attached. I got the Raynox 6600 from B&H and use a Tiffen uv filter I ordered with it. At 10x zoom a very slight shadow begins to form at the extream corners while filming in cinema mode with the uv filter attached. I havn't seen any viginetting at all without the filter. __________________ -Craig

December 10th, 2003, 11:42 PM	#39
Rick Tugman Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Parkland, Florida Posts: 105	So there I was, like a kid in a candy store. I'm talking about being at B & H in New York City last week. While there with some friends from Europe I finally decided to look at wide angle lenses for my DV953. As I posted earlier in this thread, I wanted something that I could use on the live sports events that I work on. I told the B & H representative what I wanted and he suggested a Kenko SGW-05 "PRO" 0.5x - I was a little skeptical, but when I looked at it in the shop (they were very helpful) it seemed to be just the right thing. It is a solid lense that didn't add too much weight to the camera. I didn't want a fisheye effect and one of my colleagues suggested a .8 but in looking at it today in the hockey arena the 0.5x really does the job nicely for what I was looking for. I have yet to really put it through it's paces or even look at it on a scope, but it seems like it was a good choice as everything I saw from my little test today seemed to be quite clear. No distortion from the naked eye and zooming was no problem. I was even able to keep the lense hood attached to the DV953 and could also remove it if I wanted... there didn't seem to be too much difference. I think all in all it was a nice choice for the price which was under 80.00 US dollars. FYI, a stepdown ring (6.95) was necessary from 37mm to 43 mm for the DV953 although it did come with 3 stepping rings, 28-37mm, 30-37mm, 30.5-37mm, lense caps and pouch. Just one problem.... the back lense cap doesn't fit the step rings as it was just made for 37mm. __________________ Camera: Panasonic DV953 PC: Apple Aluminum G4 Powerbook - 15 inch Final Cut Pro 4 and other assorted goodies!

December 11th, 2003, 12:37 PM	#41
Rick Tugman Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Parkland, Florida Posts: 105	YES the DV953 has 43mm threads so I had to go from 37-43mm which is a small ring that screws on the wide angle adapeter then on either the DV953 lense hood or the lense itself without the lense hood that was supplied with the camera. Step up... step down ... 220....221 whatever it takes. I just repeated what the B & H rep said and didn't think about it being up or down. Let us know how the Canon is! __________________ Camera: Panasonic DV953 PC: Apple Aluminum G4 Powerbook - 15 inch Final Cut Pro 4 and other assorted goodies!

September 28th, 2003, 02:09 AM	#31
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Yes, you're right about the coating and it seems to be single layer to me. Raynox obviously find it cheaper to put on a filter thread rather than multi-coat the glass, but this filter thread is really good in that it allows you to go fit a proper lens hood, and this is a miles better solution to lens flare than ever multi-coating is. If you can shade that front element from non-image forming light - you'll be all the better for it. I make all my students put on a peaked cap as they look at me. The peak cuts out the overhead lighting and immediately improves my image (!) It's a great and simple way of demonstrating the simplicity and effectiveness of a lens hood. tom.

September 28th, 2003, 03:09 AM	#32
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Tom, that's certainly the most creative method I've heard yet with keeping one's students focused! I would use the feinting method: slow your actions, lower your voice, then WHAM! Blast something out. :)

September 29th, 2003, 12:13 AM	#33
Lincoln Norris Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Japan Chiba-ken Posts: 42	I have the raxnox 6600pro attached to my pana 100 Pana GS100k and bought a Hakuba Roll out Rubber Hood...only 500yen... Had a good day yesterday.....Strapped the Tripod to my Motorbike Helmet with Gaf Tape....Only one of those small Tripods mounted the Camera and went cruising down town Tokyo... Lots of lookers at the wierd foriegner!! The first time to use the wide angle and noticed quit a lot of flaring too! I liked the sunny flaring however...kind of showed the heat of the day... I havnt attached any filters to it yet and am lucky I didnt get any chips from teh traffic....I bought a Kenko UV Filter and havnt tried it yet...... Maybe that will cut down the flaring.....and save the lense from flying debri too! Definatly can feel the 190gm of the Raynox 6600 weighing down the head of the cam....it even started pulling my helmet over my eyes.... Cheers, Lincoln......very happy with my Raynox

September 29th, 2003, 01:08 AM	#34
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Putting any filter on a wide angle adaptor can cause further problems, like vignetting.

December 10th, 2003, 05:29 PM	#37
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	>For my purpose (shooting sports events mostly - indoors and outdoors) I think the less distortion the better. Since I'll mostly be close to the action high zoom is not so important I started with the Raynoxx 6600 for my VX2000. For vtaping martial arts action footage in areas roughly the size of a two car garage. Zooming in for fight action at the far corner of the garage revealed the softening of the non-zoom through Raynox. Switching to a Canon WD58H was a major improvement.

December 10th, 2003, 05:36 PM	#38
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I see you are another fellow martial artist, Gints. A while back I discoved that slow shutters miss too much action and higher shutters steal too much light. So I shoot my "action" footage at 1/60th. How do you like to shoot fast kicks and punches?

December 11th, 2003, 02:48 AM	#40
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Or is that step up. I haven't read the earlier posts in this thread. Are you saying the 953 has 43mm front threads? I'm going to be taking a look at a Canon 0.7X 43mm wide this weekend. I checked out the Canon 1.7X 43mm tele briefly and it looked pretty good.

December 11th, 2003, 02:27 PM	#42
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Now I understand. I know this has been discussed before regarding is it "up" or "down". I believe stepdown is correct in the case of your 953. Just got the Canon in. After I've taken a close look at it I'll get back here about what I find.

December 17th, 2003, 03:37 AM	#43
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Rick, and others, I just posted my review of the Canon 43mm 0.7X wide angle over at the "Open DV Discussion" thread. Hope it helps.

December 17th, 2003, 03:49 AM	#44
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks, Dave. I saw that.

December 17th, 2003, 03:55 AM	#45
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	That 43mm is a pretty common front size, isn't it?