Kodak Ektanar 43mm Wide Angle Lens

Guy Bruner · February 5th, 2004, 07:10 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Penelope Taynt : I guess i am confused, all those pictures look very poor quality to me. Is this expected? -->>>

In what respect? The photos are all stills taken with the 953 in 640x480 mode. Quality is about the same with or without the WA. I apologize for the overexposure with flash. I was in a hurry and should have put some wax paper over the flash.

Penelope Taynt · February 5th, 2004, 07:38 PM

for example

http://m1001.dmclub.net/alex/IMGA0013.JPG

look awful (no offense to the photographer), but all that ghosting etc. and the young childs face is non-distinct. and the bottom of the photo is all dark

and this one for exmple

http://www.fortvir.net/modules.php?s...view_photo.php

looks nice in center but edges are completely blurred

Guy Bruner · February 5th, 2004, 08:30 PM

Yes, you are right, Penelope. I have posted a video that shows more of how this lens performs. Zoom through is much less than I originally estimated. Softness begins to occur at the edges of the picture at about 3x. The center image is pretty sharp even up to about 7x but at 10x there is softness across the board and strong chromatic aberrations. On the good side, the flare and ghosting aren't too bad, at least on this one video.

I don't know if this is typical for this type of wide angle. It appears to be useable at full pullback, but I want to shoot some video in natural light. It would be useful to have some pix and video from a Raynox or Tiffen to compare against.

Rick Tugman · February 6th, 2004, 01:36 AM

While I was in New York 2 months ago I bought the Kenko Digital wide 0.5x Pro lense to use with my DV953.

Some of you know I use my DV953 for live television broadcasts to provide a wide shot or just enhance the look of the shows I direct. I posted a comment a few weeks ago about how this camera compared against Canon GL1's which were also used as slam cams on the same show. There was no comparison with video quality and the DV953 was far superior.

Tonight for the first time I used my DV953 with the wide angle on for still shots. Funny but you can't see it, but with the flash, there is a shadow in the lower center part of the picture. This can only be caused by the flash or by the sensor on the Leica lense. The lense hood was off and the wide angle lense is mounted with a small 37mm to 43 mm step up ring. Like I said you can't see anything in the lense but the spot is around the same area as the sensor at the bottom of the lense.

I just did another test and when I move in closer to the subject then angle the camera differently there is no shadow and the snapshot seems to be clear. When the wide angle lense is off it is also shadow free. So this lends me to believe that there is something affecting the sensor and/or blocking the flash beam partially which would make sense.

The Kenko is very nice and very sharp. In looking at Guy's photo's, that doesn't seem to be the case with the Kodak lense. Being curious, I wonder if anyone else has had similar problems with attachment lenses and flashes causing a shadow.

Thanks in advance.

Alex Lake · February 6th, 2004, 03:43 AM

Thanks for the comments.

It looks like my tests are a bit harsh. Non-flash stuff is much better by the looks of things.

So I will be uploading a couple of daytime pics (without OIS) later on. Sadly, it's rather cloudy here today, so not the best of conditions - but not unrepresentative!

I've also secured the opportunity to use a Raynox HD6600Pro (down at Jessops) to see what spending 3 and half times the money gets you (Results next week)

Guy Bruner · February 6th, 2004, 07:13 AM

Ok, folks. I have corresponded with Tom Hardwick, a well-known British expert and a contributor here, about the pix I posted. He did look at both Alex's and my pix but did not draw a conclusion. He suggested a more controlled set of shots that would be a better basis from which to draw conclusions. I was already planning to do this having recognized the pix I posted were of low value. I will attempt to do that this weekend. We are in the middle of a monsoon here, so the architectural shots Tom recommended may be delayed. Tom did comment that all wide angle lenses have different degrees of distortion and not unlike those exhibited by the Kodak.

Rick,
The way the flash on the 953 is positioned, just about any lens attached to the front will partially block the flash cone. I suspect that is what you are seeing. You can see it clearly in some of my pix where there is a dark arcing shadow in the lower part of the frame.

BTW, if you would like to post some example pix taken with the Kenko, be my guest. Put them in the Kodak album.

Tom Hardwick · February 6th, 2004, 08:00 AM

Thanks for your adjective 'expert' Guy! :-)
Yes, I too suspect that the shadow in flash shots is caused by the mechanical interruption of the light by the add-on lens, nothing more. Of course the flash gun's coverage will only extend as far as the camcorder's original wide-angle zoom, and any extra wide-angle will not be lit by the flash, and vignetting will occur. It's visible on your test shots BTW, and I'm sure the instruction book warns about this.

The Kodak lens does sound rather so-so, and I suspect that being designed to compliment digital still cameras means that it's not meant for anything longer than a 3 or 4x zoom. There are some very good add-on lenses out there, and I always suggest that if possible folk try before they hand over the cash. If that's not possible, then do ask, and here's as good a place as any. Computervideo.net has another excellent forum.

Can I put some sample widie pictures in your Kodak album?

tom.

Guy Bruner · February 6th, 2004, 08:40 AM

Tom,
Please feel free to post anything you believe would add insight and understanding about the qualities and limitations of lenses of this type.

BTW, I was able to acquire this lens for only $9US out of pocket. I think its ok for that price :-).

Tom Hardwick · February 6th, 2004, 09:01 AM

well, I went to all the trouble to set up a FortVir account, but nowhere could I see a tab to 'upload' stuff. What's up?

tom.

Guy Bruner · February 6th, 2004, 09:13 AM

Tom,
Just enter the album and select "Add Photos" from the options at the top. You will be presented with a dialog box that will let you browse to where the photos are on your hard drive and add them to the upload. You can also zip up all the photos and upload the zip file. The server will automatically unzip them in the album. I appreciate you registering, but you don't have to do that for this album.

Tom Hardwick · February 6th, 2004, 01:28 PM

Thanks Guy. I've posted four comparison pictures. I set up the Sony VX2000 on a rock-solid tripod perpendicular to the wall. I set auto focus but manually exposed off the bricks. I recorded frames to Memory stick to check for vignetting in Photoshop. The results will tell us what we know already - that it's difficult to find a zoom-through that doesn't barrel distort. Look, even the Sony lens on its own is so afflicted.

tom.

Guy Bruner · February 6th, 2004, 01:36 PM

Thanks, Tom. Very helpful. I wonder how available that Aspheron is in the US? By any chance, do you have an archive shot of the Raynox...either the 5000 or 6600...that you could post?

Tom Hardwick · February 6th, 2004, 01:59 PM

Yes I do, and I'll post it there now. It looks to barrel distort but what you're really seeing is the 'extrapolation' of the barrel distortion inherrent at the wide-angle end of the Sony Zoom. The Raynox just magnifies that built-in distortion. When I used the Raynox over the 28mm wideangle on my 35mm Canon camera, there was no distortion.

Check your camera for distortion. The TRV950 and the Canon MVX3i have very little distortion, but my MX300 is not so good.

tom.

Frank Granovski · February 7th, 2004, 03:51 AM

According to Pana, the MX300's barrel distortion was worked out somewhat with the newer MX350. So it seemed that Pana took this particular MX300 problem very seriously.

Guy Bruner · February 7th, 2004, 10:54 AM

Ok, I have taken some architectural still shots similar to those posted in the Kodak Album by Tom Hardwick and a short video. What I observed from these shots:

>There is no discernable barrel distortion from the DV953 in full wide.
>There is no discernable barrel distortion from the Kodak wide angle with nozoom.
>The resolution of the Kodak is very good.
>The center resolution of the Kodak is pretty sharp throughout the zoom range, but softness begins to show up on the picture edges at about 3X zoom.

My conclusions. It's a keeper.

February 5th, 2004, 07:10 PM	#16
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Re: confused. <<<-- Originally posted by Penelope Taynt : I guess i am confused, all those pictures look very poor quality to me. Is this expected? -->>> In what respect? The photos are all stills taken with the 953 in 640x480 mode. Quality is about the same with or without the WA. I apologize for the overexposure with flash. I was in a hurry and should have put some wax paper over the flash.

February 5th, 2004, 07:38 PM	#17
Penelope Taynt New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Where's Amanda? Posts: 16	for example http://m1001.dmclub.net/alex/IMGA0013.JPG look awful (no offense to the photographer), but all that ghosting etc. and the young childs face is non-distinct. and the bottom of the photo is all dark and this one for exmple http://www.fortvir.net/modules.php?s...view_photo.php looks nice in center but edges are completely blurred __________________ Please.

February 6th, 2004, 01:36 AM	#19
Rick Tugman Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Parkland, Florida Posts: 105	While I was in New York 2 months ago I bought the Kenko Digital wide 0.5x Pro lense to use with my DV953. Some of you know I use my DV953 for live television broadcasts to provide a wide shot or just enhance the look of the shows I direct. I posted a comment a few weeks ago about how this camera compared against Canon GL1's which were also used as slam cams on the same show. There was no comparison with video quality and the DV953 was far superior. Tonight for the first time I used my DV953 with the wide angle on for still shots. Funny but you can't see it, but with the flash, there is a shadow in the lower center part of the picture. This can only be caused by the flash or by the sensor on the Leica lense. The lense hood was off and the wide angle lense is mounted with a small 37mm to 43 mm step up ring. Like I said you can't see anything in the lense but the spot is around the same area as the sensor at the bottom of the lense. I just did another test and when I move in closer to the subject then angle the camera differently there is no shadow and the snapshot seems to be clear. When the wide angle lense is off it is also shadow free. So this lends me to believe that there is something affecting the sensor and/or blocking the flash beam partially which would make sense. The Kenko is very nice and very sharp. In looking at Guy's photo's, that doesn't seem to be the case with the Kodak lense. Being curious, I wonder if anyone else has had similar problems with attachment lenses and flashes causing a shadow. Thanks in advance. __________________ Camera: Panasonic DV953 PC: Apple Aluminum G4 Powerbook - 15 inch Final Cut Pro 4 and other assorted goodies!

February 6th, 2004, 03:43 AM	#20
Alex Lake Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 42	Next round soon Thanks for the comments. It looks like my tests are a bit harsh. Non-flash stuff is much better by the looks of things. So I will be uploading a couple of daytime pics (without OIS) later on. Sadly, it's rather cloudy here today, so not the best of conditions - but not unrepresentative! I've also secured the opportunity to use a Raynox HD6600Pro (down at Jessops) to see what spending 3 and half times the money gets you (Results next week) __________________ Alex

February 5th, 2004, 08:30 PM	#18
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Yes, you are right, Penelope. I have posted a video that shows more of how this lens performs. Zoom through is much less than I originally estimated. Softness begins to occur at the edges of the picture at about 3x. The center image is pretty sharp even up to about 7x but at 10x there is softness across the board and strong chromatic aberrations. On the good side, the flare and ghosting aren't too bad, at least on this one video. I don't know if this is typical for this type of wide angle. It appears to be useable at full pullback, but I want to shoot some video in natural light. It would be useful to have some pix and video from a Raynox or Tiffen to compare against.

February 6th, 2004, 07:13 AM	#21
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Ok, folks. I have corresponded with Tom Hardwick, a well-known British expert and a contributor here, about the pix I posted. He did look at both Alex's and my pix but did not draw a conclusion. He suggested a more controlled set of shots that would be a better basis from which to draw conclusions. I was already planning to do this having recognized the pix I posted were of low value. I will attempt to do that this weekend. We are in the middle of a monsoon here, so the architectural shots Tom recommended may be delayed. Tom did comment that all wide angle lenses have different degrees of distortion and not unlike those exhibited by the Kodak. Rick, The way the flash on the 953 is positioned, just about any lens attached to the front will partially block the flash cone. I suspect that is what you are seeing. You can see it clearly in some of my pix where there is a dark arcing shadow in the lower part of the frame. BTW, if you would like to post some example pix taken with the Kenko, be my guest. Put them in the Kodak album.

February 6th, 2004, 08:00 AM	#22
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Thanks for your adjective 'expert' Guy! :-) Yes, I too suspect that the shadow in flash shots is caused by the mechanical interruption of the light by the add-on lens, nothing more. Of course the flash gun's coverage will only extend as far as the camcorder's original wide-angle zoom, and any extra wide-angle will not be lit by the flash, and vignetting will occur. It's visible on your test shots BTW, and I'm sure the instruction book warns about this. The Kodak lens does sound rather so-so, and I suspect that being designed to compliment digital still cameras means that it's not meant for anything longer than a 3 or 4x zoom. There are some very good add-on lenses out there, and I always suggest that if possible folk try before they hand over the cash. If that's not possible, then do ask, and here's as good a place as any. Computervideo.net has another excellent forum. Can I put some sample widie pictures in your Kodak album? tom.

February 6th, 2004, 08:40 AM	#23
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Tom, Please feel free to post anything you believe would add insight and understanding about the qualities and limitations of lenses of this type. BTW, I was able to acquire this lens for only $9US out of pocket. I think its ok for that price :-).

February 6th, 2004, 09:01 AM	#24
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	well, I went to all the trouble to set up a FortVir account, but nowhere could I see a tab to 'upload' stuff. What's up? tom.

February 6th, 2004, 09:13 AM	#25
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Tom, Just enter the album and select "Add Photos" from the options at the top. You will be presented with a dialog box that will let you browse to where the photos are on your hard drive and add them to the upload. You can also zip up all the photos and upload the zip file. The server will automatically unzip them in the album. I appreciate you registering, but you don't have to do that for this album.

February 6th, 2004, 01:28 PM	#26
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Thanks Guy. I've posted four comparison pictures. I set up the Sony VX2000 on a rock-solid tripod perpendicular to the wall. I set auto focus but manually exposed off the bricks. I recorded frames to Memory stick to check for vignetting in Photoshop. The results will tell us what we know already - that it's difficult to find a zoom-through that doesn't barrel distort. Look, even the Sony lens on its own is so afflicted. tom.

February 6th, 2004, 01:36 PM	#27
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Thanks, Tom. Very helpful. I wonder how available that Aspheron is in the US? By any chance, do you have an archive shot of the Raynox...either the 5000 or 6600...that you could post?

February 6th, 2004, 01:59 PM	#28
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Yes I do, and I'll post it there now. It looks to barrel distort but what you're really seeing is the 'extrapolation' of the barrel distortion inherrent at the wide-angle end of the Sony Zoom. The Raynox just magnifies that built-in distortion. When I used the Raynox over the 28mm wideangle on my 35mm Canon camera, there was no distortion. Check your camera for distortion. The TRV950 and the Canon MVX3i have very little distortion, but my MX300 is not so good. tom.

February 7th, 2004, 03:51 AM	#29
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	According to Pana, the MX300's barrel distortion was worked out somewhat with the newer MX350. So it seemed that Pana took this particular MX300 problem very seriously.

February 7th, 2004, 10:54 AM	#30
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Ok, I have taken some architectural still shots similar to those posted in the Kodak Album by Tom Hardwick and a short video. What I observed from these shots: >There is no discernable barrel distortion from the DV953 in full wide. >There is no discernable barrel distortion from the Kodak wide angle with nozoom. >The resolution of the Kodak is very good. >The center resolution of the Kodak is pretty sharp throughout the zoom range, but softness begins to show up on the picture edges at about 3X zoom. My conclusions. It's a keeper.