I bought the Kodak Ektanar Wide-angle Lens at DVinfo.net

Young Lee · March 10th, 2004, 11:11 AM

for $49 including shipping and tax at amazon.com.

Here's a pic I took w/ the wide-angle lens attached.

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/...c/IMGA0673.JPG

Frank Granovski · March 10th, 2004, 03:46 PM

Once you use it and test it, let us know how it works.

Guy Bruner · March 10th, 2004, 05:53 PM

Kodak Ektanar Wide Angle Lens Gallery

Adam Folickman · March 11th, 2004, 05:23 AM

Guy,

I saw your photos in the Kodak Wide Angle Gallery.

So you when you attach the wide angle you leave on the 43mm UV filter andd the Pana lens hood ? Because I take my UV off first and also the Pana lens hood and attach my Wide Angle directly to the lens mount.

Do you have any problems with leaving on the UV filter and lens hood ?

Guy Bruner · March 11th, 2004, 06:13 AM

Adam,
The WA needs to be installed directly to the lens barrel (as stated in the manual)...that means removing the stock hood and any filters. I shot video both ways to see the results because I wanted to be able to use an ND filter. There is ghosting and flaring when a filter is between the WA and camera lens.

Adam Folickman · March 11th, 2004, 08:42 AM

What you said was what I thought to be the correct way to do it so I was suprised to see it done differently.

Guy Bruner · March 11th, 2004, 09:37 AM

Thanks for pointing that out, Adam. I shot those photos just after getting the lens. Decided to just screw it on the hood because I wasn't going to take pictures with it right away. All the photos I took with it are with the hood off. So, I edited the text under the photos of the WA/camera so others wouldn't be confused.

Young,
Have you taken any flash photos? You will probably notice the shadowing that occurs in the lower part of the frame because the lens partially blocks the flash. Also, the flash sensor on the bottom of the lens barrel (where the small hole is in the hood) gets blocked so the flash strength is not compensated for. Can cause some overexposure, especially on close ups.

Young Lee · March 12th, 2004, 05:27 PM

No, I haven't taken flash photos yet, but I'll try today.

Adam Folickman · March 15th, 2004, 02:49 AM

Guy,

I noticed that when I use my Raxnox 5000 WA adaptor the lens gets in the way of the flash sometimes and I have to remove the WA lens. I guess there is no way around this.

Guy Bruner · March 15th, 2004, 06:57 PM

If you MUST take stills with the 953 with a WA lens, you may want to invest in a slave flash unit. It can be placed away from the camcorder and your main unit triggers it. A lot of expense, IMO, for the lower quality pix you'll get.

March 10th, 2004, 11:11 AM	#1
Young Lee Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 268	I bought the Kodak Ektanar Wide-angle Lens for $49 including shipping and tax at amazon.com. Here's a pic I took w/ the wide-angle lens attached. http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/...c/IMGA0673.JPG

March 10th, 2004, 05:53 PM	#3
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	I think it is sweet for the price Kodak Ektanar Wide Angle Lens Gallery

March 10th, 2004, 03:46 PM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Once you use it and test it, let us know how it works.

March 11th, 2004, 05:23 AM	#4
Adam Folickman Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: New Hampshire, USA Posts: 125	Guy, I saw your photos in the Kodak Wide Angle Gallery. So you when you attach the wide angle you leave on the 43mm UV filter andd the Pana lens hood ? Because I take my UV off first and also the Pana lens hood and attach my Wide Angle directly to the lens mount. Do you have any problems with leaving on the UV filter and lens hood ?

March 11th, 2004, 06:13 AM	#5
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Adam, The WA needs to be installed directly to the lens barrel (as stated in the manual)...that means removing the stock hood and any filters. I shot video both ways to see the results because I wanted to be able to use an ND filter. There is ghosting and flaring when a filter is between the WA and camera lens.

March 11th, 2004, 08:42 AM	#6
Adam Folickman Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: New Hampshire, USA Posts: 125	What you said was what I thought to be the correct way to do it so I was suprised to see it done differently.

March 11th, 2004, 09:37 AM	#7
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Thanks for pointing that out, Adam. I shot those photos just after getting the lens. Decided to just screw it on the hood because I wasn't going to take pictures with it right away. All the photos I took with it are with the hood off. So, I edited the text under the photos of the WA/camera so others wouldn't be confused. Young, Have you taken any flash photos? You will probably notice the shadowing that occurs in the lower part of the frame because the lens partially blocks the flash. Also, the flash sensor on the bottom of the lens barrel (where the small hole is in the hood) gets blocked so the flash strength is not compensated for. Can cause some overexposure, especially on close ups.

March 12th, 2004, 05:27 PM	#8
Young Lee Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 268	No, I haven't taken flash photos yet, but I'll try today.

March 15th, 2004, 02:49 AM	#9
Adam Folickman Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: New Hampshire, USA Posts: 125	Guy, I noticed that when I use my Raxnox 5000 WA adaptor the lens gets in the way of the flash sometimes and I have to remove the WA lens. I guess there is no way around this.

March 15th, 2004, 06:57 PM	#10
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	If you MUST take stills with the 953 with a WA lens, you may want to invest in a slave flash unit. It can be placed away from the camcorder and your main unit triggers it. A lot of expense, IMO, for the lower quality pix you'll get.