Raynox MX3062 semi fisheye at DVinfo.net

Ron Chau · June 21st, 2007, 08:53 AM

Having been impressed with my Raynox .7x W/A lens, I decided to give their .3x semi fisheye a try. Super wide has always intrigued me, but the price tag, distortion and resolution loss has kept me away.

Then comes the $100 Raynox MX3062. Yeah I hear you, $100 fisheye, must be garbage. But I figured I take a chance. After all the $150 .7x Raynox worked pretty well. Worst case, I can easily return the fisheye if I don't like it.

Well, I like it. Barrel distortion and blurry corners as expected, but for my amateur hobbyist uses I can see myself using it on very specific shots. Super wide, moving action, etc. The amount of coverage is very impressive and I expect moving action shots will tend to hide the soft corners. The barrel distortion is strong, but for a .3x, I expect that.

Here is a video capture still:

Tip McPartland · June 21st, 2007, 12:07 PM

As opposed to a regular wide angle lens that is supposed to maintain vertical and horizontal parallels as well as possible, the fisheye lens exists to create an optical effect that is really an extreme example of barrel distortion.

Because there is no effort to suppress this they can be very simple one element designs instead of three or even four element lenses.

Also note the relatively strong chromatic aberration that you can see toward the edges of the frame. But your lens is still no doubt a good value for the money.

Tip

Ron Chau · June 21st, 2007, 12:28 PM

Is there a .3x lens out there that doesn't barrel distort ? I would think that is hard to find and very expensive.

I shoot underwater video for a hobby, so this lens should serve me well.

Fisheye, LOL.

Zsolt Gordos · June 23rd, 2007, 05:53 PM

I have stepped in the trap and bought this lens.

The results are disappointing - very soft for HD, regardless shooting condition.
Avoid it at any cost if you deliver in HD. Might be good for SD.

Ron Chau · June 23rd, 2007, 07:55 PM

I'm just a hobbyist, so my eye's are not as critical as most. Although I like the lens and especially the price, I can see some not being happy with the softness.

I like to post sample clips and/or photo's so people can make their own evaluation.

I'm curious to see how the Century fisheye performs. I'm sure it is better than the $100 Raynox, but I can't justify the $500 price tag. Raynox also offers a higher resolution fisheye, but it's much larger and expensive too.

June 21st, 2007, 08:53 AM	#1
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	Raynox MX3062 semi fisheye Having been impressed with my Raynox .7x W/A lens, I decided to give their .3x semi fisheye a try. Super wide has always intrigued me, but the price tag, distortion and resolution loss has kept me away. Then comes the $100 Raynox MX3062. Yeah I hear you, $100 fisheye, must be garbage. But I figured I take a chance. After all the $150 .7x Raynox worked pretty well. Worst case, I can easily return the fisheye if I don't like it. Well, I like it. Barrel distortion and blurry corners as expected, but for my amateur hobbyist uses I can see myself using it on very specific shots. Super wide, moving action, etc. The amount of coverage is very impressive and I expect moving action shots will tend to hide the soft corners. The barrel distortion is strong, but for a .3x, I expect that. Here is a video capture still: Attached Thumbnails

June 21st, 2007, 12:07 PM	#2
Tip McPartland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Crestline, California Posts: 351	Fisheye is FOR barrel distortion As opposed to a regular wide angle lens that is supposed to maintain vertical and horizontal parallels as well as possible, the fisheye lens exists to create an optical effect that is really an extreme example of barrel distortion. Because there is no effort to suppress this they can be very simple one element designs instead of three or even four element lenses. Also note the relatively strong chromatic aberration that you can see toward the edges of the frame. But your lens is still no doubt a good value for the money. Tip

June 23rd, 2007, 05:53 PM	#4
Zsolt Gordos Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Budapest, Hungary Posts: 414	I have stepped in the trap and bought this lens. The results are disappointing - very soft for HD, regardless shooting condition. Avoid it at any cost if you deliver in HD. Might be good for SD. __________________ Sony XDCAM EX1r, Canon 5DMkII, Røde NTG2, Røde NT1000, Røde Stereo Videomic, Sachtler DV6 SB on Gitzo 1325V, Steadicam Merlin, Omnitracker, Hackintosh 3.5Ghz Quad 8Gb RAM

June 21st, 2007, 12:28 PM	#3
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	Is there a .3x lens out there that doesn't barrel distort ? I would think that is hard to find and very expensive. I shoot underwater video for a hobby, so this lens should serve me well. Fisheye, LOL.

June 23rd, 2007, 07:55 PM	#5
Ron Chau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: ny, ny Posts: 204	I'm just a hobbyist, so my eye's are not as critical as most. Although I like the lens and especially the price, I can see some not being happy with the softness. I like to post sample clips and/or photo's so people can make their own evaluation. I'm curious to see how the Century fisheye performs. I'm sure it is better than the $100 Raynox, but I can't justify the $500 price tag. Raynox also offers a higher resolution fisheye, but it's much larger and expensive too.