Wide Angle Adapter

Adi Head · January 9th, 2003, 08:41 AM

just a question a little off topic... but i recently purchased a century optics 65 WA adapter and became a little conserned after reading a few posts up about defected lenses.
what defects were these?

are there any tests i can run on my WA adapter to see if its ok?

i have a shoot scheduled in two days. first time out with my pd150 and new accessories. i want to bring unexpted problems to a minimum, expecially if it has to to with camera equipment.

thanks.

Mark Thomas · January 9th, 2003, 03:03 PM

I am inclined to go with the Kenko now if it is "just as good" and half the price.

Mark Thomas · January 13th, 2003, 03:38 PM

no, no, I just cancelled the Kenko one after some bad reviews.

What about the Raynox 66x? is that better? Maybe I should order all three and send the others back.

Adi Head · January 15th, 2003, 08:30 AM

in what way can a wide angle adapter be defected?

Mark Thomas · January 22nd, 2003, 03:14 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Adi Head : i just bought a century optics 0.65x and a B+W UV filter for my pd150.
i guess this may be a silly question, but after trying i can't help but come to the conclusion that in order to fit on the WA adaptor, i have to first remove the UV filter which is usually screwed on to protect the camera lense. is this true? i didn't want to try too hard to place the WA adaptor on top of the filter, for fear of scratching the filter. -->>>

I just received the Raynox 65x lense which I am happy with. See nothing wrong with it. I screwed it right on over my uv filter and the pressure cracked the filter. So I will make sure to take all filters off of the camera before mounting a lense.

February 26th, 2003, 01:14 PM

I have Century Wide Angel Conversion lens, the same one as Mike's. I go shoot video and I get a lot of vending effect where the thing on the top edge of the video looks big, and things in the middle is small. So if I shoot a person, and framed such that head is near the top of the frame, then the subject's head is SO MUCH larger than body, it looks like a marsian.

Is there a way to avoid this, but still be able to stand closer to the subject.

Matt Stahley · February 26th, 2003, 04:02 PM

I use the WD-58 not the Century but from reading pasts posts here the Century did not seem to distort the image any and as far as i know its a full zoom thru lens (.65).
If its a screw on mount be sure that it is threaded properly and i would screw it directly on the lens and not stacked on top say a UV filter etc.

February 26th, 2003, 04:34 PM

Thank you,

Yes, it's screwed right on the lens with bayonet mount. I checks just before I start shoot everytime. Is it because I am standing from the arm length away from the talent trying to get wast up body shot? If so, is there any lens that does let me tape it without distoriton.

Don Bloom · February 26th, 2003, 05:39 PM

Anne,
perspective distortion with a WA or fisheye lens can be hard to get around. With a WA lens the closer you get to you subject the more distortion and more out of perspective the subject will look. Try this; with the lens on and the cam on a tripod, get in really close to an object. Focus on the near point of the object and then look at the perspective, then move back a foot or two and focus in on it again. You'll probably see less perspective distortion but you're shot will have changed so try a little zoom for framing. Generally with a WA lens have to back off just a little so as not to have the distortion.
Hope this helps,
Don

Rick Spilman · February 26th, 2003, 07:35 PM

This may be an impertenant question but if you are shooting with a WA lens why are you so close to the object or person that you are taping? Wide angle and particularly fisheys lens are used to create 'artistic' distortion close up. If you are close why not just take the lens off? Or am I missing something?

March 8th, 2003, 03:27 PM

I use WA so that even when I am standing up against the stage, I will stil be able to frame wide enough to get a shot that has knee up to the head of the subject. Isn't that what WA supposed to do though?

Rick Spilman · March 8th, 2003, 03:47 PM

If you are close enough with a wide enough angle lens you will get distortion. The distortion can be fine if that is what you are going for. Otherwise take off the adapter and go for the close up or move back from the subject.

Wayne Orr · March 8th, 2003, 09:59 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by RagadyAnne : I use WA so that even when I am standing up against the stage, I will stil be able to frame wide enough to get a shot that has knee up to the head of the subject. Isn't that what WA supposed to do though? -->>>

"Standing at the edge of the stage"??? Does this mean you are standing in the audience below stage level looking up at your subject? If so, yes, any wide angle lens will distort from this angle. You see it very often in rock concerts on television.

If you are standing eye to eye with your subject at arms length, and getting distortion, try zooming in a bit. It should help eliminate some of the distortion. Also be aware to hold your camera as level as possible to help eliminate the "parallax" effect with the wide lens.

March 9th, 2003, 07:58 PM

Does the footage I did last night looks distorted? I shot 2 song without WA. The following footage is how the thing looks. I followed advice, first forcused on how I want frame, the stepped back 2 feet then reframed it. the result looks like this:

http://207.44.160.90/~admin8/testmedia/testfile.wmv

Thanks for advice.

Joe Gioielli · March 25th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Which lens do you think is better the Canon wide angel or the Sony
wide angel? Is there a third choice?

January 22nd, 2003, 03:14 PM	#65
Mark Thomas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Abergavenny, Monmouthshire Posts: 34	Re: wide angle adaptor <<<-- Originally posted by Adi Head : i just bought a century optics 0.65x and a B+W UV filter for my pd150. i guess this may be a silly question, but after trying i can't help but come to the conclusion that in order to fit on the WA adaptor, i have to first remove the UV filter which is usually screwed on to protect the camera lense. is this true? i didn't want to try too hard to place the WA adaptor on top of the filter, for fear of scratching the filter. -->>> I just received the Raynox 65x lense which I am happy with. See nothing wrong with it. I screwed it right on over my uv filter and the pressure cracked the filter. So I will make sure to take all filters off of the camera before mounting a lense.

February 26th, 2003, 01:14 PM	#66
Guest Posts: n/a	Wide Angel Conversion Lens I have Century Wide Angel Conversion lens, the same one as Mike's. I go shoot video and I get a lot of vending effect where the thing on the top edge of the video looks big, and things in the middle is small. So if I shoot a person, and framed such that head is near the top of the frame, then the subject's head is SO MUCH larger than body, it looks like a marsian. Is there a way to avoid this, but still be able to stand closer to the subject.

March 8th, 2003, 09:59 PM	#73
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	<<<-- Originally posted by RagadyAnne : I use WA so that even when I am standing up against the stage, I will stil be able to frame wide enough to get a shot that has knee up to the head of the subject. Isn't that what WA supposed to do though? -->>> "Standing at the edge of the stage"??? Does this mean you are standing in the audience below stage level looking up at your subject? If so, yes, any wide angle lens will distort from this angle. You see it very often in rock concerts on television. If you are standing eye to eye with your subject at arms length, and getting distortion, try zooming in a bit. It should help eliminate some of the distortion. Also be aware to hold your camera as level as possible to help eliminate the "parallax" effect with the wide lens. __________________ Wayne If it was easy, they'd get a relative to do it.

March 25th, 2003, 11:21 PM	#75
Joe Gioielli Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New Port Richey, Fl Posts: 142	Wide Angle Lens Sony vs. Canon Which lens do you think is better the Canon wide angel or the Sony wide angel? Is there a third choice? __________________ Why ask me? I thought you were in charge!

January 9th, 2003, 08:41 AM	#61
Adi Head Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 642	just a question a little off topic... but i recently purchased a century optics 65 WA adapter and became a little conserned after reading a few posts up about defected lenses. what defects were these? are there any tests i can run on my WA adapter to see if its ok? i have a shoot scheduled in two days. first time out with my pd150 and new accessories. i want to bring unexpted problems to a minimum, expecially if it has to to with camera equipment. thanks.

January 9th, 2003, 03:03 PM	#62
Mark Thomas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Abergavenny, Monmouthshire Posts: 34	I am inclined to go with the Kenko now if it is "just as good" and half the price.

January 13th, 2003, 03:38 PM	#63
Mark Thomas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Abergavenny, Monmouthshire Posts: 34	no, no, I just cancelled the Kenko one after some bad reviews. What about the Raynox 66x? is that better? Maybe I should order all three and send the others back.

January 15th, 2003, 08:30 AM	#64
Adi Head Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 642	in what way can a wide angle adapter be defected?

February 26th, 2003, 04:02 PM	#67
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	I use the WD-58 not the Century but from reading pasts posts here the Century did not seem to distort the image any and as far as i know its a full zoom thru lens (.65). If its a screw on mount be sure that it is threaded properly and i would screw it directly on the lens and not stacked on top say a UV filter etc.

February 26th, 2003, 04:34 PM	#68
Guest Posts: n/a	Thank you, Yes, it's screwed right on the lens with bayonet mount. I checks just before I start shoot everytime. Is it because I am standing from the arm length away from the talent trying to get wast up body shot? If so, is there any lens that does let me tape it without distoriton.

February 26th, 2003, 05:39 PM	#69
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	Anne, perspective distortion with a WA or fisheye lens can be hard to get around. With a WA lens the closer you get to you subject the more distortion and more out of perspective the subject will look. Try this; with the lens on and the cam on a tripod, get in really close to an object. Focus on the near point of the object and then look at the perspective, then move back a foot or two and focus in on it again. You'll probably see less perspective distortion but you're shot will have changed so try a little zoom for framing. Generally with a WA lens have to back off just a little so as not to have the distortion. Hope this helps, Don

February 26th, 2003, 07:35 PM	#70
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	This may be an impertenant question but if you are shooting with a WA lens why are you so close to the object or person that you are taping? Wide angle and particularly fisheys lens are used to create 'artistic' distortion close up. If you are close why not just take the lens off? Or am I missing something?

March 8th, 2003, 03:27 PM	#71
Guest Posts: n/a	I use WA so that even when I am standing up against the stage, I will stil be able to frame wide enough to get a shot that has knee up to the head of the subject. Isn't that what WA supposed to do though?

March 8th, 2003, 03:47 PM	#72
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	If you are close enough with a wide enough angle lens you will get distortion. The distortion can be fine if that is what you are going for. Otherwise take off the adapter and go for the close up or move back from the subject.

March 9th, 2003, 07:58 PM	#74
Guest Posts: n/a	Does the footage I did last night looks distorted? I shot 2 song without WA. The following footage is how the thing looks. I followed advice, first forcused on how I want frame, the stepped back 2 feet then reframed it. the result looks like this: http://207.44.160.90/~admin8/testmedia/testfile.wmv Thanks for advice.