Researching forums here and prices at http://bhphotovideo.com
I found these options to choose from, please share your thoughts:

$140 -- RAYNOX HD-5000Pro 27mm-43mm 0.5x Wide Angle Lens
http://tinyurl.com/e0qk

$120 -- RAYNOX HD-6600Pro43 43mm 0.66x Wide Angle Lens
http://tinyurl.com/e0qv

$90 -- TIFFEN MegaPlus 43mm 0.75x Wide Angle Lens
http://tinyurl.com/e0qg

$170 -- PANASONIC AG-LW4307 43mm 0.7x Wide-Angle Lens
http://tinyurl.com/e0qq

$140 -- CANON WD-43 43mm 0.7x Wide Angle Lens
http://tinyurl.com/e0qo

I've found and read opinions on RAYNOX and TIFFEN lenses,
but saw none about PANASONIC and CANON, but since both
PANA and CANON are quite expensive and doubtfully better
than the RAYNOX and TIFFEN I guess the choices narrow...

Raynox HD-6600Pro seems to have almost no distortion, while
it seems Raynox HD-5000Pro has some --- anyone here who has
experience with both or at least later is willing to share with us?

As for Tiffen MegaPlus, well, I saw no comparison to Raynox,
but already by specification seems Raynox is a better choice,
0.66x vs. 0.75x, thought there is a $30 difference in price...

I think I'd choose Raynox 0.5x, but if there is not too much
distortion, otherwise Raynox 0.66x seems safe bet, opinions???

Or perhaps someone would recommend some other lens,
maybe using step up rings?

Also, if anyone saw better prices somewhere for lenses above
please let us know :-)

You probably should add Kenko to your list. And in Europe there are Hama and Soligor brands as well. As for Raynox prices, http://www.bugeyedigital.com seems to have best prices for Raynox. They also ship internationaly.

My set-up for the wide angle lens is this:
Camera -- step-up 43 to 52 -- step-up 52 to 55 -- 55 ring* -- Fujifilm 0.79x for the S602 still camera.

* The 55 ring is actually a filter with the glass knocked off. This is necessary as the Fuji WA has a protrusion behind that will interfere with the step-up adaptor.

With this set-up, I get very good shots from 1x to 4x zoom. The fringes start to blur (aberation) after 4x zoom and when I reach 12x, only the centre ring of 50% the screen width remain sharp. This WA is already coated and light loss and flaring is minimal. Of course, this is a very natural choice for me as I also use it on my digital still cam.

www.fujifilmmall.com/product.asp?sku=1832541

Thanks for your input Vladimir and YowCH.

Vladimir, if you have it on your mind, which shops in Europe sell Hama and Soligor lenses? I checked Kenko, at $150 it is more expensive than Raynox and Tiffen, is it also better? Well, I doubt so by what I've read on some posts here (see bellow)...

YowCH, sure, your choice for Fujifilm wide lens is a best choice since you use if for your digital still camera as well... but to use it just for digital video camera seems too expensive at $180, plus the need for having/buying several step up rings...

I think I am now about to choose RAYNOX HD-6600Pro43 43mm 0.66x, because it has the least distortion of all lenses in that range. As Tom Hardwick said in one of his posts: "Of all the wide-angles I tested for a British video mag, the Century came out tops in the 0.65x range. As so it should - it was a great deal of money. The Raynox 0.66x gave far less barrel distortion though, but at maximum zoom it was very much softer than the Century."

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 also checked the photos at Raynox for all of their top lenses: 0.3x, 0.5x, 0.66x & 0.7x. I prepared a simple web page with photos for you to view it easier/quicker... Address: http://www.24get.com/WAL/

These photos convinced me the most, along the positive comments from Tom Hardwich and Frank, who said that many people are very satisfied with it...

Any further thoughts on this matter are appreciated.

P.S. How do I make web links active?

Most photoshops in Europe sell Hama accesories. Soligor is something more rare. You can see a list of distributors on their sites: http://www.hama.de and http://www.soligor.com - I believe they both have distributors in Slovenia, so you can come there and try the lenses. Also, a simple google search gives you tens of on-line stores.

Since the question was asked, Panasonic's wide angle is very good, according to Terrence and Tim, but it doesn't have filter threads in the front.

If Tom tested these wide angle adaptors, I'd certainly lean toward his findings.

To make a link active, you have to write the full link: http://www...

In front put in url, and the end, /url and put them in square brackets []

Sorry to say I haven't tested the Panasonic or Canon wide-angles. I've used both of the 0.7x varieties from these makers, but that's a long way from a proper test. Both looked good and in particular the heavy Canon appeared to have little distortion. But then it should - it's only a mild 0.7x.

The Raynox is still king in the zoom-throughs as far as lack of barrel distortion is concerned, and it's very good indeed at max wide. But it does need a good hood as the coating isn't up to the Canon or Century mark, and of course there's the softness at full telephoto. The Raynox 0.5x distorts a lot more and I for one am getting sick of seeing every door frame bend as wide-angle trackers move about.

The single element Schneider Kreuznach elements sold here
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php
are still the least distorting wide-angles you'll find.

The Schneider Kreuznach 0.65x
is not quite as good as the Raynox in the corners because of very slight colour fringing but it doesn’t vignette at all. Centre definition is excellent at whatever aperture you shoot at and the lack of distortion has to be seen to be believed. This is a very good lens indeed although like all single elements it’s a non zoom-through. The lack of coating is a major flaw as it’s not always possible to exclude light sources and these do cause bad flare spots.

tom.

Thank you for your reply Tom. I am glad to see that experts answer to such basic questions.
(This is a post replying on both of your latest posts to me...)

Yes, I understand that everything absorbs light, but I thought that wide angle lens "collects" more light than it absorbs, am I wrong here? I've read few people posting here that with good wide angle lens you can gain, say, 3-5 LUX (on Pana MX500 you get 10 LUX instead of 15 LUX)... 5 LUX seems a good difference when shooting at late evening, but since I don't have any experience with WA, I wonder what that means in practice? Have you ever tried shooting at low lights with both options?

I am glad to read your opinion on Pana and Raynox lenses. Pana also costs quite a bit more than Raynox and since the Pana also distorts the image more I have a much easier choice now :-)

If possible I'd like to ask you to clarify this: for Schneider Kreuznach 0.65x you say is non zoom-through, I guess this means even a 2x or 3x zoom doesn't work, right? While for Raynox 0.66x you say it is zoom-through, but that there's the softness at full telephoto -- but does this mean that for lower zoom ranges, say, 2x to 6x it works well enough? If answer to both is yes, I think Raynox should be a better choice for most of users? Well, if money would be of no concern I'd have both Schneider Kreuznach and Century mark :-)

No, the wide-angle lens cannot "collect more light". It may well "see more sky" and therefore indicate that a smaller aperture will be set by the auto exposure, but the fact remails that adding three elements (which means 6 air to glass surfaces)in front of your zoom will undoubetdly absorb some light.

It's easy to test. Film an evenly lit grey card (or something like this) and used locked exposure. Now add the converter lens and reposition the camera (don't use the zoom) so that the v/finder shows exactly the same image. Film some more with the same exposure setting.

Replay the footage on your TV. Notice the slight change in the exposure across the join? That aptly demonstrates the light lost within the converter lens.

More answers.
>Have you ever tried shooting at low lights with both options?

Yes, often. But don't let the light loss put you off, the pictorial image you're after is a lot more important than any silly light loss. Use the tools that give you the results you're after.

The Schneider is a "partial zoom-through" meaning that yes, you can zoom a bit but it quickly looses the ability to focus at about 3x as you say. The Raynox is sharp to about 6x and Raynox are very open about this in their literature. The problem is that under stressful shooting conditions it's often difficult to spot the point at which critical sharpness is lost.

tom.

I looked at a bunch of Raynox adaptors today. I wasn't impressed. My 1st choice would still be the high quality Tiffen adaptor---it's even made of metal instead of plastic---plus the glass looks better. So I would go with the Tiffen over the Pana and Raynox.

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyan Dob :

YowCH, sure, your choice for Fujifilm wide lens is a best choice since you use if for your digital still camera as well... but to use it just for digital video camera seems too expensive at $180, plus the need for having/buying several step up rings...
-->>>

Yes, $180 seems expensive, but I got it in Singapore for Singapore dollar $210 (that's like US$120). The RRP is always ridiculously high... I got my MX350 at SGD2500 (display set, though) while teh RRP was SGD3800, and the MX500 was offered to me at SGD2300 when the RRP was SGD3300. ?!?!?!

Also the stacking of step-up rings brings my ring size to 55mm. This is a convenient size, as I use Hoya filters. Hoya filters cost a bomb when below 49mm or above 62mm. Those below 49mm are to earn from the camcorder market while those above 62mm are to earn from 'pro' photographers. I'll stick to 55mm which is within the normal range, hence not too costly. The stepping rings are only a few dollars each.

BTW, with my filter at 55mm, I can stack up to 3 filters without vignetting, but keeping to 43mm, vignetting begins at 2 filters.

Most original manufacturers do only 0.7x or more as they fear that any more will cause customer complains of having too much distortion. The alternative is the very expensive cylindrical "anamorphic" (did I get this right?) which will be good for landscapes.

Frank, I appreciate your help -- I see you even took the effort and checked out some Raynox lenses. Thanks!

Well, I wanted to see some images created by Tiffen 43mm 0.75x Wide Angle Converter, but didn't find any on their site. I'd very much like to compare images between this Tiffen and Raynox 43mm 0.66x, could you please do this for all of us here who are interested in wide angle lenses??

There are two things of main concern here. As Tom said Tiffen distorts image quite some more than Raynox, what was your experience Frank? And also, Raynox is specified at 0.66x while Tiffen at 0.75x, how big of a difference that is after all? I think I'd sacrifice a slight difference in quality for wider angle and less distortion...

YohCH, so in a way you recommend using step-up rings and buy a wide angle lens of 55mm since it's better when having up to 3 filters to avoid vignetting?

Lastly, on Tiffen site they promote new "Mega Plus 0.56x WA lens" -- anyone got experience with that one?
http://www.tiffen.com/digital_MegaPlusLenses.htm

Thanks to all!

You'll find there's quite a big difference in wide-angle between a 0.75x and a 0.66x converter. The 0.75x will take your focal length down to 2.6mm whereas the 0.66x will make it 2.3mm.

It may not sound much but the increase in the angle of view will be very noticeable. I always feel that the hassle factor of fitting a wide-angle (remove hood, store. Remove UV, store. Unzip w/angle, remove lens caps. Store. Screw on w/angle, being careful not to cross-thread....and so on) mean that you might as well screw on a lens that's going to make a good big difference in your viewfinder.

tom.

Thanks Tom! Now I want 0.66x Raynox over 0.75x Tiffen, but hmmm, now I am puzzled again, as to where to put Tiffen 0.56x??

I really have no possibility of checking any of them out in my country, so, I'll have to order Tiffen or Raynox via the internet (probbably from BHphotoVideo.com).

Be aware that the Raynox 6600Pro isn't a fully zoom through optic, and Raynox themselves make no bones about this. For about half the zoom the lens is very sharp, but in the last half it gets noticeably more "flarey" and soft in the corners. This can be very flattering to women of a certain age, but it's certainly not the lens to use if you think you might need to use your full zoom with the w/angle in place.

In my group test of a lot of wide-angles for a video magazine, my conclusions on the Raynox were:

The Raynox 0.66x is of three element, three group construction and sells for just under £100. It has a plastic box to keep it in, has a front lens cap that clips on securely and a rear cap that’s feeble, and weighs in at a lightweight 190g. The coating is nowhere near as good as on the Cavision and the Century, and hooding is recommended. It has a 72mm filter thread so this is not difficult to do. This Raynox is the only lens that you can use successfully as a converter for your 35mm still camera, where it handsomely outperforms all the rest. It’ll convert your 28mm f2.8 lens into an 18.5mm f2.8 lens with ease.

The instructions warn against using this lens past the half-way point on your zoom but I did some tests at full telephoto to check it out. Sure enough at full telephoto the image is decidedly soft and is covered with a veiling flare that is reminiscent of the effect given by the better soft focus screens. The effect is very aperture sensitive and at f4 it’s quite sharp in the middle of the frame with very soft edges. At f11 it’s soft all over and gives quite appealing portraiture shots.

At mid zoom it gives pincushion distortion but much better sharpness except right in the corners, and at wide it’s really a very good lens. Overall it’s the best value for money here as its centre definition is indistinguishable from the VX2000 on its own. Visit http://www.raynox.com

tom.

The Tiffen 43mm is only .75, I think. That's a shame because the Tiffen 37mm wide is around .5, and also a much better wide than the 43mm thread size model. When I have the time, I'll take my MX down to the shop and compare these 2 adaptors. Since Tom has done an extensive test, perhaps go with what he suggests.

When I did test the Tiffen, I noticed good zoom through. I also noticed the high quality body and glass. The Tiffen is heavy, so it will add a lot of extra weight in front of your cam. If you do decide on the Tiffen, you can get one here (I'll just give you an e-mail contact for Leo's Cameras):

peter@leoscamera.com

Peter can answer all your wide angle questions as well, since he's always testing these items in the shop.

http://www.tiffen.com/digital_MegaPlusLenses.htm
...here you can see that Tiffen 0.56x is available in the most common thread sizes: 30mm, 37mm, and 43mm.

So, for me there are just two options to choose from (considering the price and what you get for it):

1) Raynox 43mm 0.66x
2) Tiffen 43mm 0.56x

...so Frank, if you could compare these two a bit it would be great.

Tom, I appreciate you putting the extract of your review! Tho, since you haven't had Tiffen 43mm 0.56x in your review it's still impossible for me to tell which to choose...

Oh..., this .56X must be newer. I'll have to take a look at that one...tomorrow, along with the Raynox HD5000 Pro. I'll phone around this afternoon, just to make sure---.

I talked to Chris at Beau Photo, a professional dealer in Vancouver---just down the street from me! Surprisingly, they also tested a number of wide angle adaptors. Their conclusion is that "the numbers" were a lot higher than the Tiffen, but non of them are total zoom through as Tom had mentioned. Keep in mind that with an adaptor, you're not going to be zooming around while you're shooting. Or are you? I wouldn't. So, at this point in time I think that the Raynox HD 5000 Pro would be a good bet. But don't discount Yow Cheong Hoe's fujifilm suggestion.

Beau Photo can be reached with this e-mail:

prosales@beauphoto.com

Frank, thanks so much for all your efforts!

First, as for zooming using WA while shooting, well sometimes yes, but not at high zoom levels.

For example: imagine recording a volleyball match, mostly you record action at the net. But you also zoom at players doing the serve, since you can not run from the net to the one who serves. And sometimes you zoom at the hitter at the net more closely... In short, WA lens is great when shooting in the centre - to capture more of the playing court...

So, I would like to have lens with least distortion possible. Raynox 0.5x distorts image too much. So far best looks Raynox 0.66x -- have you checked images I prepared? See: http://wwww.24get.com/WAL/

The only lens I have no idea how it distorts the image is that new Tiffen 0.56x.... Well, if you have the chance we'd be all glad here to see how all the three compare:

1) Raynox 43mm 0.66x
2) Raynox 43mm 0.5x
3) Tiffen 43mm 0.56x

I can't find the Raynox HD5000 Pro locally.

The tiffen seems good, but I cannot compare it with this Raynox. I tried 1 Raynox, a cheaper one, and found it to be okay but not as good as the Tiffen, though I noticed the Raynox was wider. The Tiffen had good zoom-through, and I couldn't notice any distortion.

On some older threads at dv.com, Terrence had mentioned that the Panasonic wide is completely zoom-through.

Since Tom actually did a test on a number of adaptors, I suggest you go with his advice. So, from what I gather, the 3 best wides are:

Panasonic's
Tiffen's
& Raynox's HD5000 PRO, though you'll have to use a ring.

Also, the Pana does not have filter threads on the front. Which one would I buy today? With what I can see, the Tiffen. I would go for the Pana, though, if it had filter threads. (But it doesn't.)

Well, sadly, the Fuji 0.79x is also not fully zoom through, only good for up to about 4x zoom on my MX350. Beyond that, softening and bluring occurs at the edges.

As for using 55mm or 52mm instead of 43mm, the vignetting issue will certainly be improved when stacking filters.

Oh, the fuji WA is coated, which gives less flaring.

Thanks Frank for your efforts and info! May I also ask which tripod you recommend or what are the choices?

You have many good choices for tripods, and you don't have to spend a lot of money, since these cams are small and light. You'll want something stable, not too light, something that can be adjusted and balanced fast, with a smooth head. Though expensive and overkill, I would like to get the Miller DS5---can't afford it right now. My present tripod is a Manfrotto #075B with a #136 head. It works well but it takes a bit of time to set up.

So now I'm looking for a wide angle adapter for my DV953. I don't want anything too heavy, but like the look of the following:

Raynox XL5000PRO Super Wide Angle .5X
and the
Tiffen 0.56X

My usage is for shooting live shots for live sports programs for example - shooting field from the press box in a stadium where I could see the "whole" field or bowl of the stadium (without fish eye effect) or as a slam cam mounted behind a basketball backboard looking through the glass to see the rim and center court.

I don't believe the Raynox HD6600PRO .66X is wide enough to acheive what I want.

Since the postings here does anyone have any thing further to add with regards to their experience on the 43 mm wide angle adapters and your use with video DV camcorders. A follow up to as to anyone's experience with the new Tiffen 0.56X and any other adapter would be great!

Thanks in advance.

I'll phone around and see if anyone has this new Tiffen in Vancouver. If I find one, I go have a look at it. Of course, I'll bring along my MX300 so that I can try it. I'll follow up tomorrow.

I bought a Raynox HD-6600Pro43 43mm 0.66x Wide Angle Lens for my GS100 and I have used a Canon Wide Angle on my older camcorder (can't remember but I think it was a 0.6 too).

My observations on the Raynox in ProCinema mode after two weeks of intensive use are:

1) No noticable distortion even when zooming to 3x (I did not have to go further). This is a key benefit, the scenes look very natural. I can shoot any type of scene with the Raynox attached. The Canon distorted and made scenes look a bit "dizzy".

2) Excellent color and image quality! No impact on GS100K color saturation or clarity.

3) Significant flare. You need to be concious of the light points and avoid them. Even if the light or sun is not in the shot, the glare will come through. My old Canon did not have so much flare. I don't own a lens hood.

4) Makes the GS100 front heavy. But, hey, every Wide Angle Converter will do that.

In general, I am very happy with the Raynox. I can live with the flaring given the lack of distortion and the image quality.

BTW. I don't know if the flaring is worse that other non-distorting lenses. When I was watching the beginning of LOTR II with the wide shots of mountain tops, I noticed flaring in one shot when the sun was not in view.

Thanks Frank and Eng:

Frank no rush, as I'm leaving for New York tomorrow - it's a long trip for me this time as I'm also going to Puerto Rico and then on to Washington DC and the Baltimore area. So I won't see your reply till I return on Sept 15 as I'm not taking my laptop with me.

My colleagues who do shoot and do video for a living told me to get a .8 wide angle. Since I don't see one that comes close for the 43mm I think the Raynox XL5000 Pro Super Wide .5x or the new Tiffen MegaPlus 0.75x come close to the look I'm looking for. I will not be zooming as the camera would be fixed and mounted on some occasions, but I understand the reason to look for distortion in zooming especially when your trying to crop the shot properly in my situation. You have to have some control in framing.

Thanks once again.

All the best.... Rick

I have just ordered the Optura Xi - many thanks to Allan and others for their insights. My decision was based on great 16:9, performance under good light and a great OIS.

I want to add a wide angle adaptor and still be able to use filters, polarizing, ND and graduated effects primarily. As far as I can tell from the pictures the Canon .7x lens has no filter thread; the Raynox 6600 does. Raynox 6600 however is not available for 46mm thread. So my questions:

Is there any problem adding a step-up ring between the camera and the WA adaptor? Does increasing the lens to lens distance increase the risk of vignetting and edge distortion?

What are the issues adding filters to the Raynox? Again, does that increase the risk of vignetting? If so, does using a step-up ring between WA and filter reduce the effect?

I agree with Tom. I own a Raynox and there is zero detectable distortion and color saturation remains true to form. I have only use it to zoom to 3x (never to 10x) and have not noticed any distortion.

However, the coating is not as good as I have seen. Thus there is a fair amount of flaring. Its not so bad but it is noticable.

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.

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. :)

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

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

Bill,

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

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.

>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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Thanks, Dave. I saw that.

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

Not really, but it is common for consumer Panasonic cams.

After reading through this thread, I began checking out some of the lenses that people had mentioned.

One inparticular was the "Raynox HD-6600 Pro 43mm 0.66x ". I made up my mind that this was the lens I would purchase.

After reading some of the comments about the poor coating on the Raynox, I emailed the experts at B&H to see which lens hood they recommended for this particiular WA. However, to my suprise, the technician replied that "they did not recommend using any lens hood with this type of lens...".

I find that very suprising. Anyone have any thoughts on this, or better yet, anyone using a good hood with this particular Raynox?

I do indeed have very strong thoughts on this subject Anthony. Firstly I'm amazed at B & H, or to rephrase that, I'm amazed that they could let a salesman with so little experience so near a phone line. And let him turn away sales, too.

I had a Raynox 6600PRO. OK, it looked to be a single coating, but Raynox have sensibly included a 72mm filter thread - not for the addition of filters, but so that hoods can be easily fitted. Remember that tom's law states that a lens hood is the cheapest, lightest, most easily fitted, most sensible, most effective and one of the best accessories you can buy. On top of all that it gives picture improvements out of all proportion to its cost and technological design.

As the focal length decreases and depth of field becomes ever greater, dust on the front element of your lens is brought into ever sharper focus. If the front element is shaded from the sun these unavoidable imperfections just don't show up, and in fact a front element can be quite dirty yet not show these marks on film if a hood is used.

I had a 4:3 aspect ratio hood with my Raynox, and of course these are a lot more efficient (the petal hood is the most efficient BTW). Problem with the 4:3 hood is it must be aligned with the camcorder's chips, but if you buy a circular hood that shouldn't be a problem.

Go for it. Buy a circular hood that's 'too deep' and distort it into a 4:3 shape with a stiff wire frame. It works well. The pictures I got from the Raynox were amazingly good at the price, my only complaint being that the fall-off in performance towards telephoto was too gradual (unlike a non-zoom through, say) and this was loosing me sharpness if I wasn't careful. On the other hand Raynox really shamed much more expensive lenses. I had a Centyry 0.65x for test and the Raynox had far less barrel distortion at less than one third the price.

tom.

Thanks Tom. I was shocked at this sales guy's response as well. He obviously needs to review "Tom's Law" :)

I will certainly procure a hood for my new WA lens. I have a few questions about hoods, based on some of your comments. Where might I find a good reference (i.e. book, website) or information on the following:

- what is a petal hood?
- how do you align a hood to your camera's chips?/ when do you need to do this?
- If I am shooting in 16:9, should I distort my hood to that aspect ration, as opposed to 4:3?

Thanks again for the reply.

A petal hood. You've probably seen them fitted to long zooms that pro photographers use at football matches. The hood is cut away in all four corners to avoid vignetting the image, and this makes the hood look like a closing tulip.

You align an aspect ratio hood by making sure the horizontal and vertical parts of the hood are horizontal and vertical. If you turn the hood so that it's misaligned you'll see the hood breaking into your field of view.

The most efficient hood is the aspect ratio petal hood. Following on from that, if you have a normal rectangular hood, do indeed make it match the aspect ratio you're shooting in. The hood should ideally be just clear of the full frame anywhere around its perimeter.

tom.