On a dutch auctionsite called "Marktplaats", a Dutch daughter of Ebay I found this lens:

Marktplaats.nl > Fujinon 3.8 x 12 (http://link.marktplaats.nl/219900698)

It's handling about an older 1/3"Fujinon widelens, the 3.8x12. The cost of it is € 2000, about $ 2300. Will this lens work with the S270E and how will it be performing in addition to the supllied standardlens? And what do you think of the price. Of course i eventually will inspect and pickup the lens personally at the seller.

It's a standard definition lens I assume, so you'd have to worry a little about it's HD capabilities. I'm sure it would mount and handle OK, but it seems a little pricey to me. These old SD are really not in demand any more and people are often just giving them away.
Steve

The ideal way to get really stunning wide-angle shots is to buy a Canon 5D Mark II still camera. It shoots video in the highest HD-resolution on a full-frame sensor and the price is way below a wide-angle lens for videocamera's. Moreover, if you use a 14mm-lens on that body, you almost get a fish-eye effect. And of course, as an extra, you have a fantastic still camera!

I would suggest the opposite as a stills camera is not designed for video operation. Things like tripod use (panning shots etc) would be really difficult using an LCD screen on the back of a stills camera especially in daylight when you would not be able to see the screen. The camera is ok for now and then use as a video source but operationally is a non starter in my opinion. I suppose it could be ok for a single wide angle shot but then you would have to carry two cameras.

But Barry its the way ahead, the still guys use their cameras for video and we take stills to memory stick on our video cameras.
Now lets see the sound recordists with an SQN linked into the stills camera or maybe the stiils camera go on the end of the boom :)

Or let's just do video and audio on our mobiles!
Steve

Or let's just do video and audio on our mobiles!
Steve
Thats it! thats the way forward then everyone can be a video maker, maybe RED can come up with a fone that has all the features :)

Whats's a fone?
Call me old fashioned but if I want to watch a good programme, I want to watch it on a big screen ,preferably in high definition with top production values (not on my PC ,or mobile ,or some gadget with a 2" screen) I understand these clever items can do loads of exciting things and I am a technology fan myself (speak to my wife!!) but technology doesnt make programmes, people with ideas do. Just because a Japanese genius can produce things that are smaller, faster and more complicated doesnt mean that it has to be the way forward, it may be useful for something like U tube but if thats the future of TV as I understand it then maybe I should pack it all in ( don't all shout "go on then "at once!)
All these developements have their place but do not necessarily show the future of quality TV.

Gabor Heeres, the lens could probably work (as long as it is the right mount & cable), but it is probably a softer lens than the stock Sony or Sony's wide lens. Just figure out what it is worth to you.

The ideal way to get really stunning wide-angle shots is to buy a Canon 5D Mark II still camera. It shoots video in the highest HD-resolution on a full-frame sensor and the price is way below a wide-angle lens for videocamera's. Moreover, if you use a 14mm-lens on that body, you almost get a fish-eye effect. And of course, as an extra, you have a fantastic still camera!

Yeah, but to have full control over focus, shutter & iris you have to pat your head, rub your tummy, sing your ABCs backwards and do your taxes all at the same time. (I won't even mention audio or jello-cam worries on the Canon.)

Sony's VCL308BWH HD wide angle lens is about $300 cheaper than the Canon body (obviously way more if you have to buy new glass for the Canon).

Don't get me wrong, I think the Canon 5D II is an amazing camera. If I had a spare $5k I'd buy one.

But I'm waiting for Canon to mix all the positives of the 5D w/ an XL-series camera, they could easily take the lead over JVC, Sony & Panasonic w/ the release of one amazing camera. Although, Red probably has a better chance of actually shipping one of their new cameras in 2009 than Canon coming out w/ a super still / video camera.

Yeah, but to have full control over focus, shutter & iris you have to pat your head, rub your tummy, sing your ABCs backwards and do your taxes all at the same time. .


Hey Zach, I do this all the time when I shoot concerts with my 5D, plus I kneel down on my bare knees every two minutes and say my prayers to Saint Varilite, begging him not to sweep those lights too often into my face.

I must admit that I'm a litte biased here, as I'm going to have to buy the 5D mark II for my business anyway (Concertpix' homepage (http://www.concertpix.be)). For someone who doesn't need the camera for anything else than the wide-angle video application, it's probably not such good deal. But again, the videolens that gets you the equivalent of a high-quality 14 mm-FF-still-lens costs a fortune...

Call me old fashioned …… technology doesn’t make programmes, people with ideas do. Just because a Japanese genius can produce things that are smaller, faster and more complicated doesn’t mean that it has to be the way forward, it may be useful for something like U tube but if that’s the future of TV as I understand it then maybe I should pack it all in (don’t all shout "go on then "at once!)
All these developments have their place but do not necessarily show the future of quality TV.[/QUOTE]

There speaks a BBC trained man! Not Ron Watley at TFS was it Barry? I'm with you all the way mon vieux, let’s sink together.

We haven't seen any technology that successfully (or even unsuccessfully) writes a script, frames shots, lights scenes, constructs or paces sequences, track-lays or even finds ***$$^ budgets for that matter. Yet television channels are stuffed with content ‘crafted’ by folk who clearly think it all exists. That said I’m no Luddite and would bet that the 1080p iStrain, stereo mobile phone with PixelKissing soft-light and ExtendableStork (sic) lapel (lav) mic is just around the corner. The unmissable 5 + 1 free 1 offer with 1 half price!! “U-boat” underwater ffone housing, we would have everything to start-up another fully collapsible television channel. You’re old-fashioned Barry, but not as old fashioned and proud of it as I am … (TFS ‘61)

Sony's VCL308BWH HD wide angle lens is about $300 cheaper than the Canon body.

I can't find anywhere what the widest-angle focal length (equivalent 35mm) of this lens is. Does anyone here know?

24 mm to 192 mm f/1.6 to f/2.4. Nominally.

24 mm to 192 mm f/1.6 to f/2.4. Nominally.

Thanks Tom. 24mm-equivalent is not what I call spectacular wide-angle though. 14mm is. But I imagine a lens like that would cost more than the whole camera... hence my point with the 5D MII: if someone buys the cam anyway and has a 16-35 zoom (like I do), it certainly is the cheapest and still high-quality way to get stunning wide-angle (14mm!) shots. But I have to admit that I too hate the idea of filming with a still camera. Just as I hate the idea of taking pictures with a cell phone. Apple couldn't care less though.

Thanks Tom. 24mm-equivalent is not what I call spectacular wide-angle though.

I agree. It's a 'useful' wide-angle, but certainly to a public raised on dramatic, frightening widies, it's a bit tame. My 17 mm on the Z1 looks pretty good though.

Say - how do you get 14 mm focal lengths out of a 16 - 35 mm zoom?

tom.

Thanks for your support Stuart , it warmed the cockles of my heart!
I thought I was the only person left with these views, but I may buy the 5D MK 2 for stills when I get too old to carry my 270.

I too think a stills camera is used for stills and a video camera for video.

As Stuart says its who is using it and their ideas that are more important and looking at the quality of TV production these days it doesnt matter how good the chip is if there is a monkey pointing it without any craft or experience.

It's a gathering of the clans here! In fact it was Barry who said that and me quoting and definitely agreeing with him Garry.

Not to wander too far off Gabor Heeres' point I've long since had the two lens front end W/A set:

0WA7X5X00 Century Optics .7x / .5x Wide Angle Adapter Set for the JVC GY-HD110U and 100U (85mm Clamp Ring Required) (http://www.adorama.com/CY0WA7X5X00.html)

It gives you X 0.7 or X 0.5 which is W- I -D- E

Mine is labeled Optex Broadcast but it’s the same lens. It proved to be excellent on my Betacam SP, my 16 x 9 Digital Betacam and my old Canon XM1, now it seems really great on my GY-HD 201E; it's very good glass so it's really earned its keep.

Personally I didn't want to have to change lenses to go wide, I often need a long lens + doubler. I didn't think it a good idea to get a 'zoom through' at the time as they were a lot heavier and not good for the camera lens or mount. If you need to zoom in you can slip this Century W/A adapter off and into a belt bag. Some people leave a zoom through W/A on their lens most of the time. I really don't recommend that as you are not shooting through optimal glass and would lose the long end of the lens anyway.

With this Centuary lens on the front you focus with the macro switch. you have to keep it spotlessly clean and no dings as you'll see every mark.

I agree. It's a 'useful' wide-angle, but certainly to a public raised on dramatic, frightening widies, it's a bit tame. My 17 mm on the Z1 looks pretty good though.

Say - how do you get 14 mm focal lengths out of a 16 - 35 mm zoom?

tom.

Sorry, Tom. Typo. Had to be 16 mm of course. I wish I owned the 14mm fixed focal length though. Must have been wishful thinking.

I've used my 0.7x wide-angle converter in front of my EOS 28 - 105 mm zoom on my 10D SLR. It's not the sharpest combo in the world and needs to be used stopped well down, but it's a cheap way of getting wider stills should you need them.