Ok, I created this thread so we could discuss this topic that was buried in another thread.

I have purchased the Kodak wide angle and should have it in a day or so. There is some interest because this lens, which was designed for the Kodak DC4800 and other Kodak digital still cameras, is widely available at prices below $50US (see B&H Photo as an example). I plan to conduct and post some tests to establish the quality of this lens.

Some of the tests I plan to conduct include:

Flaring
Ghosting
Vignetting
Chromatic Aberrations
Barrel Distortion
Resolution (using an EIA1956 standard chart)
Fit and finish
Use of filters between the wide angle and camcorder lens (this only because the lens does not have front threads)

If anyone has additional tests or have recommendations as to how to best conduct these tests, please post them. In other words, tell me what you want to see about this lens and I'll try to comply.

Thanks for the new thread about this wide angle lens...I can't wait to see the results...I'll probably get one for my pana 852 too...

Thanks Guy.

I would like to see some basic comparisons between the kodak and some known quantities like the Raynox, and the Tiffen models that seem to be popular for the 953.

I am about to spring for my first WA and I am completely undecided/ confused.

I am about to spring for my first WA and I am completely undecided/confused.The Tiffen 43mm wide is okay, not as good as the Tiffen 37mm wide; but you wouldn't want the 37mm wide for the Pana's 43mm threads. According to a number of members, the 2 higher-end Raynox wides are probably the best, the HD5000 being one of them, the other I don't recall. You can do a search here and easily find some threads/posts about them. I too am looking forward to Guy's Kodak DC4800 tests, and I will be looking locally for one of these to check it out for myself. I doubt they're that cheap, though, I mean locally---I'm not even sure if they're available here in Vancouver---and I hate using our hokey new phonebooks. The print is a way too small and squashed; or maybe my cheek roving eyes are going. :-))

Jessops in the UK are selling for £29.99 so I thought I'd get one to see how it looks.

Compared to the Raynox .66x it's a lot smaller and a lot cheaper. Just looking through the viewfinder, it's immediately apparent that there's a lot of barrel distortion. How that compares to the others, I'm not sure - but may try and arrange a test against the Raynox .66.

I'm a bit of a distortion philistine, but will probably keep this lens on the camera most of the time. To my mind (or for my applications), getting the right things in the image is far more important than a bit of curvature...

Clearly we're interested in how bad the zoom-through is. If I want to conduct some tests, should I start by drawing a rectangle on a large piece of paper and then filming it at the various zooms? Then one could look for distortion, blur, chromatic abberations and (maybe) contrast?

Alex,
Rather than doing something on paper, shoot some architecture with strong vertical lines. Tall buildings are probably the best subjects or rows of light posts/utility poles/picket fences. I'll set up an album on my website that you can post your frame grabs in if you want. It will have a black album cover until we can get some pix in it so don't let that deter you. I'm hoping to get my lens tonight so you'll have at least 6 hours to post before I have a chance to. Knock yourself out! (That's American for "have a go, old chap!")

Ok, the album is ready.

It's dark over here now - and I've got poxy 1/6" CCDs!!!

Shoot some flash shots inside and post those. It is very foggy and rainy here today so I don't have good conditions to shoot in either.

Whaddya know?

The dumb flash didn't realise I had a 0.6x converter and hence the edges of the picture are all dim! ;-)

Anyhow, my workstation here is NT - so can't talk to the camcorder. When I get home I'll try and upload some stills (dark edged or not!)

Subjectively, the distortion is not a problem, though.

Alex, that flash shot may be interesting for folks to see the limitations in still mode. Look forward to seeing your pix.

Sorry for the crappy HTML - a hacked version of the stuff generated by the Casio software that seemd to recognise the DV953...

http://m1001.dmclub.net/alex/

It looks pretty horrific, but I've yet to see how video footage is affected.

Obviously the flash is going to struggle - the shadow of the WA adapter is clearly visible, as is the failure of the flash to light up a wide-angle scene (not that I would expect it to!)

Ok,
The lens was waiting on me when I got home tonite. I took some quicky pix with my Fuji Finepix 602z and the DV953 in still photo mode. Those have been posted. The file names should be self-explanatory.

Observations: The lens is about 8x zoom through. Pix get soft at 10x, but are pretty good in the center without flash. The flash on the 953 is too bright for most shots. Also, as Alex noted, the Ektanar shadows the lower portion of the picture with flash. You will get a lot of chromatic aberration at full zoom and flash (see the 10x Angel pix).

Alex,
Thanks for the shots. Cute little girl, I might add. I note the same types of problems in my shots...flash shadowing and chromatic aberration (CA) at full zoom with flash. Were your shots handheld? I suspect the OIS is introducing some of the aberration. I'll test this further later.

Actually, I'm pretty impressed with what I see. Any lens and a moderately large hood will shadow the flash. Folks will just have to take that into consideration. The CA is reduced if you don't use flash. I suspect that this lens will be a little soft at full zoom but with little CA when shot in natural light. Barrel distortion seems to be about what you would expect with a .6x lens. All-in-all, I 'd recommend this lens, especially for the price.

I guess i am confused, all those pictures look very poor quality to me. Is this expected?

<<<-- Originally posted by Penelope Taynt : I guess i am confused, all those pictures look very poor quality to me. Is this expected? -->>>

In what respect? The photos are all stills taken with the 953 in 640x480 mode. Quality is about the same with or without the WA. I apologize for the overexposure with flash. I was in a hurry and should have put some wax paper over the flash.

for example

http://m1001.dmclub.net/alex/IMGA0013.JPG

look awful (no offense to the photographer), but all that ghosting etc. and the young childs face is non-distinct. and the bottom of the photo is all dark

and this one for exmple

http://www.fortvir.net/modules.php?set_albumName=album01&id=Angels_5x_wide_angle_noflash&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

looks nice in center but edges are completely blurred

Yes, you are right, Penelope. I have posted a video that shows more of how this lens performs. Zoom through is much less than I originally estimated. Softness begins to occur at the edges of the picture at about 3x. The center image is pretty sharp even up to about 7x but at 10x there is softness across the board and strong chromatic aberrations. On the good side, the flare and ghosting aren't too bad, at least on this one video.

I don't know if this is typical for this type of wide angle. It appears to be useable at full pullback, but I want to shoot some video in natural light. It would be useful to have some pix and video from a Raynox or Tiffen to compare against.

While I was in New York 2 months ago I bought the Kenko Digital wide 0.5x Pro lense to use with my DV953.

Some of you know I use my DV953 for live television broadcasts to provide a wide shot or just enhance the look of the shows I direct. I posted a comment a few weeks ago about how this camera compared against Canon GL1's which were also used as slam cams on the same show. There was no comparison with video quality and the DV953 was far superior.

Tonight for the first time I used my DV953 with the wide angle on for still shots. Funny but you can't see it, but with the flash, there is a shadow in the lower center part of the picture. This can only be caused by the flash or by the sensor on the Leica lense. The lense hood was off and the wide angle lense is mounted with a small 37mm to 43 mm step up ring. Like I said you can't see anything in the lense but the spot is around the same area as the sensor at the bottom of the lense.

I just did another test and when I move in closer to the subject then angle the camera differently there is no shadow and the snapshot seems to be clear. When the wide angle lense is off it is also shadow free. So this lends me to believe that there is something affecting the sensor and/or blocking the flash beam partially which would make sense.

The Kenko is very nice and very sharp. In looking at Guy's photo's, that doesn't seem to be the case with the Kodak lense. Being curious, I wonder if anyone else has had similar problems with attachment lenses and flashes causing a shadow.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the comments.

It looks like my tests are a bit harsh. Non-flash stuff is much better by the looks of things.

So I will be uploading a couple of daytime pics (without OIS) later on. Sadly, it's rather cloudy here today, so not the best of conditions - but not unrepresentative!

I've also secured the opportunity to use a Raynox HD6600Pro (down at Jessops) to see what spending 3 and half times the money gets you (Results next week)

Ok, folks. I have corresponded with Tom Hardwick, a well-known British expert and a contributor here, about the pix I posted. He did look at both Alex's and my pix but did not draw a conclusion. He suggested a more controlled set of shots that would be a better basis from which to draw conclusions. I was already planning to do this having recognized the pix I posted were of low value. I will attempt to do that this weekend. We are in the middle of a monsoon here, so the architectural shots Tom recommended may be delayed. Tom did comment that all wide angle lenses have different degrees of distortion and not unlike those exhibited by the Kodak.

Rick,
The way the flash on the 953 is positioned, just about any lens attached to the front will partially block the flash cone. I suspect that is what you are seeing. You can see it clearly in some of my pix where there is a dark arcing shadow in the lower part of the frame.

BTW, if you would like to post some example pix taken with the Kenko, be my guest. Put them in the Kodak album.

Thanks for your adjective 'expert' Guy! :-)
Yes, I too suspect that the shadow in flash shots is caused by the mechanical interruption of the light by the add-on lens, nothing more. Of course the flash gun's coverage will only extend as far as the camcorder's original wide-angle zoom, and any extra wide-angle will not be lit by the flash, and vignetting will occur. It's visible on your test shots BTW, and I'm sure the instruction book warns about this.

The Kodak lens does sound rather so-so, and I suspect that being designed to compliment digital still cameras means that it's not meant for anything longer than a 3 or 4x zoom. There are some very good add-on lenses out there, and I always suggest that if possible folk try before they hand over the cash. If that's not possible, then do ask, and here's as good a place as any. Computervideo.net has another excellent forum.

Can I put some sample widie pictures in your Kodak album?

tom.

Tom,
Please feel free to post anything you believe would add insight and understanding about the qualities and limitations of lenses of this type.

BTW, I was able to acquire this lens for only $9US out of pocket. I think its ok for that price :-).

well, I went to all the trouble to set up a FortVir account, but nowhere could I see a tab to 'upload' stuff. What's up?

tom.

Tom,
Just enter the album and select "Add Photos" from the options at the top. You will be presented with a dialog box that will let you browse to where the photos are on your hard drive and add them to the upload. You can also zip up all the photos and upload the zip file. The server will automatically unzip them in the album. I appreciate you registering, but you don't have to do that for this album.

Thanks Guy. I've posted four comparison pictures. I set up the Sony VX2000 on a rock-solid tripod perpendicular to the wall. I set auto focus but manually exposed off the bricks. I recorded frames to Memory stick to check for vignetting in Photoshop. The results will tell us what we know already - that it's difficult to find a zoom-through that doesn't barrel distort. Look, even the Sony lens on its own is so afflicted.

tom.

Thanks, Tom. Very helpful. I wonder how available that Aspheron is in the US? By any chance, do you have an archive shot of the Raynox...either the 5000 or 6600...that you could post?

Yes I do, and I'll post it there now. It looks to barrel distort but what you're really seeing is the 'extrapolation' of the barrel distortion inherrent at the wide-angle end of the Sony Zoom. The Raynox just magnifies that built-in distortion. When I used the Raynox over the 28mm wideangle on my 35mm Canon camera, there was no distortion.

Check your camera for distortion. The TRV950 and the Canon MVX3i have very little distortion, but my MX300 is not so good.

tom.

According to Pana, the MX300's barrel distortion was worked out somewhat with the newer MX350. So it seemed that Pana took this particular MX300 problem very seriously.

Ok, I have taken some architectural still shots similar to those posted in the Kodak Album by Tom Hardwick and a short video. What I observed from these shots:

>There is no discernable barrel distortion from the DV953 in full wide.
>There is no discernable barrel distortion from the Kodak wide angle with nozoom.
>The resolution of the Kodak is very good.
>The center resolution of the Kodak is pretty sharp throughout the zoom range, but softness begins to show up on the picture edges at about 3X zoom.

My conclusions. It's a keeper.

Glad you think it's a keeper Guy, because it's a very keenly priced optic. I always say the best lens for you is the one that satisfies your requirements.

I've posted four more pictures to www.fortvir.net. I took some shots of the Aspheron just now and I've held it in my hand to give some idea as to the size of the thing. That multi-coating is a thing of beauty as you'll see. I've taken more pictures OF this lens than I have THROUGH the lens, so I should rectify that right now.

BTW, all shots were done to card in the MX300. What an excellent little digital camera that is - much better than the big VX2k.

tom.

Tom,
That Aspheron is a beautiful lens! I'll bet it dwarf's the MX300. Are you going to adapt it to the MX300? Would be interesting to see how the 300 does with it.

WRT the Kodak. The day was sorta gray here which reduced the contrast a bit. It seems to be a fine enough lens for wide shots with zooms less than 3X and no need for flash. It one needs to shoot beyond that zoom range, it makes sense to remove the WA and just use the normal lens in the DV953.

In comparing my shots to those you posted, I didn't see a discernable difference in PQ, other than better barrel distortion, over the Kenko and Raynox. It seems to me to be similar at full wide to the Aspheron, at least WRT barrel distortion. I intend to keep it because I don't think it can be beat for the price. However, others who are mulling this over may want to hear your opinion. If you would provide your critique, I and others would appreciate it.

No sooner said than done Guy. I've uploaded a shot of the little MX300 with the big Aspheron in place. There's a slight amount of barrel distortion with this combo, and the auto-focus of the Panasonic won't allow me to zoom more than 1/4 way. But what the hell - this lens is WIDE, and who'd want to shoot 'normal' pictures through it? So we agrre on that then.

I've taken another look at your latest house shots. I think we can discount any of the shots past 3x as you say - even the thumbnails show the faults. But at max wide it looks good to me - the treetops (top left) are sharp into the corners and the wires top right are clear too. But unless that road curves the way your picture shows it, the barrel distortion is quite pronounced.

No need to go outdoors to verify this. With the Kodak lens in place point the camera perpendicular to a door frame. As you track through the door, what happens to the door frame? Bendy, curvy wood I bet. No worries at that price point though.

tom.

Tom,
That lens is MASSIVE! And, I bet it makes massive (not normal) pictures, too.

Yes, you are right about the Kodak's barrel distortion. It shows up as you get close to vertical or horizontal objects. It shows quite clearly in the video I shot of the dining room in artificial light. The doorframe on the right bows substantially. Also, in the still pix of the painting with the vase of artificial fruit, you can see the matting on the painting is bowed. However, it doesn't appear to be worse than the Raynox. I'd say if someone was looking for an inexpensive WA to shoot home movies, this would be a good buy.

Ok folks, I've now had more opportunity to shoot some pix and video with the Kodak WA. I'm getting more and more impressed with this lens. I mean, it's not perfect, but it is pretty darn good, IMO. Flare and ghosting are very reasonable. I had to basically shoot into the sun to get any. A large shade or french flag will fix a lot of these types of issues where you have to shoot into the sun. Sharpness is good across most of the image. There is slight loss of sharpness on the right edge of the frame, but you have to look closely to see it. That could be a failing of this particular lens and not an across-the-board defect. Panoramic video shots are impressive.

Check out the new pix and videos in the Kodak album and see for yourself.

The Canon 43mm wide is fine. Nicely coated.
Touch of barrel distortion, as in the 58mm
model, but many don't mind it in the 58.

I was just digging through my camera junk box and came across a 55mm threaded 0.7 canon wide angle addapter I bought in '89 for my hi8 model. It was a very high quality lens and now I'm wondering if it'll work with a 55-43 step down adapter? What do you think?

0.7x should work, I am using a 55mm mount fuji 0.79x on my MX350, with adaptor from 43-52-55.

There may be a little vignetting at teh corners, but TV overscan shall take care of that. You may not have zoom through, but you want wide angle, anyway.