I got the sony hdr fx1 and am putting together a skate video right now. I need to get a fisheye lens for this project. I saw two lenses from century: one was .5x mag. and the other was an ultra fisheye that was .3x but way more expensive.

I was recommended that for skate videos i would need a minimum of .42x magnification.

So I guess I have three questions of which I would be thankful to get answered.
1) What are other uses for ultra fisheye lenses besides for action (like skate videos)? like what kind of shots are they good for?

2) Anyone know of any cheaper lenses with more magnification then .42x? (compatible with my camera obviously)

3) Raynox makes one but I don't know how much barrel distortion or vignetting it has, what should I look for in terms of quality? or what will i be sacrificing?

Thanks in advance!

Chris

1) Well, they are good for things that do need the widest view possible, most of the time it is just for an efect, or the fact that the wider the lens, the less shake in the video is noticed.

2) The Century fisheye is really your best bet because of the clairity of the glass and the fine bulid. They hold their value aswell.

3) The Raynox can get the job done, but you do get what you pay for. Some people consider putting cheap glass in front of a zeiss lens a sin.

One thing is, if you do get the Raynox, it might fall short and you will later want to move onto the Century, so sometimes its cheaper to by the more costly lens.

...as said above, but also keep in mind that you already have a much wider angle with the native 16:9 CCD instead the 4:3. We´re using Centurys 0.6 and it´s really wide.

alex

I just got the Century 0.6x myself and so far I like it. It isn't really a "fisheye" but it's quite wide - like a 19mm lens for a 35mm still camera. You will get significant barrell distortion which tends to give it that fisheye look with a curved horizon line. However the distortion isn't so extreme that you can't use the lens for general purposes. And the bayonet locking ring is a very clever and fast way to attach the lens as well.

Also, they're offering a sunshade/filter holder for it at an introductory price. See my thread here for more info: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58525

Why is an ugly fisheye shot neccessary in every skate video? I used to like skate videos but now their mostly boring and generic. I bet you could come up with some more interesting angles without one.

As far as skateboarding goes, the 0.3x century is the one to get. All cheaper options will (if you are serious about shooting) end up sitting on a shelf anyway. It is more expensive but it looks so much better than the raynox contraptions and all pseudo-fisheyes.

I aggree with the point of view that you shouldn't use the fish too much and try to find some other angles instead, but it is still an essential piece of kit...

How does the HDV codec cope with the fast motion of skating? especially with close-up fisheye shots you might get a whole lot of motion which may be too much for the codec... I would really like to see what its like.

JD

it's mainly the price difference. Because I am in Europe, it's 1/3rd the price difference with the raynox. With that difference I could get the Century .5x fisheye as well and still have money over for a directional mic.

I went ahead and ordered the Raynox, my reasoning is that most people consider fisheye shots ugly (but are a staple part of skate videos) anyways so what difference does it make?

Any last minute suggestions before I go for it?

If I get it, I'll be sure to post all of my experiences with it.

peace

hey i'm in europe too...

fisheye shots aren't always ugly... but honestly, the optical quality of the century is way way way better than the raynox.

the thing is, you've got a great camera and then you're going to but a not-so-great adapter in front of it... seems a bit of a waste.

Maybe ugly, but there are no liner ultra-wides for video and thats what is needed to get the close up feeling with out cutting off any of the skater or the object they are skating. A major thing is fliming runs, and the wider the lens, the more solid the shot.

Heres an example, skating full speed and making it look solid is a breeze with a fisheye.

http://www.skateaz.com/users/miyagi/video/oscarbcline.mov

It is shot with a Canon GL-2 and the Century fisheye, but i am currently using the Sony hc-1 and fisheye for the same type of shots.

I went ahead and ordered the Raynox, my reasoning is that most people consider fisheye shots ugly (but are a staple part of skate videos) anyways so what difference does it make?
Did you receive your Raynox yet? How do you like it? Do you have an clips you could share?

Just so's were all on the same wavelength here - a true fisheye gives a circular image withing the frame, where edge to edge on the image is a 180 degree field-of-view. TV masking will flatten the top and bottom, but the loss of image area to black vignetting generally calls for a very specialist application need.

Much better to shoot wild action movies with the FFFE (full frame fish eye), where only the diagonal corner-2-corner sees 180 degrees. Using this lens you still get gobs of barrel distortion (hense the fish eye name) but you don't lose screen real-estate to black.

Go with the Raynox I say. I've been very impresseed with their lenses, and you sure as hell aren't interested in ultimate picture quality as you hold the camera 2" off the pavement at 20 mph.

tom.

Tom - Good point about the diagonal vs. circular.

I've seen some screenshots from the Raynox .3x for the A1 and they look good. Also, Raynox has some of their own demo shots here: http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx1/index.htm Unfortunately, the overall quality of the video is bad so it's hard to see if there is a noticeable difference in quality w/ and wo/ the lens. There's no vignetting like the Century, though.

I bought a cheap 0.42x wide-angle converter and took it apart. One of the pieces of glass was a very powerful, very thick negative element that when held up to the front of my VX2k gave me a wild and whacky fish-eye look. I used sticky tape to hold it to a 58 mm filter ring with the filter removed. Real Heath Robinson stuff.

Technically this is going to be some way lower than Century's twin element fisheye lens, but mine cost less than a 20th of the price. And when this fish eye section of the movie comes on screen along with the screetching sound track (don't ask) the last thing on the audience's mind is the corner resolution, or chromatic aberation visible in fine detail.

I'm not a lover of barrel distortion. I'd much prefer to see footage shot on an FX1 with a 0.5x converter with undistorted straight lines. I'm happy with the dramatic perspective distortion such a combo would give as this looks far more realistic than the bulging look that barrel distortion gives.

tom.

Sorry to bring back an old topic but i thought it better than starting a new one.

Currently looking at a fish for my z1p, its a toss up between the century and the raynox.

By the sounds of things the century gives the camera vignetting? where as the raynox does not, this is a big thing for me.. i really dont want that vignetting.

Secondly, with the century, if you've got a shoty on the front itll probably come into frame, correct? im thinking the fact that the raynox is zoomable means its longer and less likely to get the gun in frame.

So.. sounds like the raynox is the go, well, then we get back to the whole glass quality (forget cost for the time being).

I was also planning on purching a sony wide angle - 0.7x as well as they are handy to i've found. Maybe i could grab the raynox fish and then a century x0.7 or .8 wide, at least giving me one quality lens.

comments, suggestions etc welcome.

I was also planning on purching a sony wide angle - 0.7x as well as they are handy to i've found.

The Sony wide angle adaptor for the Z1 is only .8x, not .7x:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=details_accessories&A=details&Q=&sku=355585&is=REG&addedTroughType=accessory_detail&addedTroughValue=357486_REG

I considered this, but it didn't seem to expand the field of view enough to be worth bothering with...

Joe - do you mean fisheye when you write fisheye? If you do mean fisheye, then vignetting is part of the deal - see my post about 5 up from here.

I agree with Boyd, going through all the hassle just to fit a mild 0.8x hardly seems worth the bother. Now fit a non-distorting 0.5x and you're talking - the FX1 now has (an equivalent) 16 mm focal length.

tom.

Sorry, i should of been clearer, i was meaning semi fish eye, not total fish eye, which is why im looking at the century which is 0.3x and the raynox which is 0.24x. I never had any vignetting when i was using my 0.3x raynox semi fish on my pd150. So im hoping that neither of the two lenses im looking at will vignet.

And yes, your both right about it not really being worth going with something around 0.8x, any suggestions on a nice 0.5x lens? The only ones that B&H seem to stock which are classed as a wideangle with a 72mm thread are both 0.8x, and i'd prefer to order from there.

thanks for the help so far, any more input is much Appreciated.

Raynox have a neat website Joe, and it's worth a look.
http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/egindex.htm

I have the Century .3x Ultra fisheye lens and use it on my FX-1 for hang gliding videos. I mount it on the glider and point it in the general direction of where I'd like to shoot. It is a great lens for this type of work. You can zoom through the vignetting (black corners) but there is a huge amout of barrel distortion with this lens. The image is not as crisp with the lens (as compared to without the lens) but there is a bunch of glass to work through so this is to be expected. I also use the lens for shots that require close foreground work with wide perspective shots. An example would be a very close shot of an object with cumulous clouds overhead whipping by in a time lapse. It gives an interesting perspective in a shot but a little bit of this lens goes a long way on the viewing end of things. When I view my footage of flying a spiraling dive in my glider I have to break out the Dramamine for sea sickness. I can do this all day long in the glider but when I watch it on the big screen It is almost too wide.
Another drawback to this lens, is of course it's cost and vulnerability. It is close to a grand retail. The lens is huge (in diameter) without any protection on the front of it. (No lens hood) It is very suceptible to damage from not so perfect glider landings. It also likes to collect dust and I seem to constantly have to clean the thing. Dog nose prints are a nightmare.

I'm looking for a fisheye for weddings to capture those church exteriors n interiors. I'm considering the Raynox and Century.. could u guys recommend? I will not do much zooming but mostly panning.

Oh do beware of fisheyes for buildings Sean - either interiors or exteriors. The barrel distortions are sort of fun, but a wedding movie is not really the time or place to go bending walls and windows.

If you get one of the aspherical elements shown here:
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php
you'll get super-wide shots with very little barrel distortion, promise.

tom.

I never had any vignetting when i was using my 0.3x raynox semi fish on my pd150. So im hoping that neither of the two lenses im looking at will vignet.

Just remember that the Z1 and PD-150 are very different beasts! Using 35mm still camera equivalents, the wide end of the PD-150 zoom range is 43mm but the Z1 at full wide is 33mm. In other words, the Z1 has a 25% wider field of view to start with so don't assume that a lens which doesn't vignette on the PD will do the same on the Z1/FX1...

Have you looked at the Century .6x? Discussion is here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58525

Boyd,

I had forgotten about that thread, Yea the century 0.6x does look like it'd probably suit me, however with the price, and the fact you cant zoom with it (sounds weird, but i still like being able to zoom whenever even if a wide angle is on) i think what i'll do for now is just go for the raynox and if i find i need something wider than the z1 on its own i'll grab that century and the mattebox at a later date.

cheers.

You can zoom somewhere around halfway (maybe a little more) with the Century .6x before it loses focus IIRC...

Boyd's right. My 0.5x single element 'non zoom-through' wide-angle converter allows me to zoom from Z00 (yes, it always reads as zoo to me) right up to Z68 on my Z1. So my 12 x zoom is now just less than a 7x zoom. A fair trade in my view. One extra element rather than three, so less weight, bulk, flare.

tom.

Oh do beware of fisheyes for buildings Sean - either interiors or exteriors. The barrel distortions are sort of fun, but a wedding movie is not really the time or place to go bending walls and windows.

If you get one of the aspherical elements shown here:
http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php
you'll get super-wide shots with very little barrel distortion, promise.

tom.

Hi Tom, that is a nice site u recommended but its in German! Which one exactly do you recommend?

Well spotted, German indeed. You have an FX1/Z1? then you'll need the
UWL IV (M77) auf Objektiv M72 adapter and the Original Schneider-Ersatzlinse für UWL III.

This means you'll get the aspherical lens element and a 72 mm threaded ring. Stick on to the other and you're away - super, non-distorting very powerful 0.55x wide-angle coverage.

You can buy the UWL version C in a mount. This ups the price a bit but makes it easier to attach.

Things you should know.

These lenses are very high quality injection mouldings, and are uncoated, so will need to be hooded effectively. The lack of barrel distortion is quite amazing, curing the distortion that come for free with Sony's (sorry, Zeiss') 12x zoom. I have 2 of these lenses. They're light, cheap and fun, and whole lot better than my Raynox, Century, Tecpro and Kenko - especially if you're shooting straight lines. I have a shot here:

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/tom-s-photo-album/Schneider_Kreuznach

tom.

Yeah I have a FX1e. Wow the results are amazing! Look at the straight edges! Its a real pity it doesnt come with coating. How is the image quality? THere was a mini debate on the quality of the Century Vs Raynox b4..

Original Schneider-Ersatzlinse für UWL III
Nur Linse, ohne Fassung, neu, selektierte Exemplare, "finished" in Produktionsqualität.
Front-ø/Lichteintritt ca. 90mm, Lichtaustritt (Rückseite) ø ca. 62,5mm.
Best.-Nr. 5106 - (80,00 EUR netto) 92,80 EUR brutto

UWL IV (M77) auf Objektiv M72
Best.-Nr. 17277 - (15,43 EUR netto) 17,90 EUR brutto

All that for a total of 110 EUR is a steal. Problem is how do I get them here in Singapore man. I'll have to get some German pals to help out. How did u get them in UK?

I actually bought mine in Germany, nearly 30 years ago. I've filmed a lot of images through them! I tried to get them coated by an optician here in the UK, but for some reason met a lot of resistance so didn't get it done.

The image quality is very good, but being a single element there is chromatic aberation in the four corners of the image. This is why Century use a cemented doublet for their fisheyes - it ups the price alarmingly but removes a lot of the colour fringing.

But if you ask me, the most impressive thing is the lack of distortion. If I show footage shot with this lens it's the lack of distortion that's the wow factor, and not one person on 1000 will say, ''hey, is that colour fringing I can see in those leaves top left?'' Yet every Jack Toad of them will see the door frames bowing outward, of that you can be sure.

tom.

Very interesting lens, but having seen chromatic aberration from an older cheapo lens I had, I wonder if there is a more expensive choice with the least chromatic aberration and the least geometric distortion too –like a rectilinear. Does a quality lens that good exist out there or nobody thought …I would need one? :)

By the way, I would prefer to correct geometric distortion in post (like in digital photography) than having to deal with c.a, reflections and other flaws which I couldn't correct even if I wanted to.

I actually bought mine in Germany, nearly 30 years ago. I've filmed a lot of images through them!
I recognize the sturdiness of this lens which makes it desirable in very harsh situations where you can clean it quickly and without care, almost with anything and as often you want -and you are not afraid that it will get damaged from the environment.

I tried to get them coated by an optician here in the UK, but for some reason met a lot of resistance so didn't get it done.
If it's worth it, I'd recommend you to try another optician e.g from the service of a company of video/photo products.

Holy cow 30 years is a lo...ng time!! I'll be visiting Germnay next mth.. perhaps I can try my luck!

Ken, such a lens does exist, but it's pretty expensive. Look for a Bolex Aspheron labeled ''For Vario-Switar 12.5 - 100 mm. I have one and it is superb.

tom.