I'm interested getting a wider lens but I'm vexed how much the Fujinon TH13X3.5 costs. $10,000, I mean is it really that much better than the stock lens? Obviously it is better, but is it $9,000 better? That's more than the camera. Has anyone used it? Is it stunningly different in picture quality- other than it gives you a wider field of view?

IMO, it's worth every penny. It is actually priced lower than you would expect for a lens this wide and of this optical quality.

Do a search for "13x3.5" and you should be able to find lots of information on the benefits of this lens.

The short answer is YES.

BTW: 10k is rich. You can find it for mid to lower 8k if you try.

When you say 8k I translate that to around 10k CDN. I appreciate your opinion. Can you be more specific, if possible, why it's that much better. As I said, it's more than the camera. Does it give you the that much better looking footage or, if someone was in the market for a camera/lens, are they better off buying a $17,000 new/used camera in the first place. Thanks.

The short answer is YES.

BTW: 10k is rich. You can find it for mid to lower 8k if you try.
I can only seem to find advertised prices no lower than US$ 9000.

Are you talking about making a special deal? Or an am not using the right techniques to look?

I can only seem to find advertised prices no lower than US$ 9000.

Are you talking about making a special deal? Or an am not using the right techniques to look?

The higher end the gear, the more likely the prices you pay are not printed. High end broadcast gear tends to have a lot more wiggle room, but it depends on age and demand, also.

The Fujinon TH13X3.5BRMU HDTV Wide Angle 1/3" Zoom Lens is available from Expandore for $8040 (although, I don't know what the shipping cost is).

OT a little,
is there a lens avalible that will work one way or another, that is wide enough to not have to focus (much)? Will the Fujinon TH13X3.5 provide this?
THX,
Jon

Also be sure to check out the warranty position for the lens. Expandore are a reputable company but I know that many of their items do not come with warranty. For video cameras they usually offer a Mack warranty at extra cost, but I don't know about lenses.

Here's a link to the lens on their site, as it is not that easy to find.

http://www.expandore.biz/product_detail.asp?productid=1155&codeid=th13&catid=&brandid=&formatid=&start=1

Richard

To All:

Just to let you know that this lens should come with a 1 year manufacturers warranty through JVC. There are options out there for extended warranties as well. TapeWorks Texas, Inc. offers a 3 year Professional Warranty through Mack Camera for a price too low to put online. We also have that particular lens at very competative pricing which does include JVC's 1 Year warranty.

Thanks for the time,

Jason Price
TapeWorks Texas, Inc.
866.827.3489 toll free
713.688.2214 direct
www.TapeWorksTexas.com

How does that compare to the HTs18X4.2BRM, designed for the HD100: http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?p=354? It would seem to be more flexible than the 13x3.5.

Or the Th17X5BRMU: http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?p=353?

How they compare is in their fields of view. The TH13X3.5BRMU is the widest of these lenses. The HTs18X4.2BRM is of equally high quality and has a longer focal length for more telephoto reach, but isn't nearly as wide. So no you cannot say that it is more "flexible" than the 13x3.5, not if you need a wider field of view. Of course it all depends on what you're shooting -- choose the right tool for the right job. The 13x3.5 is more of a wide angle lens. The 18x4.2 is more of a telephoto lens. That's how they compare.

The relatively low price of Th17X5BRMU should give you a good indication as to where it sits in terms of quality compared to these other two lenses.

I thought the standard lens was a Th16x5.5BRMU. In the 1/2" camcorders, there was a $1000-1300 lens and a $2500-3000 lens. I thought the 17x5 was the equvalent of the $3000 lens.

The 18x4.2 should be as wide as a stock DVX100. The 13x3.5 is equivalent to a .8x WA adapter. Wider, but not dramatically so. However, the 13x3.5 stops at 46mm, which can be too short at some events, and harder to zoom in for focus.

Is the 17x5 really the same lensa s the 16x5.5?

I thought the 17x5 was the equvalent of the $3000 lens.And so it may be, but it's not the equivalent of the 13x3.5 or the 18x4.2, each of which being nearly three times as expensive as the 17.5.

Is the 17x5 really the same lensa s the 16x5.5?Nope. The 16x5.5 has a 5.5mm focal length at the wide end with a 16 times zoom range. The 17x5 has a 5mm lens at the wide end with a 17 times zoom range. Hope this helps,

The 18x4.2 should be as wide as a stock DVX100. The 13x3.5 is equivalent to a .8x WA adapter. Wider, but not dramatically so. However, the 13x3.5 stops at 46mm, which can be too short at some events, and harder to zoom in for focus.

Is the 17x5 really the same lensa s the 16x5.5?

The WA adapter falls far short of the 13x lens. 58 degrees compared to 70 degrees respectively. The 13x lens is very very wide. This (I think) is the primary reason it is so much more expensive than the others. At the widest part of the lens the image holds true on the edges with no real ill effect. The 13x lens is definately worth the extra bread if you need wide shots (just about anybody).

The WA adapter falls far short of the 13x lens. 58 degrees compared to 70 degrees respectively. The 13x lens is very very wide. This (I think) is the primary reason it is so much more expensive than the others. At the widest part of the lens the image holds true on the edges with no real ill effect. The 13x lens is definately worth the extra bread if you need wide shots (just about anybody).

The 13 x 3.5mm has same angle of view as a 6.42mm lens on a 2/3" CCD camera. It's not as wide as the current crop of 2/3" CCD W/A lenses (4.7mm at the wide end), but it has the angle of views you commonly tend to use on these lenses.

The stock 16 x 5.5 has the same angle as a 10mm on 2/3". The standard 2/3" zooms tend to be 8mm at the widest. Of course, the angle of view at the min distance on both the stock JVC lens and the standard zooms is reduced due to the breathing effect when focusing.

The much reduced breathing on the W/A lenses then become a major advantage, because you're not losing around 10 degrees on your angle of view (as happens on the standard zooms) when you focus at the min distance on the wide end of the zoom.

The WA adapter falls far short of the 13x lens. 58 degrees compared to 70 degrees respectively. The 13x lens is very very wide. This (I think) is the primary reason it is so much more expensive than the others. At the widest part of the lens the image holds true on the edges with no real ill effect. The 13x lens is definately worth the extra bread if you need wide shots (just about anybody).

That would have been the 18x4.2mm lens with a .8x WA adapter. With the standard 16x5.5 it would have been much narrower, as you indicated.

The Shooting angle calculation table (http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/HDTV/manual/HD100_shooting_angle.pdf) can assist you with figuring it all out.

Thanks...I was missing the sensor size. At 3.5mm, isn't there some barreling?

No, there is no "barrel" effect with the 13x3.5 at full wide.