Ha ha, okay. Rental it is then!

And it is Guaranteed to meet or exceed OEM specifications
what ever that happens to mean in this case <G>.

And it is
what ever that happens to mean in this case <G>.

It probably means it has the right threads, ha.

Am I right in assuming that using Canon's wide angle adaptor will decrease the depth of field at a given stop compared to using the primary lens?

Am I right in assuming that using Canon's wide angle adaptor will decrease the depth of field at a given stop compared to using the primary lens?

Surely shome mishtake? The reverse is true or am I misunderstanding the question?

yes, your right I mistyped I meant "increase" I have the flu and 103 degree fever so I'm somewhat out of it right now... But after thinking about it some more would it really have any affect of the DOF as its just gathering more light to pass through the primary lens as it normally would?

I've been tempted in the past to get stuff like this, but my better judgment says not to. If it too good to be true...... Although I really would like someone to get one and then tell us if it works... I've already been suckered a couple times, so I'm not volunteering this time...

But anyone else willing to make the plunge for the "good of the community"? :) j/k... kind'a.

yes, your right I mistyped I meant "increase"
Glad you don't work in Air Traffic Control :-)

I have the flu and 103 degree fever so I'm somewhat out of it right now...
Sorry to hear that :-(

But after thinking about it some more would it really have any affect of the DOF as its just gathering more light to pass through the primary lens as it normally would?

But the whole point is that the adapter changes the focal length and the laws of optics still apply. The primary lens is now part of a new array - if you change the focal length, you change the DOF.

Do you mean using the same aperture and effective focal length but with the 0.8 WA adapter on? (What would be the point?)

Might be a low cost way to obtain a "cheap consumer camcorder look" effect on your footage for productions that need it without having to buy a cheap camcorder or use additional rendering time in post

Heck, $40 is less than the price of a good 72mm UV filter.

I would be intrigued to see what a $40 WA actually does. Go on buy it and post a few screen grabs.. or just buy yourself a couple of nice bottles of wine and enjoy!

Jon

Might be a low cost way to obtain a "cheap consumer camcorder look" effect on your footage for productions that need it without having to buy a cheap camcorder or use additional rendering time in post

Heck, $40 is less than the price of a good 72mm UV filter.

Now THAT'S funny!

... just buy yourself a couple of nice bottles of wine and enjoy!

A great suggestion. Wine goggles!!! Lots of things look better after plenty of booze. Buy the adapter and some modest priced wine, drink the wine (plenty of it), and than evaluate the lens results.

For a dream sequence it could be perfect. I make my living as a (still) photographer and usually shoot with a $3,000 camera body, but I've had pretty swell results (http://www.picturedujour.com/index.php?showimage=94) with my $20 Holga as well.

I couldn't get the link to work--my only concern would be buying from an unknown dealer, and getting overcharged or something.

LOTS of chroma aberration. And that can't be passed off as "stylistic" as hard as you may try.

Why not? In my experience, it's possible to get fantastic results with cheap/toy gear (Holga, Diana, Pixelvision, consumer-grade Super 8, etc.). If the CA was extreme, it might look very cool, if used well.

For a dream sequence it could be perfect. In my experience, it's possible to get fantastic results with cheap/toy gear (Holga, Diana, Pixelvision, consumer-grade Super 8, etc.). If the CA was extreme, it might look very cool, if used well.

I actualy got one of these cheap things for free when I bought my A1 online. They threw it in. It is very cheap. Designed more for consumer cameras. It only ads an extra 2 - 5 degress of view but it's very warped and fisheyed. But it probably could look cool for a freaky dream or something.

Hi everyone,

(considering I have the Xh A1)

Quick questions:

If I want to film with a wide angle lens. Would it be better in your opinion to
-mount a wide angle adapter on your lens or
-buy a DOF adaptor and use a still photography les you happen to have.

Also: is is possible to shoot with the A1 and (let's say) the Letus Economy without a expensive external HD monitor? Just by checking it on your A1 flip-out? If not, what would be the best lcd-screen?
And do you need a followfocus or would a dop be able to do simple focussing with the lens-ring?

Thank you in advance,

Ivo van Aart

If I had the money for a 35mm adapter and wide angle lenses for that I would totally do that. It really depends what you want to do and how much of it you are going to do for the money. Obviously the Canon 72mm Wide Angle adapter is much cheaper than a 35mm setup but it is also more limited (no matte box/filer capabilities etc).

What do you mostly film?

About the Letus and monitor issue there is a post a few below this that discusses exactly that...

Thanks for the quick reply!

I'm doing only narative work. Long filmprojects. This summer, I want my DOP to mount the xh a1 on his shoulder and use a wide angle lens. I will probably have around 2000 euro (about 3000 dollar) to spend. So a Letus Economy with railsystem, shouldermount and maybe a follow focus I can afford.

Is a follow focus important to have in your setup?

So then do you already have a set of lenses for the 35mm adapter? Or at least the wide angle lens you want to use?

I don't own a 35mm adapter and follow focus, but I've used one and found the follow focus to be very helpful in obtaining very precise focused shots. Once you get an adapter and lenses and all that, and then throw it on your shoulder the follow focus make sit easier to adjust focus for sure.

I'm sure others on here who own a 35mm adapter and follow focus will give input...

I hope so :)

I have a lot of still lenses. Personally I have a wide angle, normal (like 50mm) and a zoomlens (canon, exept the zoomlens) but I know a still photographer who still works analogue so he has a lot of lenses.

After reading through this whole thread, is it safe to deduce that the Canon is the best for image quality, price, and accessories (bag, hood, etc.) but the only downside is the weight?

I'm going to be using it for a LAST MINUTE gig in a week and I'm researching like a madman trying to find a suitable wide angle in time.

Back story is my friend/client lost my number and only now found it a WEEK away from his event. Didn't have time to prepare as far as tapes/cleaning/prepping goes so scrambling a bit and will have to 2day or overnight a lens here.

Thanks for all the info posted so far.

ok, so here's a question:

Which is better for quality of image and versatility/zoom?

Century Optics .3x fisheye
or
16x9 EX Super Fisheye

???

After reading through this whole thread, is it safe to deduce that the Canon is the best for image quality, price, and accessories (bag, hood, etc.) but the only downside is the weight?

I'm going to be using it for a LAST MINUTE gig in a week and I'm researching like a madman trying to find a suitable wide angle in time.

Back story is my friend/client lost my number and only now found it a WEEK away from his event. Didn't have time to prepare as far as tapes/cleaning/prepping goes so scrambling a bit and will have to 2day or overnight a lens here.

Thanks for all the info posted so far.

Weight is indeed a serious disadvantage, plus the fact that I find the wide-angle effect marginal.

Obviously the Canon 72mm Wide Angle adapter is much cheaper than a 35mm setup but it is also more limited (no matte box/filer capabilities etc).

Not so.

Canon 0.8x adapter fits the Chrosziel 450-XHG1 mattebox. It is used without the 110 to 81mm adapter (needed with the fixed lens, included in the kit), the Canon WA adapter is about 1 mm smaller in diameter than the mattebox opening. If you feel you need to fill the gap Chrosziel sells a black rubber band for that purpose.

I have both Canon 0.8x and Century 0.6x adapters. Canon 0.8x is great quality, full zoom-thru, but heavy and not all that WA. Century is light, cheaper, approaches a real WA, but has slightly soft corners and is only about 6x zoom-thru.

I like them both, usable in different situations.

I think it's probably the same thing labelled "Titanium," this one is labelled something else, but the kicker is it has "Japan" on the lens rim, but right on the box it says Made in China.

I have actually, in other areas than optics, gotten some great super cheap stuff from China, maybe like getting a 1980 Toyota before people knew they were already great.

Something I don't understand is there is a unscrewable rear element that says "Macro" on it, and I think it must be meant to stay on there because when you remove it the front section does not have 72 MM threads that I can seat in the camera.

It vignettes with my 72 MM Canon brand UV filter on between it and the camera, but not without.

I'll try to put up some test cheese shots. I like to buy either really good things or really bad ones. Low risk either way, and sometimes you get lucky with junk. It was this or nothing for WA on my budget.

Alain, you should avoid using filters with wide-angle adapters, either between zoom and converter or on the front of them. This is because you're adding two extra air-to-glass surfaces and increasing the chances of flare, diffraction and vignetting.

The 'macro' part of the lens is simply a very powerful c.10 dioptre close-up lens. It might be worth experimenting with, but generally the edge definition is pretty poor. It might be ok on still cameras where you can crop the image to remove the whooshy edges.

tom.

I just switched from the Gl-2 with the 58 wide, and ordered the XHA1 with a WD- H72. The GL 2 was a great balance with the wide on. I was stunned to say the least how front end heavy the XhA1 is with the WD- H72 on. But as I do more run and gun news style video for Ohio.com I am not inclined to go without in on camera full time. Note it is a must to keep the wide, spit-spot clean or it will show.
Lew

There are no filter threads on the front end, they would have to clamp on like the lens hood, if still needed.
Lew

We've got the WD H72 wide angle. It screws in to the camera's 72mm threads; it's not bayonet.

It is better than our 16x9 Inc. wide lens.

chuck

which model are you comparing to? what makes the Canon better [anybody]?

Has anybody used this adapter?
Century Precision Optics | 0.6x Wide Angle Adapter | 0HD-06WA-AG (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=workaround.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=588913&is=REG#accessories)

Or know anything about its performance?

Being from Century it will be beautifully made, superbly coated, wonderfully powerful and barrel distort pretty severely as its of spherical construction. If these parameters suit you, go for it.

Being from Century it will be beautifully made, superbly coated, wonderfully powerful and barrel distort pretty severely as its of spherical construction. If these parameters suit you, go for it.

how will the barrel distortion compare to the .3x fisheye? I'm looking for a wide angle that can be used for both snowboarding/skateboarding as well as filming house interiors without totally blowing out straight lines (hardwood floors, ceiling beams, ect...). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

The .3x fisheye gives far more barrel distortion than the .6x, but then it sees a lot wider. The term 'fisheye' tells you that the barrel distortion is a feature that's part of the lens's look and appeal. Perfect for skateboarding but not so hot for the inside of cathedrals.

The .6x is not really designed for architectural photography because the only straight lines that aren't bowed outwards are those that pass directly through the centre of the image. This makes it somewhat limiting if you're selling buildings that do indeed have flat floors, straight walls and rectangular doors and windows.

But there's no substitute for trying it on for size. You'll be able to use more than half of your zoom's focal range and the more you zoom the less the distortion generally. But then again, that's not why you bought it.

tom.

For inside the Canon WA will give the best results if you want to go more wide angle.

The .6x has a lot of distortion and the .3x is meant to have extreme distotion.

The .3x is popular for skateboarding and the .6x is okay. The .6x distortion is not noticeable for normal shooting if the camera remains square to the scene. However, if tilted up or down, the distortion becomes pronounced. It is also helpful to have an interesting and animated subject in the frame to detract from distortion when using the .6x.

I have some rather basic (daft) questions:

If you have the Canon WD-H72 wide angle adaptor attached to an XH A1 when you to zoom in on your subject to focus will focus be maintained when you zoom out again?

What does zoom-through mean?

They may be basic but they're not daft Stuart. Yes is the answer to your first question. A zoom-through converter means that it alters the focal length of your zoom.

Say you have a 10x zoom that goes from 5 mm to 50 mm. If you add a 0.5x zoom-through wide-angle converter you'll now have a 2.5 mm to 25 mm zoom. Still 10x note, but all moved into the wide-angle end. There will be a tiny loss of light, more flare, more barrel distortion and less sharpness - all to varying degrees.

If you attach a non zoom-through 0.5x adapter you'll get something like a 6x 2.5 to 15 mm zoom, at which point the image will go wildly out of focus.

tom.

Thanks for the explanation Tom :) I understand now.

What makes the zoom-through and non-zoom-through converters differ structurally?

Do zoom-through converters remain as zoom-through converters regardless of the camera they are attached to?

What makes the zoom-through and non-zoom-through converters differ structurally?Do zoom-through converters remain as zoom-through converters regardless of the camera they are attached to?

Zoom-through converters are typically of three element construction (though can be 2 or 4), with air spaces between the elements so the lens is usually quite big and chunky. Yes - whatever camera lens you attach them to they reduce the focal length.

A non zoom-through will most often be a single element (spherically or aspherically ground) though there are some two element designs around. They tend to flare less, but the camera's lens needs to have a powerful macro feature for these to work successfully.

tom.

Thanks again for enlightening me Tom! Now I know why the wide angle adaptor is heavy.

It's true the A1's stock lens is pretty wide to begin with. In a living room shot, I found the stock A1 is as wide as my HV30 with an old WD-58 wide angle lens. I got the WD-H72 for the A1 this week and it makes enough difference to be worth it. Had read about its size, but was still surprised how big it is, definitely heavy, a good excuse to take up weight lifting again.

Can someone give me the exact dimensions of the Canon WA adapter. I m looking to put it behind an underwater port.

Thanks

Jon

Depth of lens 65mm
External diameter 114mm
It comes with a lens hood which adds 40mm depth; external dimensions are 178mmx135mm

Many thanks Dave,

Hey, so I am looking for a fisheye adapter to do some Terry Gilliam-esque shots in a film I am about to shoot. I've been perusing this thread for a while now and it seems to me like there isn't any one lens that's better than the others, it's more about what you are looking for in the lens. So here's what I want in a fisheye:

I do want some barrel distortion. Not as much as a .3, but enough to distort the image (the Terry Gilliam look).
No chromatic aberration.
No vignetting.
As little soft focus on the edges as possible. I haven't seen any lenses that produce a perfectly crisp image from corner to corner but that's what I'm after. A little soft focus is okay but as little as possible.
I don't really need any kind of zoom through.

If anyone can help me out and figure out which lens best fits these needs that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Both Century and Raynox make the fisheye you describe Ian. The Century is beautiful, big and expensive, the Raynox cheaper and less corrected.

I do want some barrel distortion. Not as much as a .3, but enough to distort the image (the Terry Gilliam look).
No chromatic aberration.
No vignetting.
As little soft focus on the edges as possible. I haven't seen any lenses that produce a perfectly crisp image from corner to corner but that's what I'm after. A little soft focus is okay but as little as possible.
I don't really need any kind of zoom through.
I was at Century Optics a couple of days ago and tried the fisheye lens I think is the one you want.

It is about a .45x, is full-frame with no vignetting, and has minimal softening in the corners. It fits on the XH-A1 with a bayonette mount, is fairly lightweight, and it costs $460 at B&H. Here is the link:
Century Precision Optics | 0HD-FEAD-XLH 0.3x | 0HD-FEAD-XLH (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/488699-REG/Century_Precision_Optics_0HD_FEAD_XLH_0HD_FEAD_XLH_0_3x_Ultra_Fisheye.html)
Please note, the B&H description is incorrect; this adapter is not .3x but rather about .45x. Officially, Century does not print the magnification but just calls it a fisheye. This adapter can zoom in about a third of the range, but since it is an "adapter," not a "converter," it is not 100% zoom thru. It is fairly lightweight because it is a single element.

Century also does make a .3x "ultra" fisheye to fit the XH-A1. This one does show vignetting in the corners. It also costs more ($800). Here is the B&H link for this one:
Century Precision Optics | 0HD-FE3X-XLH 0.3x | 0HD-FE3X-XLH (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/488701-REG/Century_Precision_Optics_0HD_FE3X_XLH_0HD_FE3X_XLH_0_3x_Ultra_Fisheye.html)

Here is the Century page with all the products made for the Canon XH-A1:
Canon XH-G1 & XH-A1 Attachments - Schneider Optics (http://www.schneideroptics.com/century/dv/xh-g1/xh-g1.htm)
The one I am recommending is the "FISHEYE ADAPTER HD CANON" with a list price of $595. As I say above, the magnification is about .45x (as told to me by the Century reps). Click on the link for the adapter, then click on the "sample" tab to see an example shot with the adapter.

I own the Canon wide angle converter and the Century .6x adapter. I am about to buy the Fisheye (.45x). Of everything out there, I think these three are the best quality/value, and the three of them add a lot of dimension to XH-A1 shooting.

I try to test very cheap wide adapter: Zeikos 72mm, 0.45x ... and result is: USELESS

Take a look: Canon XH A1 - Zeikos 72mm 0.45x wide adapter test (http://www.jardabar.net/a1/zeikostest.htm)

I agree - pretty useless with all that vignetting and distortion. I see it says DSLR on the rim of the lens, so it may not be sold with a camcorder in mind.

Hi folks,

I bought the WD-H72 some time ago and when I'm shooting video it's on most of the time.

However I use the Letus Elite for a lot of film projects and I need to go wider than my widest, Nikon 24. Question is, how wide is acceptable and what's the best one to go for?

I was looking at the Tokina 12-24mm F4 AT-X124 Pro DX. Without understanding too much about the DX lenses, I was wondering if it would be any good on the end of the Letus?

Chris

For my Canon XHA1s. I know of the Canon and the "16x9" models. Are there others? and what are the pros and cons of each? I have a bad back and can do without a lot of extra weight, but I need a good picture.

Sorry for starting a new thread. I know this topic is elsewhere on this forum, but they strayed from the topic.

There is heaps of info on this but you can't go too wrong with the Canon WA... it's zoom through, doesn't distort too much and is a pretty good price.

J