Wd-58h at DVinfo.net

James Wang · March 5th, 2004, 03:20 PM

Is okay to leave WD-58H on GL2 instead of puting it on when needed. Any downside?

Thanks,
James

Ken Tanaka · March 5th, 2004, 03:42 PM

It's fine, James. I leave mine on the camera most of the time. No downside.

James Wang · March 6th, 2004, 08:14 PM

Thanks Ken.

Since WD-51H does not have front thread, any alternate that has front thread and hood.

Robin Davies-Rollinson · March 7th, 2004, 02:41 AM

As a matter of interest, why would you need a front thread on the
WD-51H ? What would you screw onto it? A filter (if you could get one) would be huge and bound to show up any dust etc.
If there was anything suitable, surely Canon would have designed the lens with a front-thread anyway.
As for a lens hood, there is one made for it.

Robin.

Graham Bernard · March 7th, 2004, 03:05 AM

Quite right Robin. . . maybe a MAtte box nicley tucked under the cammie on Rails? NOW that wouldmbe real neat . . ! HAHAHA

Grazie

James Wang · March 7th, 2004, 11:20 PM

I was thinking adding a UV filter in front of WD-58H, seems I don't need to. Thanks all for the advise.

James Wang · March 8th, 2004, 12:25 AM

Do I still need UV filter between the camera lens and WD-58H.

Ken Tanaka · March 8th, 2004, 12:57 AM

No. It would serve no purpose whatsoever and would push the 58 just slightly out of position with respect to the primary lens.

Gints Klimanis · March 8th, 2004, 01:35 AM

Doesn't a UV filter have *some* value? I know that most people use them as lens protectors, but don't they protect the CCDs or something like that?

Ken Tanaka · March 8th, 2004, 11:42 AM

No. None.

UV filters were designed to extract cash from the pockets of still film photographers by preventing "excess" ultraviolet band radiation from entering the lens and casting a bluish color on film. It has no relevence to video. Videographers buy these things to protect their front element.

Hagop Matossian · March 8th, 2004, 04:24 PM

Actually... A UV filter between your WD-58 and your XM2 can serve a purpose...

by moving the WD-58 further away from the cameras lens, it increases the wide angle effect by 1 or 2 degrees. I first noticed it when I had a UV & a Diffusion in there, (just to experiment with, in early days of shooting I'd often test weird combinations of filters in varying light to see what would happen) the stills I'd taken onto memory card had the edges rounded off as black. however nothing erroneous showed on the video I'd shot, I guess its cos when taking stills more of the CCDs area is used.

The video I'd shot definitely had a more bulbous look to it. Could come in handy when trying to cover a lot of action close up. I'm shooting a band on Thursday, I love being really close to performers & getting busy, interesting shots, I'll defnitelly be going as wide as possible for that

Downsides are that moving the Wide Angle Adaptor away from the camera body moves the centre of gravity further forward, making the camera less evenly balanced, and more of a strain to hold. It might also stress the camera body.

I'd reccomend the century optics .65x wide angle adaptor over the WD-58
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/1.htm

Its lighter, smaller & distorts the image less.

Happy shooting,

Hagop

March 5th, 2004, 03:20 PM	#1
James Wang New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8	Wd-58h Is okay to leave WD-58H on GL2 instead of puting it on when needed. Any downside? Thanks, James

March 5th, 2004, 03:42 PM	#2
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	It's fine, James. I leave mine on the camera most of the time. No downside. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

March 8th, 2004, 12:57 AM	#8
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	No. It would serve no purpose whatsoever and would push the 58 just slightly out of position with respect to the primary lens. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

March 8th, 2004, 11:42 AM	#10
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	No. None. UV filters were designed to extract cash from the pockets of still film photographers by preventing "excess" ultraviolet band radiation from entering the lens and casting a bluish color on film. It has no relevence to video. Videographers buy these things to protect their front element. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

March 8th, 2004, 04:24 PM	#11
Hagop Matossian Woodyfang Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: London/Nicosia Posts: 125	Actually... A UV filter between your WD-58 and your XM2 can serve a purpose... by moving the WD-58 further away from the cameras lens, it increases the wide angle effect by 1 or 2 degrees. I first noticed it when I had a UV & a Diffusion in there, (just to experiment with, in early days of shooting I'd often test weird combinations of filters in varying light to see what would happen) the stills I'd taken onto memory card had the edges rounded off as black. however nothing erroneous showed on the video I'd shot, I guess its cos when taking stills more of the CCDs area is used. The video I'd shot definitely had a more bulbous look to it. Could come in handy when trying to cover a lot of action close up. I'm shooting a band on Thursday, I love being really close to performers & getting busy, interesting shots, I'll defnitelly be going as wide as possible for that Downsides are that moving the Wide Angle Adaptor away from the camera body moves the centre of gravity further forward, making the camera less evenly balanced, and more of a strain to hold. It might also stress the camera body. I'd reccomend the century optics .65x wide angle adaptor over the WD-58 http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/1.htm Its lighter, smaller & distorts the image less. Happy shooting, Hagop __________________ 10 films online http://www.undeadarmy.org STOP PRESS!! http://www.honeyweasel.com STOP PRESS!! Lighting Cameraman / Director / Producer / Music Producer / DJ / Web Designer / Visualist / Media Student / IT Tutor / Digital Artist W00dy See, W00dy d00...

March 6th, 2004, 08:14 PM	#3
James Wang New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8	Thanks Ken. Since WD-51H does not have front thread, any alternate that has front thread and hood.

March 7th, 2004, 02:41 AM	#4
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	As a matter of interest, why would you need a front thread on the WD-51H ? What would you screw onto it? A filter (if you could get one) would be huge and bound to show up any dust etc. If there was anything suitable, surely Canon would have designed the lens with a front-thread anyway. As for a lens hood, there is one made for it. Robin.

March 7th, 2004, 03:05 AM	#5
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Quite right Robin. . . maybe a MAtte box nicley tucked under the cammie on Rails? NOW that wouldmbe real neat . . ! HAHAHA Grazie

March 7th, 2004, 11:20 PM	#6
James Wang New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8	I was thinking adding a UV filter in front of WD-58H, seems I don't need to. Thanks all for the advise.

March 8th, 2004, 12:25 AM	#7
James Wang New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 8	Do I still need UV filter between the camera lens and WD-58H.

March 8th, 2004, 01:35 AM	#9
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	Doesn't a UV filter have some value? I know that most people use them as lens protectors, but don't they protect the CCDs or something like that?