Wide Angle Lens Converter for GL / XM

Ryan McCrary · August 11th, 2003, 09:04 AM

i'm ready to buy the wd-58 but i'm wondering if .7 is really that wide?

i do a lot of rock climbing filming, where the camera is on a monopod, maybe 2 or 3 feet from the climber.. so i need the wide capapbility.. does anyone have comparison images up close, where they can tell me how close they were to the subject?

thanks..

-r

Barry Goyette · August 11th, 2003, 07:17 PM

The wd-58 is a nice wide-angle lens attachment...giving you coverage similar to a 24-28 mm lens on a 35mm camera...it sounds like you would want something wider though.

Century makes a few products in a wider range...a .55 and a fisheye. But beware, you only have use of part of the zoom range with these...so if you want to zoom in to get a look at all the scaredy-cat geeks like myself down at sea level...this may be a problem. Then again, maybe not.

I'm not sure, but I think they are a touch more expensive as well.

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/1.htm

Barry

Ryan McCrary · August 11th, 2003, 11:12 PM

heh.. touch more expensive..

i think for money's sake i'll go with the wd-58.. i've been shooting some alright stuff with the regular lens so i think i can make do well enough with wider..

-r

Rosie Young · August 14th, 2003, 07:44 AM

I'm also wondering about a wide-angle lens. I am shooting alot of surfing, and my problem without one is this. When I zoom in to try to get a close-up of the surfer, I lose half the wave. If I get a wide-angle with zoom capabilities will I then have both the surfer and the wave? And which lens has full zoom capabilities.

thanks,

rosie

Barry Goyette · August 14th, 2003, 09:15 AM

Rosie,

Are you shooting from the water, or from the beach? The wd-58 is zoom through...but it affects the telephoto end of the zoom the same as the wide end...ie you won't be able to zoom in as close with the wd-58 on as you will without it. Thus it really depends on how much you need the full range of your zoom.

Barry

Rosie Young · August 15th, 2003, 07:52 AM

thanks for responding Barry. I am shooting from the beach, and in some cases, I don't need the full zoom, while in other cases, I do. I guess if I'm going to invest money in one, I would like to have one that allows the full zoom of the camera. Any suggestions? Rosie

Barry Goyette · August 15th, 2003, 09:04 AM

this wouldn't be possible... the .7 number (or .55 or .3) that describes the wide angle attachment is a multiplier...ie...multiply the focal length range of the lens (4.2-84mm on the gl2) by the multiplier to get the effective focal range (2.9-59mm with the wd-58). So all of them will give you a shorter maximum zoom in varying degrees...On the other hand, it isn't difficult to remove the adapter...so as long as you're not trying to pull a zoom from maximum zoom to adapter assisted maximum wide, you'd be ok.

Another thought is that you can take advantage of the gl2's digital zoom...it's pretty good out to 40x...showing little loss in quality at that level (100x is pretty bad). At 40x digital zoom using the wd-58 you would be have slightly more zoom range than the 20x lens without the adapter (and dig zoom turned off).

Barry

Neil Slade · August 19th, 2003, 02:18 AM

Sorry, but I'm using a different camera these days, and my GL2 footage is archived.

BUT, I did a similar thing with the Raynox .3X - which is similar to the Edmund lens, and adapted it to my DVX100 with good success.

Soon I'll post the instructions to this project and some samples.

In both cases, the relatively low cost of the lenses pretty much justify their use regardless.
I've had no problems with either, and to my eyes- and I'm a artist/painter part time- they look really nice and perform well.

The Edmund glass is top notch, and I suspect the Raynox glass is similarly good quality. I have not seen any distortion or aberations in either that is of any consequence.

Neil

Luke Gates · August 19th, 2003, 06:07 AM

basically you want a BMW for the price of a ford escort. Just go for the canon you will be satisfied in the end!

Neil Slade · August 19th, 2003, 01:29 PM

Actually, this is a totally inaccurate analogy-- and I in fact drive a Lotus Elan which runs circles around any BMW.
http://www.h2net.net/p/nslade/Papers/elan.html

The Canon is heavy, big, expensive, not so wide, and does not allow you to use the lens shade. This doesn't sound like a BMW to me at all, but rather an overpriced Ford Taurus.

Well, okay.... a nice Toyota Camry.

My lens is small, light, inexpensive, much wider than the Canon, high quality optical material, and allows you to use the shade.
The DIY lens is the race car here you're talking about, not the other way round.

So there.(!)

Neil

Craig Hollenback · August 29th, 2003, 07:09 PM

Does anyone have info about how much is lost with the WD58H in place...1 stop? Thanks, Craig Hollenback

Craig Hollenback · August 29th, 2003, 08:15 PM

Has anyone tried the (KRW-075) by Kenko..it's approx $79.00...wondering if it's a decent piece of glass vs:the WD-58H?
How much of a stop loss with the WD-58H ? thoughts? Tnx, craig

Ken Tanaka · August 29th, 2003, 08:37 PM

I don't believe there's any loss with the WD58. At least none that I've observed.

Brendan Getchel · August 29th, 2003, 09:19 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Hollenback : Has anyone tried the (KRW-075) by Kenko..it's approx $79.00...wondering if it's a decent piece of glass vs:the WD-58H?
How much of a stop loss with the WD-58H ? thoughts? Tnx, craig -->>>

I know nothing about the Kenko, but I personally wouldn't chance it for a measley $100 difference, or less if you buy from one of the eBay stores like Aden, etc.

As to your other question, front-lens convertors do NOT incur a loss of aperture. You're thinking about film teleconverters that go between the lens and camera. All aperture settings remain identical regardless of add-on type -- ie: wide angle or 2X magnifier.

Luke Gates · August 30th, 2003, 08:50 AM

"For what I do, I couldn't see spending the extra cash."

Just a quick question. If you don't need a quality wide angle and can get by with a cheap 60 dollar one, cause its good for "what you do"...then why did you spend 2000 plus dollars on a PROsumer cam. I mean its all personal preference, and if the glass satisfies you then great. But I was just curious. I kind of see it as buying a BMW or corvette and throwing bald tires on it. It just doesn't make sense to me. But hey, to each his own.

August 11th, 2003, 09:04 AM	#211
Ryan McCrary Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: chapin sc Posts: 41	.7 wide enough? i'm ready to buy the wd-58 but i'm wondering if .7 is really that wide? i do a lot of rock climbing filming, where the camera is on a monopod, maybe 2 or 3 feet from the climber.. so i need the wide capapbility.. does anyone have comparison images up close, where they can tell me how close they were to the subject? thanks.. -r

August 19th, 2003, 02:18 AM	#218
Neil Slade Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Denver Posts: 131	Footage Sorry, but I'm using a different camera these days, and my GL2 footage is archived. BUT, I did a similar thing with the Raynox .3X - which is similar to the Edmund lens, and adapted it to my DVX100 with good success. Soon I'll post the instructions to this project and some samples. In both cases, the relatively low cost of the lenses pretty much justify their use regardless. I've had no problems with either, and to my eyes- and I'm a artist/painter part time- they look really nice and perform well. The Edmund glass is top notch, and I suspect the Raynox glass is similarly good quality. I have not seen any distortion or aberations in either that is of any consequence. Neil

August 19th, 2003, 01:29 PM	#220
Neil Slade Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Denver Posts: 131	BMW Actually, this is a totally inaccurate analogy-- and I in fact drive a Lotus Elan which runs circles around any BMW. http://www.h2net.net/p/nslade/Papers/elan.html The Canon is heavy, big, expensive, not so wide, and does not allow you to use the lens shade. This doesn't sound like a BMW to me at all, but rather an overpriced Ford Taurus. Well, okay.... a nice Toyota Camry. My lens is small, light, inexpensive, much wider than the Canon, high quality optical material, and allows you to use the shade. The DIY lens is the race car here you're talking about, not the other way round. So there.(!) Neil

August 29th, 2003, 07:09 PM	#221
Craig Hollenback Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Key West Posts: 247	WD58H loose a stop? Does anyone have info about how much is lost with the WD58H in place...1 stop? Thanks, Craig Hollenback

August 29th, 2003, 08:15 PM	#222
Craig Hollenback Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Key West Posts: 247	Kenko (KRW-075) wide angle adapter Has anyone tried the (KRW-075) by Kenko..it's approx $79.00...wondering if it's a decent piece of glass vs:the WD-58H? How much of a stop loss with the WD-58H ? thoughts? Tnx, craig

August 11th, 2003, 07:17 PM	#212
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	The wd-58 is a nice wide-angle lens attachment...giving you coverage similar to a 24-28 mm lens on a 35mm camera...it sounds like you would want something wider though. Century makes a few products in a wider range...a .55 and a fisheye. But beware, you only have use of part of the zoom range with these...so if you want to zoom in to get a look at all the scaredy-cat geeks like myself down at sea level...this may be a problem. Then again, maybe not. I'm not sure, but I think they are a touch more expensive as well. http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/camera/1.htm Barry

August 11th, 2003, 11:12 PM	#213
Ryan McCrary Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: chapin sc Posts: 41	heh.. touch more expensive.. i think for money's sake i'll go with the wd-58.. i've been shooting some alright stuff with the regular lens so i think i can make do well enough with wider.. -r

August 14th, 2003, 07:44 AM	#214
Rosie Young New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: santa cruz, california Posts: 13	I'm also wondering about a wide-angle lens. I am shooting alot of surfing, and my problem without one is this. When I zoom in to try to get a close-up of the surfer, I lose half the wave. If I get a wide-angle with zoom capabilities will I then have both the surfer and the wave? And which lens has full zoom capabilities. thanks, rosie

August 14th, 2003, 09:15 AM	#215
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Rosie, Are you shooting from the water, or from the beach? The wd-58 is zoom through...but it affects the telephoto end of the zoom the same as the wide end...ie you won't be able to zoom in as close with the wd-58 on as you will without it. Thus it really depends on how much you need the full range of your zoom. Barry

August 15th, 2003, 07:52 AM	#216
Rosie Young New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: santa cruz, california Posts: 13	thanks for responding Barry. I am shooting from the beach, and in some cases, I don't need the full zoom, while in other cases, I do. I guess if I'm going to invest money in one, I would like to have one that allows the full zoom of the camera. Any suggestions? Rosie

August 15th, 2003, 09:04 AM	#217
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	this wouldn't be possible... the .7 number (or .55 or .3) that describes the wide angle attachment is a multiplier...ie...multiply the focal length range of the lens (4.2-84mm on the gl2) by the multiplier to get the effective focal range (2.9-59mm with the wd-58). So all of them will give you a shorter maximum zoom in varying degrees...On the other hand, it isn't difficult to remove the adapter...so as long as you're not trying to pull a zoom from maximum zoom to adapter assisted maximum wide, you'd be ok. Another thought is that you can take advantage of the gl2's digital zoom...it's pretty good out to 40x...showing little loss in quality at that level (100x is pretty bad). At 40x digital zoom using the wd-58 you would be have slightly more zoom range than the 20x lens without the adapter (and dig zoom turned off). Barry

August 19th, 2003, 06:07 AM	#219
Luke Gates Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: new jersey Posts: 151	basically you want a BMW for the price of a ford escort. Just go for the canon you will be satisfied in the end!

August 29th, 2003, 08:37 PM	#223
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	I don't believe there's any loss with the WD58. At least none that I've observed. __________________ 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

August 29th, 2003, 09:19 PM	#224
Brendan Getchel Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Waterbury, CT Posts: 101	Re: Kenko (KRW-075) wide angle adapter <<<-- Originally posted by Craig Hollenback : Has anyone tried the (KRW-075) by Kenko..it's approx $79.00...wondering if it's a decent piece of glass vs:the WD-58H? How much of a stop loss with the WD-58H ? thoughts? Tnx, craig -->>> I know nothing about the Kenko, but I personally wouldn't chance it for a measley $100 difference, or less if you buy from one of the eBay stores like Aden, etc. As to your other question, front-lens convertors do NOT incur a loss of aperture. You're thinking about film teleconverters that go between the lens and camera. All aperture settings remain identical regardless of add-on type -- ie: wide angle or 2X magnifier. __________________ Dumb Guy.

August 30th, 2003, 08:50 AM	#225
Luke Gates Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: new jersey Posts: 151	"For what I do, I couldn't see spending the extra cash." Just a quick question. If you don't need a quality wide angle and can get by with a cheap 60 dollar one, cause its good for "what you do"...then why did you spend 2000 plus dollars on a PROsumer cam. I mean its all personal preference, and if the glass satisfies you then great. But I was just curious. I kind of see it as buying a BMW or corvette and throwing bald tires on it. It just doesn't make sense to me. But hey, to each his own.