|
|
|
|
|
January 13th, 2005, 12:59 PM
|
#331 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
I have a Kenko 0.7x single element non zoom-through and it works well. Being a spherical element means it barrel distorts, but it's nicely coated and is a lot more compact and is considerably lighter than my zoom-through w'angle converters.
I tend to prefer non zoom-through as generally you can go to about half way before the image blurrs out, and anyway, the camera's zoom lens always works better without any added chunnks of glass placed in front of it. tom. |
|
|
|
February 5th, 2005, 02:55 PM
|
#332 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 408
|
Wide angle lens for GL-2 camcorder
What is the best wide angle lens for the GL2 camcorder - in terms of quality of picture, guality glass, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
February 5th, 2005, 08:45 PM
|
#333 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Your top two choices are the Canon WD-58H wide-angle adapter, and a comparable model or two from Century Optics. These adapters have been discussed frequently on this forum... try a search using those terms and browse through the results; you'll find a lot of feedback about both.
|
|
|
|
|
February 6th, 2005, 08:38 AM
|
#334 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 408
|
From what I have gleaned from the other threads, it seems like the choice is between the Canon WD-58H and the Century Optics .65. What is not clear to me is whether or not the Century Optics is worth the extra cost. I've seen one thread where one person appears to have used both, but that's the only actual "real life" comparison I could find.
I am trying to get some sense from folk who have used both how much of a difference there is. For example, do they both give the same field of vision, or is one different? Does one have more distortion, or are they the same. If there are differences, how noticeable are they? |
|
|
|
|
February 6th, 2005, 12:05 PM
|
#335 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 208
|
just for general questions: what is the best way to clean my wide angle?
__________________
patricksmith04@hotmail.com |
|
|
|
|
February 6th, 2005, 01:07 PM
|
#336 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Elida Ohio
Posts: 217
|
Stephen, What are you going to use the wide angle lens for. I have the Century Optics .3 fisheye which is very distorted, but shows from ceiling to floor.
I also have the .55 Century Optics, shows quite a bit, just about no distortion. I film house tours, and have a need for both, in post I can correct for the distortion caused by the fisheye. But the .55 is much more convinent. |
|
|
|
|
February 6th, 2005, 05:02 PM
|
#337 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 408
|
I will use it for video taping school concerts, and other inside events where I need to get a wide angle. I'm trying to get a comparison of the Canon WD-58H and the Century Optics .65 (if there is another Century Optics that is a better option that the .65, I'd like that comparison as well).
|
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2005, 03:12 PM
|
#338 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 613
|
From what I've seen, the WD-58H is probably your best bet. It is full zoom through and there is no distortion/vignetting. I wouldn't imagine that the Century Optics wide angle lense would be too much better.
__________________
"Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com |
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2005, 05:32 PM
|
#339 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 408
|
I would still like to hear from anyone who has actual real life experience with both lens - is there anyone out there who has used both? Or had a chance to compare them in a store?
|
|
|
|
|
February 17th, 2005, 06:09 PM
|
#340 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lake Park, Florida
Posts: 202
|
I use the Canon and it's got excellent optics. I can't imagine the Century Optics being better enough to justify the cost. It's a very good wide angle lens.
|
|
|
|
|
February 18th, 2005, 04:50 PM
|
#341 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 90
|
I use the Canon and find it excellent. I certainly agree with Bob, Jack, et al about cost justification and the quality of the lens.
Sandy |
|
|
|
|
February 19th, 2005, 01:56 PM
|
#342 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Stockholm (Sweden)
Posts: 30
|
__________________
Canon EOS 7D, Canon XM2, MA-300, Azden SGM-1x |
|
|
|
|
February 24th, 2005, 03:49 PM
|
#343 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
I've tested the Century 0.65 (bayonet mount on a VX2000) against a Raynox, Kenko, Cavision and others. Not the Canon though. Of all the zoom-throughs the Century was the best. Mind you, it was the heaviest, most expensive, best coated and sharpest at all apertures and focal lengths. I was impressed.
But one sadness was the barrel distortion. At the price I just felt it distorted too much, and the Bolex Aspheron I now use is much better in taht department. But then again, all converter lenses have their pros as well as cons, and the Aspheron is only a half zoom-through. tom. |
|
|
|
|
March 19th, 2005, 07:25 PM
|
#344 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baltimore
Posts: 31
|
canon wide angle lens and filters
so I have the UV filter and polarizer filter and the tiffen filter which is 58mm, however when using the wide angle lens, there is nothing one can place over the wide angle lens.
when I placed the tiffen filter soft fx3 over the canan gl2 lens and then the wide angle lens, one can see the small dark "spots" of the tiffen filter on the LCD screen. any advice on what ya'll do with your filters and wide angle lens? |
|
|
|
|
March 19th, 2005, 08:36 PM
|
#345 |
|
Capt. Quirk
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia
Posts: 3,596
|
So far, it's been one or the other. Try to get the best footage you can, and apply the filters in post as needed.
__________________
www.SmokeWagonLeather.us |
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
