Canon WD-H46 Wide Angle for HV20?
 

Anyone using the Canon WD-H46 46mm 0.7x Wide Angle Converter Lens with their HV20? Is this lens "HD quality" glass?

I need a wide angle for my HV20 (for a shoot in less than two weeks) and I'm having a heckuva time finding a 43mm from Canon, Raynox, etc., so I'm considering this one using a step-up ring. Is this doable?

I've read some other post regarding using Sony, etc. but I've not seen anything mentioned on this.

Thanks,
Blake

I have a HV10 with 37mm and a GL2 with 58mm thread.
Raynox 6600Pro is my choice for wide angle!
Can i buy a 58mm version, so i can use it on my GL2, and with an adaptor ring 37->58 for my HV10? Or this is a very BIG stepping?
If i can use, the 0,66 magnification will still remain with HV10 or increase about 0,8? :(

Another thing: because the wideangle has 72mm filter thread, and in this size a good Polar filter isnt cheap, and i already have a good 55mm Hoya Polar filter, can i make this setup?
HV10 37mm->step up to 55mm, Hoya Polar filter -> 55mm version of the 6600Pro wideangle?
Will this setup vignetting or can i make excellent result? I film in nature, where wide angle is important, deep blue sky is also great, and HD resolution of course :)

thank you,
Marton

Raynox 6600Pro WA on Canon HV10
 

Marton,

Yes, I own a Canon HV10 and a Raynox 6600Pro WA lens. I use a 37-49mm upsizing ring to make the connection. So, my WA lens is 49mm. The reason I bought the 49mm WA was to enable use with my Panasonic GS250, as well as with the Canon HV10, the former being 49mm and does not require the step-up ring adapter.

Sorry, I cannot answer your question about the 55mm Raynox, and or 55mm filters/polarizer, as I do not own these items.

I have not noticed any vignetting, barrel distortion, or chromatic aberration with the 49mm WA lens on my HV10. It's been awhile since I used this WA lens on my Panasonic GS250 but, I vaguely recall there may have been a very slight amount of vignetting when used on this camcorder. Then again, I'm relying upon distant recollection, so the vignetting I'm thinking about could well have involved other lenses I've used with the Panasonic.

I remain 100% happy with the Raynox 6600Pro WA lens! I can't imagine a WA lens that produces a better match with the Canon HV10, and better image quality. The size and weight of this WA lens in relation to it's connection to the small HV10 is not a problem where I am concerned.

I attach two photos (sorry for low-light image quality) which depict the 6600Pro WA mounted on my Canon HV10 and monopod.

See attached ...

VM

thanks for photos!

Is this 6600 a high quality, multi coated lens?
Did you see more lensflares when you see the sun or a spotlight,
and when you dont use the lens?

thx,
Marton

Canon WD-H43 Wide Angle Lens -- quick observations
 

I just got Canon's HD43 wide angle lens for my HV20. Some quick observations:

1. This lens is heavy! I haven't weighed it or looked up specs, but it's probably as heavy (or heavier) than the camera. It's also big. Still, the combined weight is quite manageable, particularly in comparison with my prosumer VX2000 which this rig replaces. I've previously described my shooting technique of using a shoulder strap and balancing the camera against my chest (this provides 3-point support and enables very stable hand-held shots). The heavy lens on the front actually helps as puts weight on the front of the camera strap.

2. I keep a UV filter on my HV20 -- this protects the lens and the auto-lens cap. I tried putting the HD43 over the filter, i.e. the filter is between the WA lens and the camera. It works great -- there is no vignetting. There's another advantage to doing this. The HV20 has plastic filter screw threads (what do you expect in an inexpensive consumer camera?). The UV filter I'm using (a Tiffen) has a metal collar. This means I'm less likely to strip the camera's screw threads when putting the WA lens on and off. This also means that other filters, e.g. polarizing, can be used between the WA lens and the camera, a desirable option as the Canon WA doesn't have filter threads on the front.

3. This is pretty decent-quality glass. In some quick and non-scientific tests, I couldn't detect any significant color fringing when zoomed all the way in. It's a tad less contrasty than the HV20's lens, but definitely acceptable.

4. Image stabilization is adversely effected -- it can get a little jumpy. I'll probably switch off IS when shooting in extreme wide position (IS is really less important when shooting wide, anyway).

Heh, funny, I got one just 3 hours ago! :)
http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2007/1...ii-and-wd-h43/

Me 64 / Sony VCL-0746B wide angle combo
 

Hi there..not a question but observation. This is my experience with HV20 from shooting a couple of short documentaries. I went in with the Videomic on top of camera for verité doco work - bad idea. If someone is talking and you want to move the camera away from speaker ie to get reaction, you can't as sound drops away. After reaserch I forked out $400 for an ME64 which couldn't have been a better choice for this cam. Its short, battery op, low profile, has a wide pattern so you can move the camera around while not losing out the sound. Its the perfect length for this cam too, only 7inches. It also has presence boost which really picks voices out of nowhere.
If you need an on camera mic for verité doco footage to pick up voices / dialogue, this is a good choice of mic. It would be way to noisy for narrative work though. While it is expernsive, it is the only mic really that has all these characteristics and is battery op. I use it in conjunction with an old sony VCL-0746B wide angle lens, which is very small compared with the official lens. With this on the cam you can get in close enough to the subject to get decent sound level.
Anyway just wanted to share that, hope its of some use. Cheers. Ben.

Awesome info, thanks. I use the ME 64 too, and it's excellent. Any low-light issues using the HV20 for doc work?

Low light has not really been a major problem - when shooting 24p. 60i is not so great, but do-able. When you consider the size of the cam you can't complain at all. Chaocito.

Nobody? :-(

the 6600 is supposed to be a "high quality" lens, says "HD" right on the box, FWIW. I used it on an HV20 and with a 43-37 stepdown adapter for my Sonys - I don't use it anymore, but it's still in my kit. No noticeable barrelling, maybe a bit of CA towards the edges on bright lines (pretty common from my experience), never really had it under conditions where lens flare was an issue. HTH

Today i buy a 58mm 6600Pro, and a 37->58 step up ring, so my HV10 looks like a monster. But i'm not sure, i made a good deal..
The distorsion is really little on the edge, see the wardrobe on picture.
BUT.. There is a HUGE lensflare when there is a light on the picture.
On the 3rd pics, the lamp is even NOT visible on the screen, but the bad flares are there:( What can i do??
When i film a speaking people, and above the man is a lamp, i can see always those blue circles??
I haven't time to film outdoor, but i would like making nature videos where the sun is in the picture, so i guess, this horrible effect will visible.
This lens is not a multi coated one?
Wasnt so cheap, and nobody says from here: beware of spotlight!

help
i dont know, if i can return to shop, and when yes, what else can i buy

Do not buy Raynox 0.5 HD5050PRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

I agree with Rick. It is a very bad lense. If Lee Wilson had not written that it is a good lense, I had not bought this lense. Without the adaptor ring, at full wide it still makes vignetting, the middle of the image is clear, but close to the edge, it is very fuzzy and unclear.

Prech, I too had the 6600 Pro on my TRV900. I really liked the lens but like you I found that the single (not multi) coating did mean that it was very prone to flare, as you've found out. However, I used it with a good 4:3 aspect ratio lens hood (see pic) and as long as you stop unwanted light hitting the front element, it works very well indeed. It certainly had a lot less barrel distortion than the 3x more expensive Century.

Johann - you say you're getting vignetting with the 5050 lens, but I certainly don't see that on your pictures here. It may well be slightly darker towards the picture corners, but it seems to be the least of your worries if you're not getting a sharp image all over.

tom.

Hi Tom

I need a hood for my 6600, just wondered where you got ours from and if it comes into view at full wide?

Cheers

That picture of me and the TRV900+hood. I had to lighten the hood in Photoshop as it's so matt black it just looked like a silhouette in the original photo. Anyway, it came from an old Chinon Super-8 ciné camera from the early 80s, and such excellent hoods are very hard to find now.

At full wide the hood did indeed vignette so I had to 'pull it rearwards' on the 6600 PRO. The design of the hood made this possible because it clamped around the outside of the 6600 - I didn't use the lens's 'filter' threads.

I don't use the hood any more as I shoot 16:9 exclusively now, and it's a 4:3 hood so not efficient enough for me.

tom.

Tom, thanks for answer.

A multi coating lens will not produce any lens flare?
And such a lens is very expensive?
6600 wasn't so cheap, so i guessed before purchase, it is a multi coated one.
But the seller says, only the professional category is, where lens flare doesnt exist (for exaple interchangeable lens, XL1, XH1, etc).
But in this category (camcorder original lens + wide lens) i will not find any, that doesnt do lens flare.

Yes, i need a good hood. But in 16:9.
Here in Hungary, i not find even a good 4:3 one, so i will do it myself.
Where shoud i began? (material, etc)

thx,
Marton

All lenses produce flare Marton. All pieces of plastic and glass (elements within the lens) bounce back a tiny amount of light rather than letting the light pass through, and it's this that lets you 'see' a piece of glass in your hands. If all the light passed through, the piece of glass would become effectively invisible.

Glass reflects back about 8 to 10% of the light that hits it. Coat the glass and that drops to 1%. Multi-coat and you can get this down to 0.3%. Fine, but when your lens consists of 18 elements (a typical 12x zoom with two NDs and three beam-splitting prisms between the world and the chips) these figures mount up.

All lenses flare - it's just that some do more than others. Zooms more than primes, unhooded ones more than hooded ones. Cheap ones more than expensive ones.

If you add a typical 3 element widie to your camcorder's zoom, that's another 6 air-2-glass surfaces you've added, and again, the flare levels rise. And flare is not just about shooting into the light. If you film a piece of white paper in a dark table you get exactly the same thing - flare within the lens.

Good man - make yourself an efficient hood in 16:9. Stiff, very black plastic and superglue maybe. Remember a 'shadowed' hood (like the PD150 has) is the very best design, where the front rectangular mask 'shadows' the interior of the hood, so that it's even less reflective.

And remember that with any zoom lens, your hood will only be efficient at full wide-angle. At all the other 100 focal lengths up to full zoom the hood gets less and less efficient, so think on this when you shoot into the light.

tom.

Anything Wider?
 

I bought the Merkury CL-52WB (.45x) mentioned in another thread. I'm happy with it, but would like something wider for filming my kids indoors. They usually ending up inside 5 feet of me, and I'm just not capturing all the action.

Any recommendations? My budget is $90.00

really? a 0,45x one isnt enough wide?
you need a fisheye lens, but this will distort the edge a lot!

I feel the same as Prech - 0.45x isn't wide enough? On a Canon HV? You'll just have to pan L & R to get all the kids in.

I read another thread (http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=101539) and learned it's not as wide as the specs would have you believe. See below:

Nathan - your Merkury isn't .45x - it's roughly .75x, even less wide than the Canon WD-H43. That's b/c of the macro lens that sits behind it. Take off (unscrew it) and you have a .45x semi-fisheye (hence the ".45x wide angle"). Problem is, there's no way to mount it on your HV20 without the macro lens.

Merkury 0.45x
 

I have the same lens (probably) as discussed earlier, which works fine as long as you don't zoom!!! But to get a wide angle for USD under $50? (I think actually it was a lot less) compared to Canons - and with reasonable optics as long as you're on wide - what a steal! Distortion is appalling of course on anything but the widest settings.

Unrelated - but maybe someone can help. I picked up an old Hasselblad bellows to use as a mattebox, 62mm, and even found the screw in for the bayonet mount (trying to 'professionalize' my HV20), but getting a macro ring for 62 to 62 (diameter of Mercury wide angle) so it can fit has proved impossible. This is an old-style Hass bellows.

The Merkury is fitted with a step up ring from 43-53mm of course - so am looking also for a solution to fit my Hass Bellows to the HV20 (inside) diameter of 43mm. Of course if my HV20 was working (see my post regarding Canon warranties....you've been warned before travelling!!) it would make things easier, considering I just received four 2400 mah batteries from best batteries.com!

I wound up removing the glass from the macro and use it as a
mounting ring for the .45x. Now I actually have a .45 wide angle.

Jim


Nathan - your Merkury isn't .45x - it's roughly .75x, even less wide than the Canon WD-H43. That's b/c of the macro lens that sits behind it. Take off (unscrew it) and you have a .45x semi-fisheye (hence the ".45x wide angle"). Problem is, there's no way to mount it on your HV20 without the macro lens.[/QUOTE]

I bet it barrel distorts like crazy, yes?

Wide angle adaptor HV20
 

I intend to get an HV30 and will need a wide angle adaptor. The Raynox HD6600 has been well reviewed, but from an existing Sony TRV950, I have a
Sony HG0737X (x0.7). Would this be suitable? The Raynox appears to be a cheaper lens than my Sony. Would I really benefit from buying the Raynox? Am I missing something?

The Raynox 6600 PRO is a wide-converter that has amazingly little barrel distortion - far less than the Century of the same power. BUT, and it's quite a big but - the lens isn't very well coated and flare levels can be high if it's not well hooded. Also it can only be used as a half zoom-through, as it gets pretty soft at full tele. The softness is quite attractive on women of a certain age, but all in all I sold mine and went for something sharper.

The 0737 by Sony will distort straight lines more which doesn't look good in my view. It's also marginally less powerful, but you'll be able to zoom through it all day long. If your HV30 has a 37 mm filter thread, then I'd stick with the Sony lens - or at least till you get sick of bendy door frames and brides that are fatter in the middle.

tom.

Thanks Tom. I had read your earlier posts about barrel distortion and lens flare.
If I have to pick between the two evils, I would choose the least distortion.

I`m getting ancient and lightness is a priority; hence the intended HV30 and
possible Raynox 6600 PRO, the latter being relatively light. I would use the camcorder almost entirely to record the scenery and architecture on my travels, ultimately PC edited, burned to DVD and viewed on a domestic TV.

I note your warning about the tele. end of the zoom, but anticipate little need for that.

Regarding flare, I have seen, in another thread, the Canon XH A1 hood being used on an HV20m but this does not seem to be separately available and in any case, would it be superior to the alternative Cavision LH-77, which I can get? Am I right in thinking that the latter would be preferable to any circular hood (even though it`s not 16:9, but what is available that is?) (But, if I can get it, the Canon appears to be deeper (better?))

Do you think either hood would well reduce the risk of lens flare with the
6600PRO?

I am thinking that this combination is likely to be the most cost-effective consumer application.

Canon WD-H43 in black?
 

any chance that canon will release the WD-H43 in black to match the hv30, I really hope so!!! Hopefully someone has some inside info...

You're right Harry - the 6600 PRO is very light, and I suspect there's a high pressure injection moulded aspheric element in the lens's lineup. This would explain the lack of barrel distortion and also the softness at full tele.

I used a 4:3 hood on my Raynox and yes, the longer the hood (and the blacker and matter) the better. In fact in an efficiency order there's shadowed aspect ratio hoods, then non-shadowed, then petal, then circular, then front element masking. Whatever you do hood it with though (even a French flag) will improve contrast and hide the fact that the front element isn't spotless.

The 6600 comes with a front thread. For hoods, not filters! And if you're shooting HDV on the HV30, I'd see if you can test out the 6600 on a posh 1080 telly before you clinch the deal simply because the 6600 is a fairly old design now. Hague might be party to this.

tom.

Sorry for the delayed responses, Tom. Indeed it does barrel distort like crazy!

I consider it as more of a special effect that an everyday wide angle. I found the Merkury compromised the native HV20 image quality too much, so no way I was going to keep it on the camera for any length of time, and of course with the macro glass, we're no getting that much of a wide angle anyway.

Since it was so cheap, I had no qualms about converting to a true .45 "effects" lens.

Wide angle adapter HV20
 

Thanks again, Tom. If you are not already aware of them, I would like to direct your attention to the following postings on the HV20 Forum:

1. "Accessories & Equipment" - "The BIG wide angle lens adapter shootout"
Post by "zephyrnoid" 26.1.08 (02.28)and then on to the direction to his own web site;

2. "Accessories & Equipment" - "Raynox SRW-6600-58LE Test"
Post by "CycleWriter" 9.4.08.

All things are relative and coming through Hi8 and DV, I would be happy with the results shown, even at 10X. Part of this, I suppose, is due to the HV20 quality.
These tests, couple with your confirmatory comments decided me to get the
52mm+Raynox step up ring, as recommended by Raynox, and I already have them.

Also, I have found a source for the Canon XH-A1 hood and have this on order.
This needs no thread, as I understand it will fit snugly on the outside of the 6600. I would hope that this hood would come next to the top in your order of efficiency list.

That's right Harry - second to top. The VX2000's hood (note - not the barn-doors lens cap design of the VX2100) is a very good example of the shadowed hood - the internal shadow being caused by the rectangular mask at the front.

You may have to 'petal' cut the Canon hood when it arrives, depending on how you fit it to the 6600 PRO. Don't believe your overscanning v'finder, get to see the entire frame in your NLE's software.

In my arsenal of cameras I have an FX1. The top-screen's overscanning (ug!) is huge - far worse than on any of my CRT or LCD TVs.

tom.

I've just had a look at the zephyrnoid test. Interesting, as Canon's 0.7x wide is much admired, but it certainly barrel distorts more than the more powerful 6600Pro.

As others have said - the Raynox needs careful hooding and mine carried only single layered coating, I'm sure. Like my Tecpro 0.5x (I do have rather a lot of wide-angle converters) I suspect that to keep costs down Raynox only coat the front surface of the front element - the most important one to be sure.

tom.

If you're concerned about barrell distortion here's a link to a clip I shot using the Raynox WA mentioned previously.

http://vimeo.com/890157

With all the parallel lines it would be easy to spot any distortion from this lens. There's also some zooming going on and you can see that the PQ suffers almost imperceptibly.

Rick (aka CycleWriter)

Impressive, Rick. What camera is the 6600 bolted to?

HV20, of course. :)

just wanted to be sure ...

Here's a link to a little comparison I did using the Raynox SRW6600 and a cheap Ambico 0.5X Wide Angle lenses at various stages of Zoom-Through. I think you can see the differences between a cheap WA adapter and one like the Raynox that is used by so many in here. Although the Raynox does show some degradation of PQ towards the end of the zoom range, it is nowhere near as bad as the Ambico, which shows dramatic increases in both chromatic aberrations and edge blur very early on. All shots were taken on a tripod using Auto settings. Click on the full size pics to see the real differences.

http://www.sameteam.net/WA/index.html

Another interesting thing is that although the Ambico is labeled as 0.5X, the field of view is less than the Raynox's .66.