I have similar lens with HV10:
a 37mm 0,55x cheap Focus Optics wide angle
and a 58mm 0,66x Raynox 6600 Pro. (with 37->58 adaptor)

My experience is the same as yours.
The cheap lens have more distorsion on the edge, and shows vignetting even at full wide setting. But if i remove the macro part ot the lens, the viewing angle increase, and i think it is the 0,55x. But in this case the distorsion and vignetting is very BIG! useless.. only for special shots.

With the Raynox. We have the same lens? What is the SRW code?
It is too bad, not to have a full zoom capability. Because each time i need a very close view i have to pick off the lens, and when i want the widest view i have to put on. I dont have any vignetting, because the 37->58mm ring, but a little distorsion at edge. Liveable.

Can anybody recommend a good 0,5-0,6x WA in 37-43mm filter size, that doesnt show vignetting and make no more distorsion than the 6600?
I have another cam for stereo video, and i dont think a new 6600 is the best choice. What is with the 5050Pro? Or with other brand?

thx,
Marton

Prech - these people make a lens that satisfies your requirements for no barrel distortion and no vignetting:

http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/ka...a/b_optike.php

the SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH Ultra Wide Lens Aspheric III (UWL III) Version C is the one you should look at I reckon.

It's not a full zoom through and you'll have to check to see if it's a coated optic, but it's powerful - and door frames won't bow outwards as you track room to room.

tom.

Tom, thank you for recommendation.
we have discussed this lens in email some months ago.
the price is a bit high for me, and there is also the lensflare issue.
i have to buy a good hood.
if someone here in hungary sell this lens, i can test it, and buy.

Marton

Crystal Vision Lenses
 

Hello Forum Members,
Has anyone purchased the Crystal Vision Limited Edition High Definition 58mm 0.5x Pro Wide Lens W/ Macro as a replacement for the unavailable 43mm Wide angle Lenses from Canon or Raynox? Distributor is New World Video Direct
http://www.newworldvideodirect.com/p...ProductID=2568
Saleman says it is on a promotional sale for $190 each including step ring???
Post your experiences with this lens please.
Cheers,
Christo

It sounds like a lot of money for a 'no-name' lens Christo, but might be worth a try if they say you can get a refund if you're unhappy. If they're not happy to sell under this proviso, it probably means it's a bit iffy. I'd stick to the known names if at all possible.

Schneider's 43mm wide angle
 

Anyone tried out Schneider's 43mm wide angle lens yet?

It's listed as a .5x, so it's not as wide as the Canon's WD-H43.

Best,

Trust is a virtue...
 

Tom,
Yes, you were correct,.. that was a bait-and-switch going down! I had just found this forum's sponsor listing for the "Century" WD glass, http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=127178 So, I just purchased (2). Has anyone done a field test and or side by side comparison, with the Canon and Ray WD lenses? I have yet seen anything from forum users, I had to trust on this for a Sunday excursion departure.
Cheers,
Christo

Hi Christo,

Which 2 Century items did you buy? And how is it with the HV20/30?

Best,

Century WD Angle
 

Hello Jeff,
I purchased Century .5X WD Angle HD 43 MM lenses for a new Canon HV-30 Cam. Also a 67E Clear UV Haze (010) filter lens screwed on the front of each Century WD. From the Cam out I have a Neutral Density filter first, then a Polarizer filter before the Century. I have not captured from tape yet, but I noticed that Wide Out give a barreling around the corners. That is just looking at the flip monitor. Is that normal for that lens configuration? If I touch the Tele just a tad, the corner distortion is eliminated. Has anyone else field test these (Century) lenses yet?
Cheers,
Christo

Thanks Christo.

I needed to buy a wide angle quickly (purchased from Zotz Digital), so I went ahead and bought the Canon WD-H43 instead. But the Century sounds like it has filter threads on the front (unlike the Canon). So far, the Canon wide has been working fine for me.

Best,

Christo, space your fingertips just 4.5 mm apart and see how minute such a focal length is. And when you're shooting at such focal lengths it very difficult indeed to avoid imperfections (dust and fingerprints that are all but invisible to the naked eye) from being within the depth of field and appearing pretty sharply on your image.

You've all seen the wide shot against the light spoilt by dirty filters.
Hooding a wideangle is difficult at the best of times and these imperfections I'm talking about are painfully obvious. Another point - adding but one filter adds two reflecting (and maybe dusty) surfaces.

Modern multicoatings are really hard these days and it takes a halfwit to scratch the front element by scrubbing. You can see that I'm not keen on 'protection' filters with camcorders.

Of course there are times when a clear UV is good mechanical insurance protection. Sticky-fingered children's parties, wind-swept beaches and so on. But when you don't need the protection, don't use them. If Canon thought that adding another element to the line-up of 12 would give you better pictures, you can bet the camera would come with one.

So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and remove them if you want the best picture quality.

tom.

The barrel distortion you notice is very common indeed with spherically ground supplementary lenses. You can (as you've found out) zoom in and you'll lessen the effect, and when you've zoomed in to such a position that you're back to your camcorder's normal wide-angle view the distortion will be at its minimum.

But this isn't why you bought such a lens - you wanted to see wider. The barrel distortion will always be there, barreling your windows, doors and brides. I keep well away from such lenses unless I'm filming under water, where the effect is all but invisible.

And Jeff - they're hood threads, not filter threads on the front of wide-angles.

tom.

Century WD Angle Lens field tests?
 

Thanks Tom,
I appreciate your perspective. If I had a crew..., could slow down time..., and multiple pre fitted cams to choose from..., it would be a more "perfect" shooters world. On my recent test shoot in the RMNP, Colorado, all I could hope for was best light available, some nice shadows, no flairs, and low winds to keep the shots steady on pans. Switching or removing extra lenses in the field seemed like too much practical effort to keep the lenses clean and tight. This was also in consideration that I had two duel cams side by side in Stereo, that needed identical filters/lenses and constant checks for alianment.
So, I wonder if what you say also holds true for high end HD pro cams as well as their pro filters/lenses ( WD Angle etc.)?
Cheers,
Christo

The barreling at the edges is normal for a lens this wide. We have tried to minimize this effect as much as possible but you have to go down to about .65x to really minimize the effect.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

The .7x from Canon is 30% wider than your exiting lens and the Century .5x is 50% wider than your existing lens. Unless Canon announced a new wide angle lower than .5x that I haven't seen.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

FCP Post Edit, to reduce WD Angle Barreling
 

Hello Ryan, and Forum Members.
Because you are most familiar with this Century .5x WD Angle lens, I will address you first. I have captured footage from my HV-30. All filming was provided while this cam was attached to my helmet. The shots were fantastic, color was bright and we were completely soaked but loved it! We navigated seven miles of class 3 & 4 rapids on the Cache La Poudre river in Northern Colorado, and stayed in the raft. Here is my problem. I had no way to adjust a back off touch of WD Angle, from a full WD Angle adjustment. I couldn't see the flip LCD, to correct for the barreling. So, all footage was captured with barrel distortion. Now with the HD footage captured using FCP, I'm looking to somehow crop out the barreled corners. A specific degree of zoom perhaps? Have you, or anyone else successfully made similar editing to reduce these barreled effects?
Cheers,
Christo

Ryan,

Can you explain "partial zoom through" a little bit? I believe it means I can zoom (w/ autofocus enabled) from wide to about 1/3rd zoomed in w/o any problems. Is that correct?

What happens if I try to zoom past 1/3rd of the zoom range?

I believe Canon's adapter has full zoom through but it's not as wide.

Can you comment further on differences among your adapter and the Canon and Raynox HD-6600?

Thanks much!

All the partial zoom-throughs I've used in the last 18 years or so have allowed quite a lot of zoom. My Z1 with its 0.52x converter allows me to go from 0 to 65 on a 0 to 99 zoom scale, so it's still a very useful range.

If I film at the 65 setting and zoom into tele just a tiny bit the whole frame blurs instantly and very prettily - something I cannot replicate in post. I use this a lot for focus blur dissolves (from church flowers to bride's face, say). If you do this with the sun in frame the specular highlights are wonderful.

So single element non zoom-throughs are much to my liking. If they're aspherics they can give zero barrel distortion and they inherently give less flare simply because they use less elements. They're also lighter, smaller and generally cheaper than the full zoom-throughs, but the latter are useful for cameras that have poor wide-angle in the first place (PD170, V1 etc).

tom.

So after reading this entire thread front to finish I've decided on going with the Raynox 6600 Pro. I also read the entire thread, which is 3x as long, over at the HV20 forum about this same subject. However after reading all the questions and desiphering the answers, I wasn't able to conclude on the best choice for a lens hood.

I am also researching for a cheap matte box. My purpose mainly is to make my HV30 look less "amaturish" if you can understand..

Thanks,
Terry.

Know just what you mean Terry. Pop over to have a look at the Cavision hoods
Cavision Lens Hoods
remembering that you want a 16:9 one.

Also remember that the 6600PRO (I had one) isn't completely zoom-through (as Raynox are quick to admit). It softens noticably beyond the 60% zoom point, but that's probably a side-effect of it's barrel distortion control.

tom.

Hey Tom, Thanks for the reply.

What is the diameter of the Raynox of which I will have to find a hood to fit? All I am finding in search is the mm of the area where it attaches to the camera. I would like to have something that makes the camera look less like a handycam. I actually have a script for this one and numbered scenes so I thought it best to clapboard the scenes but will it ever look goofy clapboarding a handycam...Plus of course I am trying to lower the event of sun flairs from a practical stand point. A matte box would be awesome! However any matte box I see is as much as the budget for the film itself..

Well I chose the 6600pro simply because it has the least barrel distortion. As I am trying to obtain the "film" look with the HV30, barrel distortion would make it look like video. So this one seems to fit the bill. However, I have seen ALOT of people who like the WD-H43 still after many tests. Are there attributes I should be looking for in a wide angle adapter that I am unaware of?

Thanks for your help.
Terry.

The front hood attachment thread on the 6600 PRO is 72 mm Terry

DCR-6600PRO High Definition Wideangle conversion lens 0.66X for Digital & High Definition camera
I had a very nice hood for mine taken from a Super-8 camera. Not only does it make your diddy-cam look better, it makes your films look better too. Flare can be a problem with this particular Raynox lens as it appears to have single - not multi coating. I bet the Canon lens H43 is multi-coated.

tom.

Hey Tom, Thanks for the reply.

I think I found a little matte from CineCity that would fit the Raynox 6600pro

The CineCity*::*Cine Matte box*::*Matte box*::*Wide angle Matte box mattebox + french flag for all DV HDV camera from 37mm to 82mm lens thread dia

Seams to be a pretty steady little unit for $155

Interesting site, thanks Terry.

I have the Raynox 6600 pro HD and at full zoom it has insane amounts of CA. Comes with the territory I suppose but I do wish it was as good as a piece of glass as my WD-H72 for my XH-A1.

is there anything better than the 6600 in this prise range?
maybe i sell my 6600.
5050? or anything else?

Raynox make no secret of this fact Randy, and they admit the lens (because of it's very good barrel distortion control) is only sharp for just over half your zoom's travel - just like any non zoom-through adapter in fact.

Prech there are better lenses out there but the 6600 still has a lot of fans. Generally the wider you go the more barrel distortion you'll have to accept - especially if you're wanting a full zoom-through.

tom.

Tom:
"especially if you're wanting a full zoom-through."

No. Honestly, i dont want to zoom when a WIDE lens is attached. No.
Instead i remove the lens. At normal FOV, the original lens has the best quality, isnt?

So the 5050 has wider FOV, and bigger barrel distorsion.
Can you say product name or type in this price range?

I saw a test video with sony 0,7 vcl-mhg07, and that looked fantastic to me!
Sharp at corner, and minimal distorsion. This lens have NO zoom possibility at hv20.
But, this is not an issue for me.

Are you sure? My 0.52x wide-angle is classed as a 'non zoom-through' but my 12x Z1 zoom still is a 7.8x zoom with the converter in place. I've never come across a camcorder that can't zoom at least to the half-way point with a 'non zoom-through' attached.

Sorry that I can't make recommendations for your camera as wide-angle converters are a real 'suck-it-and-see' experiment. I took my Z1 to the London Video Forum and filmed through as many wide-angles as I could find - that's the way to find a goodie - at home looking at the results on your TV.

tom.

Are you sure?

Here is it:
Sony VCL-MHG07 wide-angle tests [Archive] - Canon HV20, HV30 & HV40 User Forum

Those widetest M2T files looks great to me!

He says:
"I cannot zoom more than a little though without loosing focus"

But he also said he hand-held it in front of his zoom and that, 'This is my first wide angle lens so I'm not sure what to look for. I am satisfied with the sharpness which was my main concern.'

I must have had probably 10 or 12 wideangle converters and adapters in my time and tested many more. Here's a couple that worked well, and they're both inexpensive - the Raynox very cheap even.

tom.

The Sony's quality is very good, dont you think?

Hm, the qc-505 is very inexpensive.
As you rememeber, what was the CA, and barrel distorsion?
You have some pictures?
Have enough resolution for HD?

I like the snap-on instead of rotating always the lens when needed.

thx

Here's a comparison - standard MX300 zoom, then with Raynox 0.5x added.

Thx.
Barrel distorsion is here, but interesting, without the
lens there is also a little BD.

As i see the sharpness is good enough for hd.

You're right - and you'll find that most (if not all) camcorder zooms exhibit barrel distortion at the wide end. Easy enough to chek how badly your camera's afflicted - look at my pictures in post #50 here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xl-...hipping-4.html

tom.

Indeed my friend. I wish when I was doing my research that I cared about CA rather than just BD so I would have known to take the adapter off for telephoto shots at disneyland. I use it at full wide most of the time as it is a wide safe shot cam for me so it's a welcomed trade off.

What's your opinion on the canon WD-H43? Worth it to make the switch? Pros and Cons over the raynox?

Cheers.

Sounds like your v'finder is rather lacking in resolution Randy if it wasn't obvious that the Raynox was a no-no after about 50% of your zoom's travel. I used to say full tele with that lens fitted was for portraits of women 'of a certain age'.

I sold my 6600PRO because although it was very good at wide angle I felt it was getting softer and softer the more I zoomed. At least with the single element adapter I now use (and the Raynox 0.5 shown above) I can see exactly when it becomes unsharp.

Canon are one of the few Japanese camera manufacturers that don't feel they have to go cap in hand to German lensmakers to give their kit some kudos. Canon's reputation is built on fine optics, so although I haven't tested the H43 I'd take a good guess at it being a fine lens. And yes, I'd rate it over the 6600 PRO on paper. Probably slightly less powerful, a touch more BD, better coated and proper zoom-through capability.

tom.

The whole day I didn't have it at anything past full wide. When the fantasmic show came on at night, I zoomed in since we had bad seats and thats when I noticed the insanely terrible CA and telephoto of the lens. By that time, I figured a soft CA'd shot was better than missing a portion of the show. Viewfinder has plenty of resolution ;).

I returned my 30 and the Canon WA adapter
 

I returned my new 30 because of the tape eject issue along with the Canon WA adapter. I got an HFS100 in its' place. I had purchased a Cavision shade that fit well on the Canon WA adapter by wrapping the lens with some tape...just a few turns to enlarge the size by 1/32". The shade has a nice front filter thread to protect the WA adapter glass. The Cavision LH77part is here...

LH 77 | B&H Photo Video

I'll sell it for $25. It's only a week old. It looks great on the lens and really protects thew WA glass. I wish it fit the WA adapter for the HFS100.
Craig 305 393 7503
ConchTV@aol.com

Feel Free to peruse this review as well.
Imago Metrics:HV20 Wide Lens Test
I love my HD6600Pro. Not a perfect lens but pretty darn good and gets the job done!