Thanks for mentioning chromatic aberation - I've never known what that was (I'm no video pro, but I am a tech-head. LOL!!!) and just read articles online about it. Now this issue does hit home with me as being a negative in using additional lenses. Thanks for teaching me something new.

My question is this though - do the HV20 (and other similar cameras) have lenses that are fairly free of this issue in their design? In other words, does the HV20 produce little to no chromatic aberation on its own?

Bingo...you said it best by saying "at the distance you judged as perfect" - because there is definitely a zone of distance that I personally prefer to capture with and without any wide-angle lens. I think this is part of learning to develop an eye towards better cinematography and considering the subject matter vs. captured distance vs. captured angle. It's a form of art all unto itself. Anyone can setup a camera and shoot away, capturing some really great footage. But then there is some footage that can become more than just great captured footage - it becomes great cinematography. All still subjective but then not. Because like all things visual or auditory, music, art, video...some are very well-done technically while others rise to the surface as being more than they are because they possess many extra qualities that make them so much more than average or very well done.

The lens that Canon fit to their HV20 is the cheapest lens they can get away with. This means it has the fewest elements necessary, some of which are plastic (the aspherics) and the widest aperture will only be at wide-angle. I'll will exhibit barrel distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberations to be sure, but to a degree that you'll find acceptable for $950. Mind you, the internet means there's no place to hide if it's a stinker, and comperition from Sony is raging-furnace-fierce. Sony is the Terminator; it absolutely will not stop.

This means in effect that the lens on the 20 is pretty darn good, as it is on the HC7, for instance. Sony's street cred meant that they have to pay a German firm to allow them to engrave 'Zeiss' around the lens barrel, but Canon are not shy about the fact that their lenses have earned their position on quality of results alone.

But if Canon thought that adding an extra three elements (or four as you had a filter as well) was going to improve the sales of their 20, they'd have done so. Every added element brings with it the risk of de-centering. Every element lowers the T stop, every extra element ups the cost, the weight and the size.

You'll get the best performance out of your Canon if you bolt it to a ton of concrete, select the middle of the zoom range, stay on the default shutter speed, apply no gain or ND filtration and shoot two stops down from max aperture. Your films will be yawn a mile dull, but boy, will they be sharp.

tom.

I've posted a short clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNBi1XaEdtQ

showing how you can force the viewer to see in wide-angle.

Make this a sticky-post. Well, said and to the primal point.

Hey fellow tech-heads...could some of you please chime in on my tech-thoughts about using this larger 52mm lens on a 43mm camera.

My thoughts about the corners of the image NOT being degraded in quality:

As I wrote previously in the forum, if the image looks sharp and focused in the LCD, then it is, if it looks somewhat soft and slightly out of focus, then it is.

The corners do not degrade badly, in fact I would say there is very little to no degradation "you will take notice of". I think the reason for that is the fact that the lens is 52mm covering a 43mm camera. In actuality, the HV20 lens isn't what is 43mm, that's the width of the outside threaded portion of the camera. The lens area itself is much smaller in width/surface area. I'm no expert, but my technical thoughts on this are that if there are degraded edges to the image caused by this wide-angle lens, then the camera is not seeing them because they are physically outside of the view of the HV20's lens since the Merkury is a larger 52mm lens - so my thoughts are that the HV20 is only seeing through the middle section of the wide-angle lens where the image is its best. And that is also why there is very little barrel distortion (image bending) as well, because its not seeing the more curved part of the image at the outer edges.

Does this sound like a good tech-explanation???

Nathan,
That's got to be part of it. The sensor is imaging more of the "sweet spot" and less of the marginal area of the adapter.

Not really Nathan. The manufacturer (Raynox, for instance) designs a lens such as the 6600PRO and sells this with a 43 mm, 52 mm, and a 58 mm attachment thread. The thread he puts on the back bears little relationship to the diameter of the entry and exit pupil.

It's a bit like the filter thread on camcorders. The DVX100A has a 72 mm filter thread whereas the MX300 has a 43 mm thread. Yet the smaller camera has a longer zoom and they're both f/1.6 to f.2.8.

All you've got to worry about is vignetting at the widest angle setting of the zoom. If your image vignettes (as seen on the computer, not on the camera's v'finder which is hugely masked down) then your wide-angle converter has elements that are either too small or it's spaced too far away from your front element.

tom.

Sorry to bring this thread from the grave, but I was wondering if I would notice any difference in quality from the Merkury 52mm and 58mm lenses?

Ben: Not likely.
All: I got this lens and was quite disappointed with it. Pretty severe loss of resolution, IMHO.

Depends what camera you're fitting the lens to Ben. If you fit the 58 mm lens to a TRV900, no problem. But if you fit the 52 mm to a VX2k, you'll probably vignette the image at full wide.

tom./

Alright, I was just wondering if i should nab a used one for $26 shipped with caps and a 3 piece filter kit. I was just planning on using it for a high school media course.

Edit: Tom, i was planning on using in on my HV20.

For $26.00 and some extra filters...I say get it, can't beat that price even if you don't like it for some reason.

I agree. It's new at that price? You can always take it apart and use one of the internal elements to get some wild fish-eye effects.

I bought one and am very pleased with the results. Just playing around in Mammoth and very little degradation within 50% zoom. Beyond that the image starts to degrade at the edges, but its going in my underwater housing at max wide angle, so it should work great.

Thanks for the advice everyone, i've decided to get it. I'll put up some video in the sample forum after i get it.

just kicking this dead horse again. just got my hv20 and went to the first high school football to film (daylight games from atop the press box). not sure of the name brand but it came in a silver box with titanium written on it. .42 by .46. had to use a stepping ring. says professional super wide angle. it has the screw off macro lens also. maybe one coating.

first off,i'm a pure newby, so everyone might already know this. with the wide angle lens on, i cain't hardly zoom in very much. is this typical with a wide angle lens?

if it is, can i add my double and get some more zoom?

with this lens, i noticed a lot of softness around the edges at full zoom, which is where i had to keep it to get a close enough shot. the other team had on white jersy's and pants. on the tv, around the outer edges there uniforms actually glowed. lol looked like a force sheild around them. lol

setting the white light might have cured this, i will have to check this next time. also, the center of the screen was clear. i'm asuming this is the barel veiw yaw were talking about earlier. also, when i zoom all the way in, i can see the adges of the inside of the wide angle lens. is this normal? i have 21 days to return the lens so i'm just making sure this stuff is normal.
thanks,

All of what you describe is 'normal' for a cheap and pretty uselss lens, Gerald, but I'd venture to suggest that paying more (probably a lot more) for a wide-angle converter would be in your best interest. You've just bought one of the finest HDV cameras around - the HV20 - and the Canon engineers would cry if they knew what you'd screwed to the front of their beautifully engineered lens.

You still have 19 days to return the lens. Do it.

tom.

if you're zoomed in almost the whole way, there's no reason to be using a wide angle lens in the first place. its counter intuitive. the only real reason to use it is zoomed the whole way out. otherwise take it off!

i'm trying to get as close to the players as possible on the football field. i bought the camera to record my son's game and review the games with the other coaches later. thats why i wanted the wide angle lens to zoom in close and capture all the action up close, running backs and linebackers at the same time. see how's doing what while the play is going on. the video did suck pretty bad. the kit also came with a bower's 2x telephoto lens. is this any good either. trying to decide on returning the wide angle lens or not.

tom, this lens was $150 bucks, is that cheap for a lens or did i over pay for a cheap lens. i thought about getting the canon wide angle lens but it was around the same price range (i believe, maybe wrong).

how much would a good wide angle lens be?

also, the fuzzie light surrounding the white uniformed players, is that bad white out setting or just from the lens. it noticed it around the edges more than anywhere else.

150 bucks sounds about right for a low range wide-converter, though a lot depends on its power, on whether it's a non-zoom or a full zoom-through and also on how big it is - ie what filter size fitting it comes with. Converter lenses that use aspheric rather than spherical elements are more expensive but better.

It sounds from your description that you paid rather a lot for a lens that gives you quite easily noticeable distortions. The Canon lens will be very much better but is probably a 0.7x as against your 0.5x (is it?).

When you say you're 'trying to get as close to the players as possible on the football field' do you mean you're getting physically up close to them with your widie in place for a more intimate view? Sounds to me though as if you're in the stands and really need a telephoto converter to increase the focal length of the camera's zoom lens. This will 'bring the players closer'. The 'bowers 2x' that came with the kit will be of the same so-so quality I'd say.

The 'fuzzy light' you're seeing is most probably chromatic abberation. Pretty common in cheap lenses and in single element lenses.

I'd be tempted to get my money back and buy a lens with a brand name you recognise on it. Canon or Tokina or Raynox or Century or Kenko.

tom.

thanks tom, i think i'll try and send it back. if a noob like me notices it you know it's bad, if the white team would have had circles around their helmets thay could have passed for angels. not kidding.

i'm shooting from atop the press box located behind the blechers, normal high school football field layout. so i was trying to get a really close up shot of the action while still getting the entire players on the field. are you surposed to be able to see inside the wide angle lens when you zoom all the way in. this is a 46cm wide angle lens with a step down ring to the hv20's 43.

if i use some extra rings, could i place the bowers doubler in front of the wide angle lens and beable to shoot futher out. with the wide angle lens i have very little zoom.

am i going about this the wrong way, for shooting highschool football games from atop the press box, would you use the wide angle lens or just the regular lens?

No, the perfect wide-angle zoom-through converter will allow you to use the full zoom capability of your camcorder without any vignetting, barrel distortion, chromatic abberation, contrast reduction, increased flare levels or softening of image detail.

Such a lens doesn't exist whatever you pay. Sounds to me as if your lens exhibits all of these faults, and some of them to a marked degree.

No, you cannot combine the tele and the wide lens. One at a time. please.

You're going about things the wrong way. Use the telephoto converter on your zoom lens to 'get closer to the action'. But you won't be able to zoom back (towards wide-angle) far, before you 'see inside the lens' (Called vignetting).

Use the wide-converter whan you're back to the wall yet still can't get everything in your v'finder without hose-piping the scene.

As Adam says - when you don't need extra lenses, take them off. They will *all* degrade your image quality, always. No exceptions.

tom.

thanks for the info tom. i'm going to remove the wide angle lens for the next game. i'll mess around with the wide angle lens later doing more close up stuff where i don't have to zoom out much. all the video was taken at full zoom, that probabily did not help much either.

tom, i started a thread on the vegas site about trying to find a vegas editing software that will work with my laptop. you mind throwing your 2 cents in. i never looked at a editing program before. i cain't see the difference between vegas pro 8 and artitect 4.5. i know these are way more than i need, just got the free trail to see what it looked like. i'm sure even the most basic vegas will do more than i need it to do, which is capture hdv, maybe add a menu with a foot ball scene running in the back ground during the menu. i think thats looping but not sure. and then burning the video to my dvd burner.

You're on the right track. Sounds to me as if you're confusing the wide converter and the tele converter. Use your Canon camcorder without any extra lenses bolted on for the finest picture quality. And buy and use a tripod for your press box location. Please.

Sounds like you're a contender for the excellent (free) program called iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. They'll do everything you describe and more.

When you get more experience you can fiddle with lenses, manual settings and editing programs. Walk first, run second.

tom.

one more question,
did you install/or use the canon cd that came with your camera? mine says digital video solution disk, version 24.0.

i have not installed it yet.

also my computer has movie maker on it. will this handle my hd video from the hv20?

gerald

If you have Vista you should be ok. Otherwise downconvert in camera and feed DV via Firewire into the pc. You'll be outputting to standard definition DVDs anyway.

The CD is probably not needed - more for the stills processing I'd have thought. I have a Sony Z1.

tom.

thanks for the time and help
gerald

What Adapter
 

I just received the lens based on this string, but when I tried to screw it on the threads were bigger than the camera's. What is a cheap adapter that someone could recommend? Thanks.

From the photos, it looks like you need a 43mm to 52mm stepup adapter ring. You can find these in camera stores, or online.

I have the WD-H43. Quality is great, but the lens is extremely heavy. I may pick up a lighter alternative.

FYI to all,

Schneider Optics will have line of accessory lenses for the Canon HV-20 very soon. We have been very busy working on other projects. In the meantime, if you wish to buy a good wide angle, we make a line of 58mm lenses that use a 58mm-43mm step ring. Specifically, we make this lens which features a .55x wide angle and the front element can be unscrewed and reversed for a fisheye effect! This is one of my favorite lenses we manufacture.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecomm...D=1070&IID=883

Ryan Avery
Regional Sales Representative
Schneider Optics

raynox 6600pro
 

Raynox is also advising you to use the wide lens 6600PRO 52 with the HV20 and use a step-up ring to go from 43mm-52mm the ring is RA5243a. So do not use the 43mmm Raynox.

I need this lens and the HV20 for some shots on a boom, weight is everything but I don't think I'm happy with the resolution (center res 350 l/mm) and CA. I am going to use a 72mm polarizer on top , so with all that glass, flare is a risk.

The Canon Wide adapter is heavy and the other Raynox HD-7000PRO is better (540 lines/mm) but heavy too.

You're right - the 6600 Pro is a good lens in as far as its barrel distortion is very well controlled, but I thought mine had flare levels that were too high, and I was careful to hood it very efficiently. Adding a polarisor (many of which are uncoated) to those hungry-looking front threads will only worsen the problem.

I'm not sure I'd put much weight on Raynox's 'lpmm' figures. The 6600 PRO came out in about 1998 so was way before the HiDef revolution. My guess is that the more modern 7000 wouldn't be any sharper on your HV20, just more useable. (less wide but much sharper at telephoto settings, where the 6600 falls down).

tom.

My Merkury showed up today for my HV20. Is there ANY kind of 53mm adapter available to only use the Wide-Angle adapter without the Macro?

I don't understand your question Dave. Maybe you just want a step-up adapter to allow you to attach 53 mm accessories to your HV20?

Apparently it's a non-standard thread size, and it's not 53mm either according to what I learned. Basically I want an adapter that will allow me to use only the wide-angle lens, minus the macro lens. It looks like the only solution right now is...tape :)

also.
 

I'm also looking for a solution other than tape