Which WD
 

Canon has at least three 58mm wide angle converters for its video camera line.
WD-58H
WD-H58
WD-H58W

The first two are 0.7x and the last is 0.8x designed for the XA10 (and higher priced too!)

Any comments on using the others with the XA=10 beyond 21mm (if using the 0.7x, being rather wide.?

TIA

Re: Which WD
 

The 0.8x WA works perfect on the XA 10.
I think the 0.7x lens will vignette at full wide, particularly if the image stabilization is active.

Re: Which WD
 

I still have VCL-HG0758 since PD170 and it works just fine on G10, full zoom through , very litlle CA and distortion,
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xa...omparison.html
you can find one on ebay very cheap

Re: Which WD
 

I am about to buy a wide angle lens adapter for my G10, and I am curious about something. What is that little sensor that sits right below the lens? It looks like it's a focus sensor, but it would be covered by the screw on wide angle lens. Which would mean that whatever this sensor does, is now being altered by the lens adapter.

Is this a problem? Are users still having solid AF with their wide angle adapters mounted?
Angelo

Re: Which WD
 

I read somewhere that night vision thingy doesn't work with WA on the camera, maybe that's it. I bet it is.

Re: Which WD
 

I don't think the camera has night-vision. It has a night and low light programs - but those don't actually use the green infrared "Paris Hilton" effect.

I dug out the manual, and that little sensor is in fact the "Instant AF" sensor.

So I ask any Wide Angle owners - how is the instant AF performance with the adapter mounted right over the auto-focus sensor. Seems like a bad place for such an important sensor! Maybe it's a non-issue, but I wanted to check before I bought one.

Thanks,
Angelo

Re: Which WD
 

Just a guess, but I suspect that given the depth of field at wide angle settings, the impact of covering the sensor would probably not be critical for most wide shots, but focus would be slower

However, the XA10 does have IR capability. The IR emitter is in the handle.

Re: Which WD
 

like almost any camera with WA lens on it works fine when there is enough light, but I have to say that even in the dark receptions G10 holds it very well, better than EX1 with Schneider, AF is fast and accurate, but I keep it wide all the time, it might behave differently at deeper aperture

Re: Which WD
 

I have a G10, which makes sense why I didn't think the camera had IR night-vision.

Thanks for the feedback, i think I am going to pick up a lens today.

Angelo

Re: Which WD
 

Angelo, I'm thinking of following Buba's example and getting the Sony for $100 on ebay.

Re: Which WD
 

Good luck with the Sony Jeff. It seems like it should work great.

I am going to try the Raynox HD-7000.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/292491-REG/Raynox_HD_7000PRO_HD_7000_Pro_58mm_0_7x.html
It's almost half the price of the Canon WD-H58W, and (most importantly for me) has 82mm filter threads up front for a lens hood. The Canons and Sony don't seem to have front threads, and I've run in to some dust problems on sunny days when I am shooting without a hood. So that seems like a must for me. I see some cheap 82mm hoods on ebay.

To answer the original posters question, these are the differences that I have found between the WD lenses. These are just assumptions, I may be incorrect:

WD-58H - .7x - Made for DV era GL cameras, might not work for 16x9 widescreen. Or maybe they do?
WD-H58 - .7x - Made for HF S10 & HF S100. Probably works fine on most HD 58mm cameras.
WD-H58W - .8x - Made for HF-G10, XA10, XF100, XF105. Probably works fine on most HD 58mm cameras.

But, I have no idea why Canon is charging so much for the WD-H58W. I've bought Schneider / Century adapters for less than that, and they are extremely well made.

I'll follow up with some feedback on the Raynox HD-7000. It seems to get good reviews on B&H, so I am hoping I have good luck with it as well.

Thanks,
Angelo

Re: Which WD
 

The Raynox lenses get mixed reviews, depending on the lens. I had a Raynox WA adapter and wasn't impressed at all, lost a lot of light, but yours might be one of the better ones. Keep us posted.

Re: Which WD
 

I would strongly recommend Sony over a Raynox WA in general, ( I've used Raynox lenses in the past) and for XA/G10 in particular, very good quality, very little distortion and CA

Re: Which WD
 

Canon charges so much because it's quality glass. The Canon WA adapters are very good, and are known as such. Raynox are really more of a poor man's lens. Not to disrespect them, but it's true. Some of their lenses are better than others, for sure. Canon is know in the photography world as making some of the best glass there is.

Re: Which WD
 

Thanks for the explanation Jeff.

I went ahead and purchased both the Raynox HD-7000 and the Canon WD-H58 from B&H and will do a shootout and post the results. I work at a TV station, and I have access to high end ChromaDuMonde test charts I can use for the shootout.

By budget was around $200 - so I couldn't go with the new WD-H58W. But at least I can compare the Canon glass to the Raynox glass - and see if I notice any results. If I don't notice a difference, and the built quality is good on both - I do like the front threads on the Raynox so I might keep it. But if the picture quality is better on the Canon, it's an obvious winner and the Raynox will be returned.

I'll post the results shortly.
Angelo

Re: Which WD
 

I look forward to hearing your results.

My recolleciton from the XL1 days is that Raynox was not a well respected option. As previously noted In glass you tend to get what you pay for.

With HD having nearly 3x the horizontal resolution of SD, I suspect older adapters for SD camcorders may not do well in critical tests.

Re: Which WD
 

Yes, that is why the older Canon adapter Angelo selected may not hold out so well in his test. It is not designed for HD but I could be wrong. I know the original W58 isn't. I had the original or close to it for my HV30 and it was a fine adapter, but for HD I don't know if it would hold up. On the other hand, the Raynox he's ordered is designed for HD.

So using an older Canon with a newer Raynox might skew the results. If he were to try the W58H or whichever one is designed for the Canon G10/Xa10,, I'm thinking then that model would hold up better.

On the other hand, the Sony WA that Buba uses is quite an old model, but Buba likes it. And Buba knows his stuff. So where does that leave us? Who knows.

The Sony must have originally an very good piece of glass. If anyone remembers the quality of the camera it was made for, it likely was very good indeed. I have decided to not buy anything at this point, I don't need or want anything more to carry around. With several DSLR type cameras, the lenses I have and other accessories it's all too much. I'm actually in the process of eliminating gear and streamlining at this point, so while nice to have, don't need it , really. When I had the Canon one I rarely used it.

Re: Which WD
 

Now you make me thinking, I've never even tried WD-H58W, I think I need side by side with VLC :)

Re: Which WD
 

Jeff,

The Canon I bought (WD-H58) was designed for the HF S100 - which is also an AVCHD camera - with close to identical specs as the G10. So while it is not the newest model WD (that being the WD-H58W) - I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work well on the G10. But we'll see!

Maybe you were confusing it with the WD-58H, which was designed for DV cameras - which I would not attempt to use on the G10.

The model #s are all very similar, and it does get confusing!

Angelo

Re: Which WD
 

The WD-H58 will have vignetting in the wider angle with the current cameras. I know this as a fact. I had to purchase the 58W to eliminate the issue.

Re: Which WD
 

Angelo, like I said, I could be wrong, wasn't sure. Didn't take the time to look them up.

I also said the Sony isn't made for HD (unless I'm wrong there too, I thought it was made for the PD170) but Buba said it works fine, so who knows. By endorsing the Sony I'm contradicting myself, actually.

The Canon made for the XA10 is certainly expensive, Angelo, I can't disagree with you there. I hope the Raynox works out.

Re: Which WD
 

Well that certainly answers the question at hand. Thanks Lou. I can confirm that the Raynox works fine, I received it in the mail today and the only negative I can immediately see is some minor distortion at the very edge of the frame and corners. I'll get the WD-H58 in the mail tomorrow, and confirm the vignetting that Lou mentions. If that is the case, I'll buy the WD-H58W and do a shootout between the Raynox HD-7000 and the WD-H58W at twice the price. Fortunately, these are all from B&H which has a great return policy.

Thanks again!
Angelo

Re: Which WD
 

I think it's a shame can't do that with the Sony, I'd love to hear the results of that shootout.

Re: Which WD
 

I guess picture is worth a thousand words,
(minus vimeo compression)

Re: Which WD
 

That is a great demo Buba. Is that your camera work? What jib are you using?

That Sony lens looks fabulous, and as you mentioned they can be found very inexpensively on eBay. I might have to track one of those down.

I can also confirm Lou's comment about the WD-H58. It definitely does vignette at the corners, so that one is going back to B&H.

Re: Which WD
 

Wow, Buba.

Re: Which WD
 

I think the cheapest one, 12ft proam
ProAm Cranes

Re: Which WD
 

Just bought one used in mint state. The best spent 50$ ever
Works just fine!! : )
the quality of the lens is quite amazing, and cannot get myself around the fact that so many people sell it used for so little money...

Re: Which WD
 

Thanks Federico. Looks like a hint of CA on the edges, especially on the post at the right edge.
Be interesting to see comparison with similar shots from the Reynox and the Canon adapters.

Re: Which WD
 

Buba did you tick "conversion lens" in the options menu of the G10? I tried but I see no difference at all either way
it seems fine even with that option OFF

Re: Which WD
 

I keep it on, it helps AF work faster in low light, that's what I noticed, but YMMV :)

Re: Which WD
 

I just ordered the Sony on Amazon for $50, seller claims never been put on a camera. Thanks Bubba for recommending the lens! Angelo did you get yours on Amazon too?

Re: Which WD
 

I also have this lens, if you ask me, the corners are distorted and out of focus.

I use the xa10

Re: Which WD
 

No, I've been ordering from B&H, not Amazon.

I was waiting until I get some video online, but I figure I should mention about my experience with the Raynox HD-7000. I ended up returning it to B&H. I did 2 concert video shoots - and I did not have great experience with it. There was way too much fuzziness on the edges. It almost looked like the edges were out of focus, while the center of the frame was in focus. It was really odd, but I decided to try our the new Canon WD at $400 and compare. I'll post some clips as soon as I get them online. I think you'll agree the edge sharpness was really poor.

Angelo

Re: Which WD
 

Ranier, might be, that doesn't bother me. But the lens does have imperfections that show up in very low light footage as almost dead spots, they are blurry. For general day to day video in decently lit conditions, it's absolutely fine.

The Canon made for XA10 lens is undoubtedly a better lens for this camera, but for $50, as a business decision, the Sony is a no brainer.

Re: Which WD
 

So Angelo, you got the one made for the XA10?

Re: Which WD
 

Yes, I've tried 2 lenses so far:

Raynox HD7000 - Blurry edges - tested in low light conditions (live concert stages) RETURNED
Canon WD-H58 - Major vignetting - RETURNED

So I will be ordering the Canon WD-H58W - which is made for the XA10/HFG10. I'll post footage as soon as it is online.

The Raynox might have worked fine in normal lighting conditions. But I primarily bought it for a B cam during concert shoots, which are notoriously dim - so the blurry edges are no good for me.


Angelo

Re: Which WD
 

No surprise: This is a 0.7x adapter designed for a camcorder with a nominal ~40mm equivalent field of view. This implies the lens was dsigned to deliver a 28mm equivalent field of view.

If you put it on a camcorder with a nominal ~30mm equivalent lens, the result is a nominal 21mm field of view at full wide, and vignetting is not a surprise - it is being use well beyond its designed width.

The question is at what point (equivalent field of view) did vignetting or CA become unacceptable? Did it make it to 24mm equivalent with a satisfactory image? If so it is a bargain and the shooter just needd to mind his zoom holding it to that point. The new Canon, for a lot more money, is 0.8x, netting to about 24mm on the XA10.

Re: Which WD
 

Just a caution. There are a number of Sony VCL-HG0758 offered on e-bay. Some are in kit that includes a lens hood. That hood is for the Sony camcorders and as delivered does not fit a Canon, either the XA10 or the old GL series.

Re: Which WD
 

Don, good to know about the hood, I kind of figured. I've owned the old Sony's and the ones you mentiond looked similar to the stock hood for the camera. I would love a hood for the Sony WA, would be very helpful outdoors. Had some major issues couple of weeks ago on a golf course. Fixable by adjusting the angle I shot at, but was very incontinent. Some of the flaring or whatever you call it actually was cool, didn't mind a little bit of it.

But I'd like to choose when that happens rather than have to inconvenience my subjects because I don't have my camera properly outfitted.