Raynox .7 vs. Canon .8 wide-angle lens

[Malcolm Hamilton]

Hi all,
The shop where I get my gear doesn't have the Canon WD-H58W in stock, but will bring on in for me to attach to my XF100 in the store, so I can see how it looks and feels.
But the guy who works at the store recommended another wide-angle lens, which is substantially cheaper: the Raynox HD-7000 Pro 58mm 0.7x High Quality Wide Angle Converter Lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/292491-REG/Raynox_HD_7000PRO_HD_7000_Pro_58mm_0_7x.html
Both are 58mm lenses, by the way.

Someone on the B&H page, in a review, says he tried both lenses (not on an XF100, mind you), and chose the Raynox for a few reasons.
1. Price was one of them.
2. Another was that the Raynox has a "threaded outer ring that allows for 82mm filter use".
3. The last was, of all things, the lens cap, or rather, what he didn't like about the Canon lens cap, which "You had to remove the cap as if it were a stuck lid on an old jar".

I like points 1 and 2. I'm not sure about point number 3, but I have to admit, I'm a bit annoyed with the little lens cap that I have to mess around with on the lens that comes attached to the XF100. I can't imagine what the Raynox has in its place, though.
I also like the idea of .7 vs. .8, but I don't know if at .7 you're starting to see more distortion. I remember a cameraman I used to work with who had a .6 lens which he loved, but it was worth $30,000, or so he said (the camera was a big Sony Digital betacam).

Are there any Raynox wide-angle lens users out there amongst you Canon XF100 users?

Are there things I should take into account that I'm missing?
thanks for any advice,
Malcolm

[David Chilson]

Malcolm,

The one thing I would consider is if you could get a hood for the lens, I think a WA needs one. I have heard good reports on the Raynox and I wish there was a shop within 200 miles of me who would be as kind as yours. The way things operate around me is you pay, they order, you don't like, you sell on ebay.

[Malcolm Hamilton]

Thank you David for your note. So it seems the Canon has a hood, but the Raynox (at least, judging by the picture on the web site) does not. That's a point in the Canon's favour.
Malcolm

[Sam Young]

If you ever do try the Raynox, please report back to us. I am looking for a wide angle too, and the Raynox price is much more beautiful than Canon's.

[Malcolm Hamilton]

Absolutely... I'll post back once I've checked them out.
Malcolm

[Anthony Mozora]

Originally Posted by Sam Young

If you ever do try the Raynox, please report back to us. I am looking for a wide angle too, and the Raynox price is much more beautiful than Canon's.

I bought the Raynox 7 insteed of the canon for my XF100 mainly beacause they huge different in price..

Raynox7 is good, Does do the wide angle job, the only negative is that it does create a a bit vigneting effect on the sides and this is something I dont like but with a short zoom I can get over it

[Malcolm Hamilton]

Hi there,
I had a chance to compare the two, side-by-side, in a local shop. Now let me say right off the bat that I don't come from a strong technical background, and I can't really offer a careful analysis of any sort.
Both added considerable wideness; it was very noticeable. (the Canon was .7, by the way. Does this make sense? I thought it was going to be a .8)
I liked the fact that the Raynox can take a filter... it has threads on the outside. Very sensible.
But my plan is to get the Canon, at some point, even though it's more expensive, because it seemed to me that the Raynox cut out some of the light, whereas the Canon didn't.
I hope that helps.
If anyone can tell me why the Canon was a .7, I'd appreciate it.
Regards,
Malcolm

[David Chilson]

Malcolm

It looks like this is the lens you looked at:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/256058-REG/Canon_8030A001_WD_58H_58mm_0_7x_Wide.html


This is the lens I have and the one Canon recommends for this camera

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/751265-REG/Canon_4892B001_WD_H58W_0_8x_Wide_Converter.html
Not sure why the first one listed would or would not work.

[Sam Young]

Huge price differences too, haha.

[Jim Martin]

The Canon glass is better.....one of the best tests we use is to get the picture up on a production big screen (42" or bigger), have the monitor set for underscan, put the lens on the camera, and look at the edges.....the cheaper lens attachments don't look too good in the corners (cromatic, loss of sharpness).

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

[Mike Ayotte]

The first one listed was for the GL-2, I sure hope it works because I have one & a XF100 on order?????? Any info would be appreciated.
Regards
Mike

[Robin Davies-Rollinson]

I used to use the former W/A on my XM2, then transferred it to my HFS100 - all perfect. I can see no reason for it not to work on the XF100...

[Malcolm Hamilton]

Yes I saw the guy in the shop screw the first Canon wide-angle lens that David mentioned (the Canon WD-58H 58mm 0.7x) onto the front of my XF100... not a problem.
And it really increased the wideness of the shot.
Thanks for clearing up my .7/.8 confusion, David.
I'm going to check out the .8 next.
Regards,
Malcolm

[Mike Ayotte]

Thank you.