If I had the money for a 35mm adapter and wide angle lenses for that I would totally do that. It really depends what you want to do and how much of it you are going to do for the money. Obviously the Canon 72mm Wide Angle adapter is much cheaper than a 35mm setup but it is also more limited (no matte box/filer capabilities etc).

What do you mostly film?

About the Letus and monitor issue there is a post a few below this that discusses exactly that...

Thanks for the quick reply!

I'm doing only narative work. Long filmprojects. This summer, I want my DOP to mount the xh a1 on his shoulder and use a wide angle lens. I will probably have around 2000 euro (about 3000 dollar) to spend. So a Letus Economy with railsystem, shouldermount and maybe a follow focus I can afford.

Is a follow focus important to have in your setup?

So then do you already have a set of lenses for the 35mm adapter? Or at least the wide angle lens you want to use?

I don't own a 35mm adapter and follow focus, but I've used one and found the follow focus to be very helpful in obtaining very precise focused shots. Once you get an adapter and lenses and all that, and then throw it on your shoulder the follow focus make sit easier to adjust focus for sure.

I'm sure others on here who own a 35mm adapter and follow focus will give input...

I hope so :)

I have a lot of still lenses. Personally I have a wide angle, normal (like 50mm) and a zoomlens (canon, exept the zoomlens) but I know a still photographer who still works analogue so he has a lot of lenses.

After reading through this whole thread, is it safe to deduce that the Canon is the best for image quality, price, and accessories (bag, hood, etc.) but the only downside is the weight?

I'm going to be using it for a LAST MINUTE gig in a week and I'm researching like a madman trying to find a suitable wide angle in time.

Back story is my friend/client lost my number and only now found it a WEEK away from his event. Didn't have time to prepare as far as tapes/cleaning/prepping goes so scrambling a bit and will have to 2day or overnight a lens here.

Thanks for all the info posted so far.

ok, so here's a question:

Which is better for quality of image and versatility/zoom?

Century Optics .3x fisheye
or
16x9 EX Super Fisheye

???

Weight is indeed a serious disadvantage, plus the fact that I find the wide-angle effect marginal.

Not so.

Canon 0.8x adapter fits the Chrosziel 450-XHG1 mattebox. It is used without the 110 to 81mm adapter (needed with the fixed lens, included in the kit), the Canon WA adapter is about 1 mm smaller in diameter than the mattebox opening. If you feel you need to fill the gap Chrosziel sells a black rubber band for that purpose.

I have both Canon 0.8x and Century 0.6x adapters. Canon 0.8x is great quality, full zoom-thru, but heavy and not all that WA. Century is light, cheaper, approaches a real WA, but has slightly soft corners and is only about 6x zoom-thru.

I like them both, usable in different situations.

I bought the .45 $45 WA Cheeser! Eat your hearts out!
 

I think it's probably the same thing labelled "Titanium," this one is labelled something else, but the kicker is it has "Japan" on the lens rim, but right on the box it says Made in China.

I have actually, in other areas than optics, gotten some great super cheap stuff from China, maybe like getting a 1980 Toyota before people knew they were already great.

Something I don't understand is there is a unscrewable rear element that says "Macro" on it, and I think it must be meant to stay on there because when you remove it the front section does not have 72 MM threads that I can seat in the camera.

It vignettes with my 72 MM Canon brand UV filter on between it and the camera, but not without.

I'll try to put up some test cheese shots. I like to buy either really good things or really bad ones. Low risk either way, and sometimes you get lucky with junk. It was this or nothing for WA on my budget.

Alain, you should avoid using filters with wide-angle adapters, either between zoom and converter or on the front of them. This is because you're adding two extra air-to-glass surfaces and increasing the chances of flare, diffraction and vignetting.

The 'macro' part of the lens is simply a very powerful c.10 dioptre close-up lens. It might be worth experimenting with, but generally the edge definition is pretty poor. It might be ok on still cameras where you can crop the image to remove the whooshy edges.

tom.

Wd- H72
 

I just switched from the Gl-2 with the 58 wide, and ordered the XHA1 with a WD- H72. The GL 2 was a great balance with the wide on. I was stunned to say the least how front end heavy the XhA1 is with the WD- H72 on. But as I do more run and gun news style video for Ohio.com I am not inclined to go without in on camera full time. Note it is a must to keep the wide, spit-spot clean or it will show.
Lew

filter WD- H72
 

There are no filter threads on the front end, they would have to clamp on like the lens hood, if still needed.
Lew

which model are you comparing to? what makes the Canon better [anybody]?

New Century Optics WA
 

Has anybody used this adapter?
Century Precision Optics | 0.6x Wide Angle Adapter | 0HD-06WA-AG

Or know anything about its performance?

Being from Century it will be beautifully made, superbly coated, wonderfully powerful and barrel distort pretty severely as its of spherical construction. If these parameters suit you, go for it.