The entire frame looks out of focus to me in that example you just posted.

Sorry about the quality of the stills, this one is far better at showing the abberations- (Just look at the fencing, terrible)

There are just vlc player snapshots is there a better method I can use on avid liquid 7?

The stock lens is amazing

That VFGadgets wide angle filter http://www.vfgadgets.com/RedEye.htm doesnt look like its made of glass but

"a durable and compact, high index, high clarity optical material"

still, the reviews here have given it a good rating. Plastic can have a higher refractive index than glass, which would make it thinner, but would a glass filter be that much bigger and heavier?

I'd guess that if being made out of glass it would still not be that heavy. These interest me very much but I cannot see this adapter being any better than a mild 8x $700 century lens with abberations and soft edges and I have come to the point where I will accept nothing less than a solution with next to none or none at all. If heard good things about the canon wd72 and I would have not considered anything less if it weren't for the size and weight of the thing which ofcourse is what attracted me to the century compact. An inconspicuous, light as possible solution is what I need. I'd have to see some stills using an actuall xh-a1 to confirm the red-eye is suitable.

I just purchased this cheapy.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...624224-4036848
We'll see how she turns out. Made in Japan, so should be alright. claims HD resolving glass.

Should have it this week.

Later..

Brent, I hate to rain on your parade but I would not use this lens on the XHA1. It's been documented here and on DVXUser to avoid these so-called HD adapters at all costs. I bought one myself years ago and never used it. The optics are made of inferior parts so you will lose the sharpness of the picture and it will compromise the quality of your shots.

The "HD" part stands for Hugely Disappointing. Basically it comes down to "you get what you pay for" and, in this case, it's true.

Of course don't take my word for it, try it for yourself and let us know.

Brent: Good glass in 72 mm size is E X P E N $ I V E. Do not expect much from $95 hunk of glass.

Patrick i'd really appreciate it if you could post some full res
 

Patrick I'd really appreciate it if you could post some full res stills with the red-eye 0.5x so I can get a good idea of what to expect regarding levels of abberations and softness at edges, the video you posted gave me a good idea of how wide the lens was but was not high quality enough to accurately judge everything else, I assume it is the new Hd fx adapter?

Thanks.

The Canon 72 lens can't be beat.
 

I have bought several and finally broke down and bought the lens from Canon and I now leave it on all the time.
Great glass and perfect for the camera...
only issue is i cannot use filters due to no threads.
Do not waste your money on cheap or your auto focus will end up out of whack.

i agree. the canon wa for the a1 is awesome.
i rarely take it off.

Inexpensive option
 

I've got the Raynox MX3000Pro 0.3 semi fisheye (58mm thread). This can be unscrewed and the lens element comes out. I've glued this into a 72-67 step down ring which happens to hold the lens element at the right distance from the A1 lens so there's no vignetting. The image looks quite acceptable for the price.

What puzzles me about video camera wide angle adapters is why I can't seem to find any without barrel distortion. I've got a Sigma 20mm f1.8 35mm lens which has zero barrel distortion, the look is very different to the normal distorted super wide angle look. I use it on my 35mm adapter but the adapter plus lens is not a convenient size. Thing is the sigma lens is a hell of a lot cheaper than a Raynox 72mm semi fisheye, and the image is infinitely better.

red eye
 

I own a "red eye" 72mm factor 0,7 and I use it with the 3x zoom canon lens on the xl2.
I only use it for internet productions, though where I do not need the full resolution for the actual product. In standard def. the picture gets much too blurry! And yes, I know how to manually fucos with that lens.
The "red eye" might be light-weight but that is because it is not made out of glass. So scratches are a garanteed side effect if you don´t have camera assistant who wears silk gloves at all times.
Buttom line is: I am very disapointed with that piece of equipment and I would recommend saving the money for a proper wide angle, especially if you guys are filming HD.
I rented a century converter for a production once and I was stunned by the difference in the preformance of those two.
I guess good optical equipment has it´s price. But it is money spent wisely. You wouldn´t want to ruin a shot that has to pay the rent because you saved some money on optics.

WD-H72 Wide angle
 

Anyone using this wide angle adaptor? I have one and it does the trick for me....however..I didn't know if there was a way to put a threaded filter on the front (its only purpose would be to protect the glass) and if so what would be the size? I can't remember if the wide angle is threaded on the front as I don't have it here with me. ....and for what I'm doing I can't use a matte box....

thanks
jeremiah

Unfortunately the adapter is not threaded in the front so you'd have to use a mattebox with filter stages.

blast!...well..i guess i'll just have to risk it without any protection..

thanks

Wide angle lens and filters
 

I recently purchased a couple filters made by SunPak (Ultraviolet UV and Polarizer). I haven’t yet had the chance to try them out yet but I am wondering if others on this forum have used them or have them. If so, what are your thoughts? Did I waste my money?
More information about the SunPak filters can be found here: http://www.tocad.com/filters.html.

Also I want to purchase a wide angle lens and am wondering if anyone has purchased a "less expensive" lens from ebay (or such). There are several I have found for considerably less than the WD-72. They are only .5x but that should be fine for my needs at this time. What scares me is I will purchase the lens, put it on, and find some funky distortion or fringing due to cheap glass. Have any of you noticed a big difference in the quality of lens's you have purchased over the years? Is there anything in particular I should be leary of?

I am a big advocate of “you get what you pay for” but since I started doing video for a hobby, I am finding that a lot of companies just seem to take advantage of consumers who are willing to pay high prices for our toys. Thank God for all those who have posted links to great DYI projects. :)

I still have a lot to learn yet so thanks for the help, suggestions, critisizm, sarcasm, or whatever you have to offer.


Stacy

I don't know about the quality of SunPak filters but I just got my A1 in today and I ordered a Hoya UV filter with multi coatings and its looks great. If the filters were very cheap than you might want to consider a higher end piece of glass since it will hinder the A1's performance.

WD-H72 Wide angle footage?
 

Does anyone have any viewable footage using the WD-H72 Wide angle lens? ... or any other WA lens setup? I'd like to pick one up but need some samples so I know the general effect i'm buying into.

Thanks!
Miles

Search is your friend...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80691

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80716

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=79336

WA footage
 

Danka , Chris

Has anyone used the impact w/a?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ide_Angle.html

Patrick,

Is that Raynox lens you used the XL3000Pro,that clips on? I bought one for my VX2000 and was curious if it would work on the A1 with stepdown adapter.

Thank you for the samples.

Steve

P.S. I found a link on BH to the Raynox I have

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ltra_Wide.html

Canon Wide Angle or Century Optics?
 

Seen this stuff mentioned a lot, but haven't heard which folks actually prefer for the A1... the Canon wide angle or the Century Optics?

They're priced the same at $499, but the Century Optics appears to have threads for a filter ring on the end, which makes it more functional in my eyes. But how does the glass compare between the two?

I'd go with the Canon instantly if it had threads.

Thanks,
Blake

Which Century? the 0.6x that is not full zoom-through? or the 0.8x that is zoom through.

Sorry, good point. I want the zoom through. Thanks.

I'm selling a brand new one. Check out out the Private Classifieds.

Got a direct link Eugene? I can't seem to locate item. Thanks.

EDIT: Found post Eugene, thanks, but that's not the zoom through is it?

What about the new Red eye FX, it is now made for HD cameras too. It is so much lighter. I was looking at buying it . But can any one tell me if it blocks the AF sensor. It looks small enough to fit in to the A1 with the existing hood intact.

here is the link:

http://www.vfgadgets.com/RedEye.htm

http://www.collinscraft.com/

The zoom through model costs more than 1000$, it's not worth it.



http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=98511

Eugene , does the Red eye FX W.A blocks the AF sensor in the A1. Is it small enough to fit it with the existing hood on?

I noticed some pulsing from time to time, like the century optice wide-angle, which has the same 'problem'. When filming with a wide-angle I always turn the AF off, it's of no use then.

I can use the existing hood in combination with the red eye, yes, without any problem. Big advantage over the Century optics!

Okay, didn't realize it was that much for the zoom through. Thanks for the info.

Thanks Eugene, Just want I needed to hear. I be picking one up soon

Wide angle comparison - Raynox and Aspheron
 

Here’s a comparison of a couple of wide angle lenses I have.

Raynox MXpro3000 0.3 semi fisheye:

I removed the lens from the housing and glued it to a 72-67mm step down ring which happens to hold it the right distance from the cam lens. The chroma separation is significant towards the edge of the image, barrel distortion is massive, and the edges of the image are out of focus at wide apertures. For the price (around $100) it’s not bad, super wide FOV for an interesting effect.

Bolex Aspherson 6.5mm for Vario-Switar 12.5-100mm:

I’ve been looking for a non distorting wide for a while and now I have one thanks to Tom Hardwick. It’s 0.52 or around 17mm focal length in 35mm equivalent. You need a custom made step ring to mount this lens, the thread is 85mm and it’s on the middle of the lens housing, I haven't got one yet but it might need to attach to the bayonet mount to avoid vignetting. Chroma separation is quite significant at the edges, there’s slight barrel distortion but hardly noticeable (might just be down to the inherent stock lens distortion, and seems worse on objects close to the camera). You can zoom up to z65 before it goes out of focus and the FOV is slightly narrower than the stock at full wide, so fairly pointless zooming. The list price is 1400 swiss francs ($1165) but if you ask Bolex for a quote you can get a significant discount, I got the lens new for cheaper than the second hand one I was bidding for on ebay. Anyway I love this lens, the non distorted exaggerated perspective looks amazing, I can live with the fringing.

Wide Angle Decision
 

Okay, I've read through every thread I can find on this forum and others and I've yet to find a comprehensive answer to the question: Which of the following in your experienced opinion is better?

1. The Canon WD-H72 (.75X)

2. The Century Optics Wide Angle Auxillary lens (.6X - http://www.adorama.com/CY0HD06WAXLH.html)

3. The Red Eye Wide Angle Adapter (.5X).

I'm not looking for complete zoom through... just want to widen up those shots were the environment is too confining and/or add some visual affecting.
Does anyone have any screens or vids of any of these bad boys for comparison? That would be so ideal... and so cool!

Right now I'm leaning towards the Century Optics Wide Angle adapter because it is definitely lighter than the Canon and is slightly wider. It also allows for filters.
Has anyone tried this puppy? Does it "see" (vignette) with the XHA1 lens hood when the lens is fully zoomed out? Is it worth the money? (It's about the same price as the WD-H72).
And what about it's having a bayonet-mount... will that actually work on my threaded XHA1 out of the box or do I need an adapter to use the adapter?

I have considered the Red Eye, but some have stated that it's not made of glass and may easily scratch... plus it's priced slightly higher than the other two options.

I'm getting close to a very big production and will need a good wide angle solution for some selected scenes... and I'm going crazy trying to find out as much as I can without spending (and/or wasting) a ton of money.

Anyone help an old altar boy?
Thanks!

I have the WD-H72. It really is superb,hardly any distortion.

the canon is great. it is heavy, but the image is worth it.
people claim that it isn't much wider, but it certainly is. being 16x9, the a1 is already pretty wide and the canon wd gives you a lot more vertical as well. it is 100% zoom through and also works well in 4x3.

Thanks, guys. Your input is very much appreciated.
It seems there are quite a few folks out there with the Canon... and everyone seems to be happy with it.
For my purposes, however I really don't want that heavy glass on the front of my camera (if I can find something just as good or better) and I don't really need the zoom through... so the WD is at the bottom of my list of three. That's why I was hoping to find someone... anyone! ...that can add some info to the pool on the other two adapters.
I wish I could get my hands on these devices and try them out myself before I buy them. I'm too cheap to shell out 400 bucks without knowing I'm going to be happy. Oh, well... the search goes on. :-)