Fujinon 17x5 lens

Gary Morris McBeath · November 8th, 2006, 01:13 PM

Werner,

The stock lens weighs 1 Kg, or about 2.2 pounds. The 17x is 1/2 inch (about 12mm) longer, and weighs 2.75 pounds (1.25 Kg).

I also found the additional weight taxes the front plate/lens mount on the camera, and just laying my hand on the focus ring to pull focus caused focus problems from lens movement (the stock lens does this too, but the extra weight and length of the 17x exacerbates the problem). I made a lens support piece which solved the problem completely.

As a note, I do very little hand held work; mine is mostly tripod, jib, fixed mount etc. I'm 63 (just think of all that experience), and just standing straight up and still is a problem, let alone with a camera. Unless I'm dancing. Heh, heh.

Gary

Werner Wesp · November 16th, 2006, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Morris McBeath

I'm 63 (just think of all that experience), and just standing straight up and still is a problem, let alone with a camera. Unless I'm dancing. Heh, heh.

I can't help laughing, I'm sorry.... but I'm thinking of all the experience... :-)

Gary Morris McBeath · November 16th, 2006, 12:25 PM

You don't want to go there. Unless drinking beer. Or a single malt.

Gary

Bill Parker · February 28th, 2007, 10:05 AM

"I am still happy with my purchase, and for the type of shooting I do, breathing is not an issue. Having a super wide angle is also not an issue; although the WCV-82 WA converter does not fit the 17x, I could always snap the stock lens back on with the converter to get that slight extra width."

I'm wondering why the 17x lens doesn't work w/ the WCV-82 WA. It's a 82mm thread, no?

Sean Adair · February 28th, 2007, 11:48 AM

wide adapter for the 17x. I'm curious about this as well.... I have the 17x lens and assumend that the 82mm thread adapter for the 16x would fit - the lens brochure points to very expensive adapters (I've posted already on this)
I don't have a 16x on hand to compare feel, resultant frame effect between 5.5 and 5 etc, CA etc, but after looking at the 16x at shows, the 17x really seems to have a better build. I'm convinced that the lens is really critical on this camera, since they seem to be doing so well on the other elements in the chain!

Bill Parker · February 28th, 2007, 11:58 AM

Are there threads on the front of the lens? If there are, it should screw right on, no?

Sean Adair · February 28th, 2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Parker

Are there threads on the front of the lens? If there are, it should screw right on, no?

Yes the lens has 82mm threads on the front. But Gary actually has the units, so he would know.... Maybe it mounts with the hood bayonet, maybe there is vignetting at the 17x 5mm setting... I'd like to know too.

Gary Morris McBeath · February 28th, 2007, 03:13 PM

Yep, I do know. The WA adapter is 82mm threads, and I got fooled.

The problem is, the 17x front lens element is closer to the threads than on the stock lens, and the adapter body protrudes beyond the threads to the point it interferes with the front lens element on the 17x.

So, when I have the need for the wide angle, I have to put the stock lens back on.

There is is.

Gary

Bill Ravens · February 28th, 2007, 03:59 PM

I REALLY dislike the plastic lens barrel and, therefore, plastic threads on the 16x lens. I bought the 17x and am much happier with this lens. Even with a metal filter adapter ring, the clamp on my mattbox will distort the 16x plastic barrel enough to bind the focus ring.

Bill Parker · February 28th, 2007, 04:50 PM

What do you do if you want the wider angle? Did you have the WCV-82 WA before? How much more does the adapter give you than the 17x lens? Is there any way to get the WCV-82 WA to work with the 17x lens or do you have to go back to the stock lens?

That's a lot of questions. Sorry.

Sean Adair · February 28th, 2007, 05:16 PM

Thanks Gary,
Bill Parker: I think Gary answered your questions very directly - please reread his last post. The different focal lengths can be easilly calculated. The JVC (fujinon) adapter is a .82 adapter on a 5.5mm lens= 4.51mm. At the wide end, every fraction of a mm counts. Making a representation of the frame would be a bit more difficult.

Jiri Bakala · February 28th, 2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

I REALLY dislike the plastic lens barrel and, therefore, plastic threads on the 16x lens. I bought the 17x and am much happier with this lens. Even with a metal filter adapter ring, the clamp on my mattbox will distort the 16x plastic barrel enough to bind the focus ring.

Bill,
you are not using the right adapter ring. I used to use the same on my previous camera (DSR-500 with Fujinon) and it worked fine. With this lens the adapter ring has to be a screw-on type. It's a bit awkward to find the thread sometimes but it works and it doesn't squeeze the focusing ring. Your other option is, of course, rods.

Gary Morris McBeath · February 28th, 2007, 11:10 PM

Just think, if the converter would have worked on the 17x ..... that's .82 times 5, take away 4, add 4, let's see, that's, um, 4.1 mm. Very Wide.

You could almost get the front and back seats of a car, from inside! At the same time. Or even something in the men's room. From the seat. Like, when I pulled focus, I saw the words "For a good time ..... "

Oh, I'm getting silly again. Probably get kicked off this forum for this one.

Ain't bein' a cinematographer fun? Yesterday I couldn't even spell cinematographer, and now I are one.

Gary

Justin Teague · July 31st, 2007, 11:05 AM

Does anyone know if the rear focus and zoom controls currently being used on the stock 16x lens will work on the 17x?

Robert Yarosh · August 24th, 2007, 01:25 PM

The zoom control will work on both the 16x and 17x, but the focus control mounts differently on the lenses, they are not interchangeable.

February 28th, 2007, 10:05 AM	#19
Bill Parker Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cambridge MA Posts: 207	"I am still happy with my purchase, and for the type of shooting I do, breathing is not an issue. Having a super wide angle is also not an issue; although the WCV-82 WA converter does not fit the 17x, I could always snap the stock lens back on with the converter to get that slight extra width." I'm wondering why the 17x lens doesn't work w/ the WCV-82 WA. It's a 82mm thread, no? __________________ Bill Parker www.hindsightmedia.net

February 28th, 2007, 11:48 AM	#20
Sean Adair Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New York, NY Posts: 463	wide adapter for the 17x. I'm curious about this as well.... I have the 17x lens and assumend that the 82mm thread adapter for the 16x would fit - the lens brochure points to very expensive adapters (I've posted already on this) I don't have a 16x on hand to compare feel, resultant frame effect between 5.5 and 5 etc, CA etc, but after looking at the 16x at shows, the 17x really seems to have a better build. I'm convinced that the lens is really critical on this camera, since they seem to be doing so well on the other elements in the chain! __________________ Sean Adair - NYC - www.adairproductions.com JVC GY-HM-700 with 17x5 lens, MacPro 3.2ghz 8-core, 18gb. (JVC HD200 4 sale soon)

February 28th, 2007, 11:58 AM	#21
Bill Parker Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cambridge MA Posts: 207	Are there threads on the front of the lens? If there are, it should screw right on, no? __________________ Bill Parker www.hindsightmedia.net

February 28th, 2007, 04:50 PM	#25
Bill Parker Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cambridge MA Posts: 207	What do you do if you want the wider angle? Did you have the WCV-82 WA before? How much more does the adapter give you than the 17x lens? Is there any way to get the WCV-82 WA to work with the 17x lens or do you have to go back to the stock lens? That's a lot of questions. Sorry. __________________ Bill Parker www.hindsightmedia.net

February 28th, 2007, 05:16 PM	#26
Sean Adair Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New York, NY Posts: 463	Thanks Gary, Bill Parker: I think Gary answered your questions very directly - please reread his last post. The different focal lengths can be easilly calculated. The JVC (fujinon) adapter is a .82 adapter on a 5.5mm lens= 4.51mm. At the wide end, every fraction of a mm counts. Making a representation of the frame would be a bit more difficult. __________________ Sean Adair - NYC - www.adairproductions.com JVC GY-HM-700 with 17x5 lens, MacPro 3.2ghz 8-core, 18gb. (JVC HD200 4 sale soon)

November 8th, 2006, 01:13 PM	#16
Gary Morris McBeath Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Steilacoom Washington Posts: 72	Werner, The stock lens weighs 1 Kg, or about 2.2 pounds. The 17x is 1/2 inch (about 12mm) longer, and weighs 2.75 pounds (1.25 Kg). I also found the additional weight taxes the front plate/lens mount on the camera, and just laying my hand on the focus ring to pull focus caused focus problems from lens movement (the stock lens does this too, but the extra weight and length of the 17x exacerbates the problem). I made a lens support piece which solved the problem completely. As a note, I do very little hand held work; mine is mostly tripod, jib, fixed mount etc. I'm 63 (just think of all that experience), and just standing straight up and still is a problem, let alone with a camera. Unless I'm dancing. Heh, heh. Gary

November 16th, 2006, 12:25 PM	#18
Gary Morris McBeath Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Steilacoom Washington Posts: 72	You don't want to go there. Unless drinking beer. Or a single malt. Gary

February 28th, 2007, 03:13 PM	#23
Gary Morris McBeath Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Steilacoom Washington Posts: 72	Yep, I do know. The WA adapter is 82mm threads, and I got fooled. The problem is, the 17x front lens element is closer to the threads than on the stock lens, and the adapter body protrudes beyond the threads to the point it interferes with the front lens element on the 17x. So, when I have the need for the wide angle, I have to put the stock lens back on. There is is. Gary

February 28th, 2007, 03:59 PM	#24
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	I REALLY dislike the plastic lens barrel and, therefore, plastic threads on the 16x lens. I bought the 17x and am much happier with this lens. Even with a metal filter adapter ring, the clamp on my mattbox will distort the 16x plastic barrel enough to bind the focus ring.

February 28th, 2007, 11:10 PM	#28
Gary Morris McBeath Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Steilacoom Washington Posts: 72	Just think, if the converter would have worked on the 17x ..... that's .82 times 5, take away 4, add 4, let's see, that's, um, 4.1 mm. Very Wide. You could almost get the front and back seats of a car, from inside! At the same time. Or even something in the men's room. From the seat. Like, when I pulled focus, I saw the words "For a good time ..... " Oh, I'm getting silly again. Probably get kicked off this forum for this one. Ain't bein' a cinematographer fun? Yesterday I couldn't even spell cinematographer, and now I are one. Gary

July 31st, 2007, 11:05 AM	#29
Justin Teague New Boot Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: United States Posts: 6	Upgrading to 17x Does anyone know if the rear focus and zoom controls currently being used on the stock 16x lens will work on the 17x?

August 24th, 2007, 01:25 PM	#30
Robert Yarosh New Boot Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, IL Posts: 7	Rear op controls are not interchangeable for focus The zoom control will work on both the 16x and 17x, but the focus control mounts differently on the lenses, they are not interchangeable.