YES the DV953 has 43mm threads so I had to go from 37-43mm which is a small ring that screws on the wide angle adapeter then on either the DV953 lense hood or the lense itself without the lense hood that was supplied with the camera.

Step up... step down ... 220....221 whatever it takes. I just repeated what the B & H rep said and didn't think about it being up or down.

Let us know how the Canon is!

Now I understand. I know this has been discussed
before regarding is it "up" or "down". I believe stepdown is correct in the case of your 953.
Just got the Canon in. After I've taken a close look
at it I'll get back here about what I find.

Rick, and others, I just posted my review of the Canon
43mm 0.7X wide angle over at the "Open DV Discussion" thread.
Hope it helps.

Thanks, Dave. I saw that.

That 43mm is a pretty common front size, isn't it?

Not really, but it is common for consumer Panasonic cams.

sorry to resurrect an older discussion....
 

After reading through this thread, I began checking out some of the lenses that people had mentioned.

One inparticular was the "Raynox HD-6600 Pro 43mm 0.66x ". I made up my mind that this was the lens I would purchase.

After reading some of the comments about the poor coating on the Raynox, I emailed the experts at B&H to see which lens hood they recommended for this particiular WA. However, to my suprise, the technician replied that "they did not recommend using any lens hood with this type of lens...".

I find that very suprising. Anyone have any thoughts on this, or better yet, anyone using a good hood with this particular Raynox?

I do indeed have very strong thoughts on this subject Anthony. Firstly I'm amazed at B & H, or to rephrase that, I'm amazed that they could let a salesman with so little experience so near a phone line. And let him turn away sales, too.

I had a Raynox 6600PRO. OK, it looked to be a single coating, but Raynox have sensibly included a 72mm filter thread - not for the addition of filters, but so that hoods can be easily fitted. Remember that tom's law states that a lens hood is the cheapest, lightest, most easily fitted, most sensible, most effective and one of the best accessories you can buy. On top of all that it gives picture improvements out of all proportion to its cost and technological design.

As the focal length decreases and depth of field becomes ever greater, dust on the front element of your lens is brought into ever sharper focus. If the front element is shaded from the sun these unavoidable imperfections just don't show up, and in fact a front element can be quite dirty yet not show these marks on film if a hood is used.

I had a 4:3 aspect ratio hood with my Raynox, and of course these are a lot more efficient (the petal hood is the most efficient BTW). Problem with the 4:3 hood is it must be aligned with the camcorder's chips, but if you buy a circular hood that shouldn't be a problem.

Go for it. Buy a circular hood that's 'too deep' and distort it into a 4:3 shape with a stiff wire frame. It works well. The pictures I got from the Raynox were amazingly good at the price, my only complaint being that the fall-off in performance towards telephoto was too gradual (unlike a non-zoom through, say) and this was loosing me sharpness if I wasn't careful. On the other hand Raynox really shamed much more expensive lenses. I had a Centyry 0.65x for test and the Raynox had far less barrel distortion at less than one third the price.

tom.

Thanks Tom. I was shocked at this sales guy's response as well. He obviously needs to review "Tom's Law" :)

I will certainly procure a hood for my new WA lens. I have a few questions about hoods, based on some of your comments. Where might I find a good reference (i.e. book, website) or information on the following:

- what is a petal hood?
- how do you align a hood to your camera's chips?/ when do you need to do this?
- If I am shooting in 16:9, should I distort my hood to that aspect ration, as opposed to 4:3?

Thanks again for the reply.

A petal hood. You've probably seen them fitted to long zooms that pro photographers use at football matches. The hood is cut away in all four corners to avoid vignetting the image, and this makes the hood look like a closing tulip.

You align an aspect ratio hood by making sure the horizontal and vertical parts of the hood are horizontal and vertical. If you turn the hood so that it's misaligned you'll see the hood breaking into your field of view.

The most efficient hood is the aspect ratio petal hood. Following on from that, if you have a normal rectangular hood, do indeed make it match the aspect ratio you're shooting in. The hood should ideally be just clear of the full frame anywhere around its perimeter.

tom.

So what rectangular or petal type lens hood do you recommend for the Raynox 6600? Is there a lens hood that does not need to use the 72mm threads?

Matt, I saw this one at B&H:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=41356&is=REG

It clips on as opposed to being threaded. I am really not sure if it is any good though. It does not look very deep. Other than that, I am having a lot of trouble finding a hood for the Raynox. Especially an aspect ratio hood.

Tom, thanks for the clarifications.....much less complicated than I was anticipating.

I plan to use this lens on the Optura Xi on which I film exclusively in 16:9 now - I guess that makes finding an aspect ratio hood even tougher? Any suggestions?

I'm quite pleased with my Canon 43mm wide.
Great coating, and as luck would have it, I just picked
up a Super 8 movie camera and it takes a 43mm lens also,
so I can use my wide and telephoto lenses from my Panny
DV53.
Must add that the Canon wide is *not* black. The Canon
Super 8 I bought is all black, so the wide cuts into the "pro
look", but that's the way it goes. :- (

So, in terms of a hood for the Raynox 6600, would this be overkill for my little ol' DV953:

http://cinetactics.com/mb100m-images.php

It's pricey.

Just spend a little more for a well-coated lens like the
Canon and forget the hood.

Wide angle conversion lenses for the GS100
 

Read all the posts. Great info!Now I have to decide between the Raynox 0.3 and the 0.5.
Thanks everyone.

I have the .5 and it is very good.

I use a slim filter on the front (Hoya 62mm Haze UV(0) Pro 1 (S-HMC) Super Multi-Coated Glass Filter) to protect the Raynox glass. I get no vignetting and sharp focus through all lens zoom powers. I have tried using a rubber Wide Angle Lens Hood on top of the filter but get a little vignetting in the upper left and upper right corners of the picture. If I zoom in just a little (between 1x and 2x), the vignetting goes away.

If I remember correctly, John Gaspain has the RAYNOX .3

Thanks a lot Adam. I will probably go with the 0.5 as the semi fisheye might be a bit over the top.
Cheers

Over the weekend, I picked up an Ambico .42x semi-fisheye new in the box. It is a 46mm mount so I'm waiting on the stepup ring from B&H to affix it securely. However, I shot some video just holding it in place. It vignettes in all four corners, as expected, at full wide on the DV953. I didn't try any zooming but I expect a 1.5 zoom should clear up the vignetting. Gives an interesting look, lots of barrel distortion, and much wider field of view over my .6x Kodak. Was pretty cheap at $24, too.

Speaking of barrell distortion....

The Raynox HD5000 at full wide has quie a bit of barrell distortion but I can live with that.

I guess, but don't know for sure, that all or most .5 WA lens will have significant barrell distortion ?

Barrel distortion is caused by poor engineering, I suspect.

No Frank, barrel distortion is caused by using spherical elements (ie lenses cut out of a sphere). They may well be beautifully engineered - as the Century 0.3x bayonet-on converter is, but they barrel distort because spherical elements are a LOT cheaper and easier to make than the aspheric (ie non-spherical) type.

If you go here Adam:
http://www.fortvir.net/index.php
and click on tom's photos, you'll get to see the damaging effects of barrel distortion vs the non-distorted (and very wide) views you can get with an aspheric. Lots of perspective distortion (good), but zero barrel distortion (bad).

Dave Largent - how dare you! :-) The lens hood is the lightest, cheapest, easiest way to better your picture quality, period. Super-duper multi-coating helps, but stopping non-image forming light from hitting your front element in the first place is the way to go.

tom.

Tom,

I see what you mean about the distortion and the spherical / aspherical.

Wow, that Aspheron is massive.

Can someone explain to me how the lens ratings work for cameras. Specifically, when I see wide angle lenses marked as 0.66x, 0.5x, or 0.56, which one is wider? (I'm from the photo side of things.)

I'm looking to get the widest lens I can get. I don't care how it performs under zoom. It will be used on my newly acquired 953 mounted on a sportbike, to capture action. I'm looking for a wide angle lens to capture the sensation of speed, as well as body position of the rider.

Isn't that bad engineering? Well, maybe not. Coming from a photo background, I've always avoided wides with distortion. The funny thing is, some expensive lenses have distortion while others don't. I guess that barrel distortion is something that some people may want?

Here's a good link about distortion:

http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/vid_...htm#distortion

Witold,
The smaller the number, the wider the lens...for example, .5x is wider that .6x. You can get a .3x fisheye but it will really look weird on a sport bike. I'd suggest nothing wider than .45x.

Thanks, Guy. I'm sort of trying to figure these things out. It's rather puzzling to me that the lenses for cameras are not measured in the same fashion as camera lenses. I'm sure there's a good reason for that, however.

I decided to go with Raynox HD-5000PRO, and plan to place my order tomorrow. I would've liked to purchase from Adorama or B&H, but one is out of stock, and the other is surprisingly overpriced. Instead, I will try my luck with bugeyedigital.com, as they are selling this lens for $90, and have good reseller ratings. (http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product_main/ray-hd5000pro.html)

Once I get some footage, I will try to post some screenshots and maybe a short clip. This thread is most enlightening.

At 5 pages long we could have it published as a book Witold. Converter lenses for camcorders are just that: they convert the focal length of the zoom to which they're attached. So a 6 to 72mm zoom will be converted to a 3 to 36mm zoom if you multiply its focal lengths by 0.5X. Simple, huh?

As to your bike shots, I'd say go for the wildest, widest converter you can get your hands on. Don't necessarily worry about vignetted frame corners either - you're after an impression of speed and excitement, and lens aberations shouldn't enter your head.

You can also use some converter lenses on your still (film) camera. The Raynox 6600 PRO worked pretty well on my 28mm lensed Canon. Generally if you have a fixed lens on your camera your only option is to add a converter (wide or telephoto) if you want to see something different.

I'm with you Frank, coming to movies from stills meant I was aghast at the barrel distortion the wide folk seemd to happily accept. Of course I'd used a full frame fisheye on 35mm, but I'd specially chosen that for the wild effect, and of course (being a Minolta Rokkor) it was beautifully engineered. :-)

tom.

Another one here. Stills to vid. Really wanted that stills
24mm WA, but went with the 28mm instead, due to
concerns with barrel distortion.
Same when I crossed to video. Everyone
recommended the Canon 58mm as being fine
for the VX, with the notation that there was some
minor barrel distortion.
So I spent more for the Optex.

I used to shoot 16mm as well, but I never knew anything about them except with operating them and splicing film. Ugh.

I was mostly into Nikons, Leicas and old German rangefinders, but my first camera was a cheap Kodak, about 44 years ago. :-))

Oh, and I had one of those Yashica large format cameras. Can't recall the model #.

Oh (again), I had a Yashica SLR and some Zeiss lenses for it, along with a few Yashica lenses. I really loved that cam.

I mostly did Canon. I wanted, but couldn't
afford, a Minolta XKE, if anyone remembers that.
Man, the accessories for that. "Backs" -- 200
exposures or something like that. Grips.
Drives. Half dozen different finders.
And *black*. And heavy.
I hear the Minolta electronics haven't held
up over the years. The XKE was Minolta's
F1, if anyone still knows what that is.
That Yashica. Is that the one that looked
like an oversized 35mm. I wanted that one,
too.

The Yashica 35mm I had was the first semi-auto that took Zeiss lenses. The large format was, well, large.