Buying lenses & filters for video and still camera...
 

Buying lenses & filters for video and still camera...

I own a compact digital still camera (4MP, 37 mm lens threads) and
a Panasonic MX500 digital video camera (3CCD, 43 mm lens threads).

I am buying additional equipment for both (wide & tele lenses, filters),
and I wonder which way is better --- should I buy all lenses for 43 mm
threads or 37 mm threads? I guess the bigger lenses the better, right?
So, 43 mm lenses are the way to go for digital video camera usage
and then buy a step-down ring 43-37 mm for digital still camera?

Here is the list of equipment I plan to buy:
-- Raynox HD-6600PRO 0.66x Wide Angle Lens, $100, 43mm
-- Tiffen MegaPlus 2x Telephoto Lens, $75, 43mm
-- Tiffen +7 +10 Close Up Lens Set, $37, 43mm
-- Kenko Circular Polarizer Filter, $23, 43mm
-- Kenko UV Haze Filter – Coated, $15, 43mm
-- Kenko UV Guard Filter, $6, 43mm
-- Step Down Ring, $10, 43-37mm

Filters above are to be used directly on cameras, so I guess it's
good to have filters for wide and tele lenses as well, right?

Raynox Wide Angle Lens has 72mm front filter threads and
Tiffen MegaPlus Tele Lens has 67mm front filter threads,
so I'd need these two additional filters:
-- Kenko UV Guard Filter, $13, 72mm
-- Kenko UV Guard Filter, $8, 67mm

Thanks for your opinion and any additional info!

The 37mm thread sized filters are usually inexpensive. I have a few Cokins for my DVL9500 (37mm thread size). So I would just buy say a UV, Polarizer and/or strong skylight---depending with what kind of photography you do.

The 43mm filters with a step down ring to the 37mm size should be okay, if there's enough room on your camera. Just get a slim step down ring.

For the wide angle, I'd just get a UV, and use it in dirty conditions (outdoors, beach, etc).

Tom did a wide angle adaptor test and rather liked the Raynox HD 5000 Pro. Also, I find the Tiffen to be very good, but it's only .75 for the 43mm size (the Tiffen 37mm wide is .5 something, and a great adaptor).

Before buying all this, perhaps think it through.

Thanks Frank! Well, I prefer Raynox 0.66x not the 0.5x, the 0.5x
has too much distortion, while 0.66x is best of all in that regard,
and still being zoomable to about 6x...

I also saw images of Tiffen 0.5x but images are too distorted as well...

The prices of filters for 37mm and 43mm are same.


Still my main concern is there, is it better to get everything
for 37mm threads or for 43mm threads? ...and buy a step-up
or a step-down ring...?

If it were me, I'd go easy on the filters and get the proper sizes, but I don't think there's anything wrong with buying 43mm filters and using a step-down ring to the 37mm size. With the larger adaptor filter sizes, I'd just get a UV and perhaps a strong skylight or polarizer, depending on what you need of course. Those are the filters I prefer, anyways, but I do have a few specialty filters for special moments. Even with my SLR, I do not use a whole bunch of filters, a skylight or polarizer for colour, a UV or orange filter for B&W.

I have found the Tiffen 2.0x tele converter 43 mm thread to be very ill suited to my MX300. When used with the mx300 the tiffen has a very large soft area around the periphery of the image. The best teleconverter is the genuine pana 1.4x. If you need a bit more reach, the raynox 2020 gives pretty good results with the mx300.

Frank, thanks for filter recommendation & clearing
my concerns on threads sizes.

Simon, thanks for warning on Tiffen 2x tele converter...

Raynox 2020 2x tele seems a good choice yes...
What about "Kenko KUT-300 HI - 3x Telephoto Lens"?
(Good zoom range of 3x at good price of $90.)


I'd mostly like the good reach for digital still camera, which
has just 3x optical zoom... I don't really think I'll need such
great zoom ranges on video camera (10x optical & tele 3x).

For digital still camera I've also found a great monocular, see:
http://www.ckcpower.com/monocomp.htm
(CKC Power CrystalVue 8x Telephoto Lens for $15.)

There I go again about Fuji teleconvertor and wide angle convertor.

I use the Fuji S602Zoom still cam, and that's on 55mm thread. My MX350 (43mm) is now permanently stepped up to 55mm to share the same lens and filters as my still cam.

The Fuji WA is 0.79x and the TC is 1.5x. The WA is good when <4x zoom on the MX350 and the TC will vignet (show the black ring) at about <10x zoom (The MX350 is 12x zoom max). As for image quality, excellent, when within the range given above.

Boyan, I believe that you mean to step up your still cam from 37mm to 43mm. That is fine. Stepping down more than 3mm is normally NO for most lenses. And unless you are a filter freak, like me, you'll probably just get the relevant filter for your still and MX500 separately. I use UV(0) (permanently mounted), Polariser, NDx4, Graduated grey and 4-star filters.

The test I did was on the Raynox 6600 Pro Frank - not the 0.5x version. It came out very well and was the only lens in the test that worked well on still cameras too. It's lack of distortion comes as a welcome relief in this age of bendy door frames and curved telegraph poles.

As regards filters, go for big filters stepped down to the lens attachment thread. Mush less likely to get vignetting this way.

tom.

Filters sizes…
 

Thanks Tom! Now I'm positive that best choice for me is Raynox 6600 Pro 0.66x (since I'll use it on my digital still camera as well)...

You recommend big filters... please don't mind me asking what size of filters you recommend for this Pana MX500 which has 43mm thread? Also, would you recommend buying Raynox 6600 Pro 43mm, or a larger thread size (which?), say, 52mm and use a 52-43mm step down ring? (I doubt that's needed, but I still had to ask that :-)

As for filters, at BugEyeDigital.com the biggest step down ring available is 52-43mm at, so, would this size be good enough for 52mm filters? Or better to get two step-down rings, 58-52mm and 52-43mm and then get 58mm filters?

Well, I guess I need two sets of filters... One set to use directly on camera - 43mm filters, second set to use on top of wide angle lens (and tele lens). For example, Raynox 6600 Pro has 43, 49, 52, 58mm mounting threads and 72mm filter threads - so I need 72mm filters as well...

Please help me to understand all these things so when I order I order right - I'll order from USA to Europe, and would like to get everything right for first shipment :-) Thanks!

Firstly I'd say get the filters and the converter lenses in the filter size your camera has. In other words - go for the 43mm threaded versions if you intend fitting them to the MX. If they *must* be used on a camera with a bigger filter thread (52mm say) then get them in that size and but get a 43 to 52 stepping ring to convert one to the other. I got mine from:

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk

Remember that stepping rings move the filters and the wide-angle further away from the front element of your camcorder (bad) so try not to do it if possble.

I wouldn't bother to filter the front of the Raynox 6600 Pro. The 72mm filter thread is primarily there so that you can fit a hood (please fit a hood). A filter must be a very slim version so as to avoid vigenetting the corners of the frame.

tom.

Thanks for the correction, Tom. I'll have to find that adaptor locally and check it out.

Re: Buying lenses & filters for video and still camera...
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyan Dob : Buying lenses & filters for video and still camera...

I own a compact digital still camera (4MP, 37 mm lens threads) and
a Panasonic MX500 digital video camera (3CCD, 43 mm lens threads).

I am buying additional equipment for both (wide & tele lenses, filters),
and I wonder which way is better --- should I buy all lenses for 43 mm
threads or 37 mm threads? I guess the bigger lenses the better, right?
So, 43 mm lenses are the way to go for digital video camera usage
and then buy a step-down ring 43-37 mm for digital still camera?

Here is the list of equipment I plan to buy:
-- Raynox HD-6600PRO 0.66x Wide Angle Lens, $100, 43mm
-- Tiffen MegaPlus 2x Telephoto Lens, $75, 43mm
-- Tiffen +7 +10 Close Up Lens Set, $37, 43mm
-- Kenko Circular Polarizer Filter, $23, 43mm
-- Kenko UV Haze Filter – Coated, $15, 43mm
-- Kenko UV Guard Filter, $6, 43mm
-- Step Down Ring, $10, 43-37mm

Filters above are to be used directly on cameras, so I guess it's
good to have filters for wide and tele lenses as well, right?

Raynox Wide Angle Lens has 72mm front filter threads and
Tiffen MegaPlus Tele Lens has 67mm front filter threads,
so I'd need these two additional filters:
-- Kenko UV Guard Filter, $13, 72mm
-- Kenko UV Guard Filter, $8, 67mm

Thanks for your opinion and any additional info! -->>>




Boyan where do u get Raynox HD-6600PRO 0.66x Wide Angle Lens for $100?

Boyan,
My personal opinion is that in the case of MX5000/GS100 you don’t need larger filter sizes.

If you take closer look you’ll see that the actual lens size is about twice smaller than the lens barrel. There is even plastic bars from up and down to prevent reflection so this serves as a hood. You are not likely to have vigeneting with 43 mm in theory at least.

Read the manual as there is explained how to mount the filters or lens adaptors. In some case you have to remove the slim hood with the bars, mount the attachment and then put the hood again. I think I saw this sort of explanation in the Japanese manual. May be I'm wrong. I can’t recall in that moment details so I’ll be checking that later.

OK here is the line from Pana.
This evening I could check the manual. On page 114 there are tips about the lens hood.
1. Filters to be put on the hood’s screw
2. Over the hood attach only a filter and the cap
3. Tele/wide conversion lenses to be attached after removing the hood
4. If you use 2 attachments – for example a conversion lens and a filter, then you might see dark corners in full wide angle

Understanding Wide Angle Adaptors
 

Could you help me understand the difference in quality of the various wide angle lens? I read about the Raynox HD-6600Pro giving little barrel distortion and about the enthusiasm for it here. However, the specs I read show that it only gives 350 lines of resolution in the center of the lens. Since the GS100K is rated at 540 lines resolution, aren't you losing well over a third of your resolution?

I read that the HD7000 has 540 lines of resolution but I've read nothing about its testing and its distortion level here.

I was leaning towards getting the Century Optics .65 wide angle lens. The gentleman I spoke to at Adorama here in New York thought it a much better lens. I do not know what attributes comprise better other than it will not show the double lens effect in zoom through.

Would someone mind enlightening me on any factors I am unaware of in this situation? Thanks

On another point:

Which lenses are advantageous for indoor shooting and why?

Steven,
Hope you aware, that Get a good quality or cheap Hoya filters first, to protect lens and to filter UV rays.

You can rely on Tiffen, B&W, Hoya, Raynox companies.

If its indoor, free from dusty environments, simple UV filter is enough, but if you need wide angle inside small room, to get all the surroundings, then u need wide angle.
Raynox HD-6600Pro is best and gives very very minimal distortion compared to others. But regarding the resolution, i am first time hearing about that.

May be Frank or Allan can help? Frank whats ur opinion?

Thanks for the reply Samual.

PriceJapan threw in the Panasonic filter pack with my purchase because I overpaid by $40 (the price dropped between Friday when I first contacted them and Monday when I paid). I should have paid for another pack for the 2nd camera at the time, so now I'll have to buy something here. As I'm doing stereo video, will UV filters from another maker show a difference between the pictures of two cameras being seen in stereo? And do you know exactly what UV filter and ND filter is sent from Panasonic?

Also, to reduce depth of field, is there a certain strength ND filter that is commonly used, or is it fitted to your liking?

Hoya make different grades of filters. I believe they also make the slimmest of the slim. I have some regular Hoya filters. They are fine. For the money, Cokins are good---my buddy and I were taking stills earlier. He loves his Cokin filter adaptor. Only problem is that you can't fit a hood on it, so he uses a reflector. I believe Bryan, one of our members here, went with that ultra slim UV from Hoya for his cam. But now he has a "box" attached to his adaptor, so he's using the big drop-in filters now. (It's hard to keep up with what he buys.) ;)

> Well, I prefer Raynox 0.66x not the 0.5x, the 0.5x
>has too much distortion, while 0.66x is best of all in that regard,
>and still being zoomable to about 6x...

The zoom-through ability was key for me in a particularly dynamic situation. The Raynox gets quite soft during zoom-ins on my Sony VX-2000. After an outdoor shoot, the Canon WD-58H it has more perceptible barrel distortion than my Raynox 0.66x, both at full zoom out. I didn't think much of this until two viewers of the footage casually asked me if I was using a special lens. It's convenient to rationalize and accept distortions until the unintiated make such comments.