Kodak Ektanar 43mm Wide Angle Lens

Tom Hardwick · February 7th, 2004, 11:26 AM

Glad you think it's a keeper Guy, because it's a very keenly priced optic. I always say the best lens for you is the one that satisfies your requirements.

I've posted four more pictures to www.fortvir.net. I took some shots of the Aspheron just now and I've held it in my hand to give some idea as to the size of the thing. That multi-coating is a thing of beauty as you'll see. I've taken more pictures OF this lens than I have THROUGH the lens, so I should rectify that right now.

BTW, all shots were done to card in the MX300. What an excellent little digital camera that is - much better than the big VX2k.

tom.

Guy Bruner · February 7th, 2004, 11:48 AM

Tom,
That Aspheron is a beautiful lens! I'll bet it dwarf's the MX300. Are you going to adapt it to the MX300? Would be interesting to see how the 300 does with it.

WRT the Kodak. The day was sorta gray here which reduced the contrast a bit. It seems to be a fine enough lens for wide shots with zooms less than 3X and no need for flash. It one needs to shoot beyond that zoom range, it makes sense to remove the WA and just use the normal lens in the DV953.

In comparing my shots to those you posted, I didn't see a discernable difference in PQ, other than better barrel distortion, over the Kenko and Raynox. It seems to me to be similar at full wide to the Aspheron, at least WRT barrel distortion. I intend to keep it because I don't think it can be beat for the price. However, others who are mulling this over may want to hear your opinion. If you would provide your critique, I and others would appreciate it.

Tom Hardwick · February 7th, 2004, 01:13 PM

No sooner said than done Guy. I've uploaded a shot of the little MX300 with the big Aspheron in place. There's a slight amount of barrel distortion with this combo, and the auto-focus of the Panasonic won't allow me to zoom more than 1/4 way. But what the hell - this lens is WIDE, and who'd want to shoot 'normal' pictures through it? So we agrre on that then.

I've taken another look at your latest house shots. I think we can discount any of the shots past 3x as you say - even the thumbnails show the faults. But at max wide it looks good to me - the treetops (top left) are sharp into the corners and the wires top right are clear too. But unless that road curves the way your picture shows it, the barrel distortion is quite pronounced.

No need to go outdoors to verify this. With the Kodak lens in place point the camera perpendicular to a door frame. As you track through the door, what happens to the door frame? Bendy, curvy wood I bet. No worries at that price point though.

tom.

Guy Bruner · February 7th, 2004, 01:51 PM

Tom,
That lens is MASSIVE! And, I bet it makes massive (not normal) pictures, too.

Yes, you are right about the Kodak's barrel distortion. It shows up as you get close to vertical or horizontal objects. It shows quite clearly in the video I shot of the dining room in artificial light. The doorframe on the right bows substantially. Also, in the still pix of the painting with the vase of artificial fruit, you can see the matting on the painting is bowed. However, it doesn't appear to be worse than the Raynox. I'd say if someone was looking for an inexpensive WA to shoot home movies, this would be a good buy.

Guy Bruner · February 8th, 2004, 11:37 AM

Ok folks, I've now had more opportunity to shoot some pix and video with the Kodak WA. I'm getting more and more impressed with this lens. I mean, it's not perfect, but it is pretty darn good, IMO. Flare and ghosting are very reasonable. I had to basically shoot into the sun to get any. A large shade or french flag will fix a lot of these types of issues where you have to shoot into the sun. Sharpness is good across most of the image. There is slight loss of sharpness on the right edge of the frame, but you have to look closely to see it. That could be a failing of this particular lens and not an across-the-board defect. Panoramic video shots are impressive.

Check out the new pix and videos in the Kodak album and see for yourself.

Dave Largent · February 13th, 2004, 12:28 AM

The Canon 43mm wide is fine. Nicely coated.
Touch of barrel distortion, as in the 58mm
model, but many don't mind it in the 58.

Danny Louviere · February 13th, 2004, 12:42 AM

I was just digging through my camera junk box and came across a 55mm threaded 0.7 canon wide angle addapter I bought in '89 for my hi8 model. It was a very high quality lens and now I'm wondering if it'll work with a 55-43 step down adapter? What do you think?

Yow Cheong Hoe · February 13th, 2004, 02:13 AM

0.7x should work, I am using a 55mm mount fuji 0.79x on my MX350, with adaptor from 43-52-55.

There may be a little vignetting at teh corners, but TV overscan shall take care of that. You may not have zoom through, but you want wide angle, anyway.

February 13th, 2004, 12:42 AM	#37
Danny Louviere New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: nagasaki, japan Posts: 5	older canon wa lens? I was just digging through my camera junk box and came across a 55mm threaded 0.7 canon wide angle addapter I bought in '89 for my hi8 model. It was a very high quality lens and now I'm wondering if it'll work with a 55-43 step down adapter? What do you think? __________________ danny

February 13th, 2004, 02:13 AM	#38
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	0.7x should work, I am using a 55mm mount fuji 0.79x on my MX350, with adaptor from 43-52-55. There may be a little vignetting at teh corners, but TV overscan shall take care of that. You may not have zoom through, but you want wide angle, anyway. __________________ Cam: Panasonic MX350EN, SOLD my MX8EN Mac: G3 400MHz PowerBook, 256 MB, OS 9 PC: Pentium 4 2800MHz, 512 MB, WindowsXP SW: iMovie, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, Ulead Video Studio, various little utilities

February 7th, 2004, 11:26 AM	#31
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Glad you think it's a keeper Guy, because it's a very keenly priced optic. I always say the best lens for you is the one that satisfies your requirements. I've posted four more pictures to www.fortvir.net. I took some shots of the Aspheron just now and I've held it in my hand to give some idea as to the size of the thing. That multi-coating is a thing of beauty as you'll see. I've taken more pictures OF this lens than I have THROUGH the lens, so I should rectify that right now. BTW, all shots were done to card in the MX300. What an excellent little digital camera that is - much better than the big VX2k. tom.

February 7th, 2004, 11:48 AM	#32
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Tom, That Aspheron is a beautiful lens! I'll bet it dwarf's the MX300. Are you going to adapt it to the MX300? Would be interesting to see how the 300 does with it. WRT the Kodak. The day was sorta gray here which reduced the contrast a bit. It seems to be a fine enough lens for wide shots with zooms less than 3X and no need for flash. It one needs to shoot beyond that zoom range, it makes sense to remove the WA and just use the normal lens in the DV953. In comparing my shots to those you posted, I didn't see a discernable difference in PQ, other than better barrel distortion, over the Kenko and Raynox. It seems to me to be similar at full wide to the Aspheron, at least WRT barrel distortion. I intend to keep it because I don't think it can be beat for the price. However, others who are mulling this over may want to hear your opinion. If you would provide your critique, I and others would appreciate it.

February 7th, 2004, 01:13 PM	#33
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	No sooner said than done Guy. I've uploaded a shot of the little MX300 with the big Aspheron in place. There's a slight amount of barrel distortion with this combo, and the auto-focus of the Panasonic won't allow me to zoom more than 1/4 way. But what the hell - this lens is WIDE, and who'd want to shoot 'normal' pictures through it? So we agrre on that then. I've taken another look at your latest house shots. I think we can discount any of the shots past 3x as you say - even the thumbnails show the faults. But at max wide it looks good to me - the treetops (top left) are sharp into the corners and the wires top right are clear too. But unless that road curves the way your picture shows it, the barrel distortion is quite pronounced. No need to go outdoors to verify this. With the Kodak lens in place point the camera perpendicular to a door frame. As you track through the door, what happens to the door frame? Bendy, curvy wood I bet. No worries at that price point though. tom.

February 7th, 2004, 01:51 PM	#34
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Tom, That lens is MASSIVE! And, I bet it makes massive (not normal) pictures, too. Yes, you are right about the Kodak's barrel distortion. It shows up as you get close to vertical or horizontal objects. It shows quite clearly in the video I shot of the dining room in artificial light. The doorframe on the right bows substantially. Also, in the still pix of the painting with the vase of artificial fruit, you can see the matting on the painting is bowed. However, it doesn't appear to be worse than the Raynox. I'd say if someone was looking for an inexpensive WA to shoot home movies, this would be a good buy.

February 8th, 2004, 11:37 AM	#35
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Ok folks, I've now had more opportunity to shoot some pix and video with the Kodak WA. I'm getting more and more impressed with this lens. I mean, it's not perfect, but it is pretty darn good, IMO. Flare and ghosting are very reasonable. I had to basically shoot into the sun to get any. A large shade or french flag will fix a lot of these types of issues where you have to shoot into the sun. Sharpness is good across most of the image. There is slight loss of sharpness on the right edge of the frame, but you have to look closely to see it. That could be a failing of this particular lens and not an across-the-board defect. Panoramic video shots are impressive. Check out the new pix and videos in the Kodak album and see for yourself.

February 13th, 2004, 12:28 AM	#36
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	The Canon 43mm wide is fine. Nicely coated. Touch of barrel distortion, as in the 58mm model, but many don't mind it in the 58.