Kodak Ektanar 43mm Wide Angle Lens
 

Ok, I created this thread so we could discuss this topic that was buried in another thread.

I have purchased the Kodak wide angle and should have it in a day or so. There is some interest because this lens, which was designed for the Kodak DC4800 and other Kodak digital still cameras, is widely available at prices below $50US (see B&H Photo as an example). I plan to conduct and post some tests to establish the quality of this lens.

Some of the tests I plan to conduct include:

Flaring
Ghosting
Vignetting
Chromatic Aberrations
Barrel Distortion
Resolution (using an EIA1956 standard chart)
Fit and finish
Use of filters between the wide angle and camcorder lens (this only because the lens does not have front threads)

If anyone has additional tests or have recommendations as to how to best conduct these tests, please post them. In other words, tell me what you want to see about this lens and I'll try to comply.

Thanks for the new thread about this wide angle lens...I can't wait to see the results...I'll probably get one for my pana 852 too...

Thanks Guy.

I would like to see some basic comparisons between the kodak and some known quantities like the Raynox, and the Tiffen models that seem to be popular for the 953.

I am about to spring for my first WA and I am completely undecided/ confused.

The Tiffen 43mm wide is okay, not as good as the Tiffen 37mm wide; but you wouldn't want the 37mm wide for the Pana's 43mm threads. According to a number of members, the 2 higher-end Raynox wides are probably the best, the HD5000 being one of them, the other I don't recall. You can do a search here and easily find some threads/posts about them. I too am looking forward to Guy's Kodak DC4800 tests, and I will be looking locally for one of these to check it out for myself. I doubt they're that cheap, though, I mean locally---I'm not even sure if they're available here in Vancouver---and I hate using our hokey new phonebooks. The print is a way too small and squashed; or maybe my cheek roving eyes are going. :-))

I've got one
 

Jessops in the UK are selling for £29.99 so I thought I'd get one to see how it looks.

Compared to the Raynox .66x it's a lot smaller and a lot cheaper. Just looking through the viewfinder, it's immediately apparent that there's a lot of barrel distortion. How that compares to the others, I'm not sure - but may try and arrange a test against the Raynox .66.

I'm a bit of a distortion philistine, but will probably keep this lens on the camera most of the time. To my mind (or for my applications), getting the right things in the image is far more important than a bit of curvature...

Clearly we're interested in how bad the zoom-through is. If I want to conduct some tests, should I start by drawing a rectangle on a large piece of paper and then filming it at the various zooms? Then one could look for distortion, blur, chromatic abberations and (maybe) contrast?

Alex,
Rather than doing something on paper, shoot some architecture with strong vertical lines. Tall buildings are probably the best subjects or rows of light posts/utility poles/picket fences. I'll set up an album on my website that you can post your frame grabs in if you want. It will have a black album cover until we can get some pix in it so don't let that deter you. I'm hoping to get my lens tonight so you'll have at least 6 hours to post before I have a chance to. Knock yourself out! (That's American for "have a go, old chap!")

Ok, the album is ready.

Ah, but....
 

It's dark over here now - and I've got poxy 1/6" CCDs!!!

Shoot some flash shots inside and post those. It is very foggy and rainy here today so I don't have good conditions to shoot in either.

Ah ha!
 

Whaddya know?

The dumb flash didn't realise I had a 0.6x converter and hence the edges of the picture are all dim! ;-)

Anyhow, my workstation here is NT - so can't talk to the camcorder. When I get home I'll try and upload some stills (dark edged or not!)

Subjectively, the distortion is not a problem, though.

Alex, that flash shot may be interesting for folks to see the limitations in still mode. Look forward to seeing your pix.

Here they are
 

Sorry for the crappy HTML - a hacked version of the stuff generated by the Casio software that seemd to recognise the DV953...

http://m1001.dmclub.net/alex/

It looks pretty horrific, but I've yet to see how video footage is affected.

Obviously the flash is going to struggle - the shadow of the WA adapter is clearly visible, as is the failure of the flash to light up a wide-angle scene (not that I would expect it to!)

Pix Posted at FortVir.net
 

Ok,
The lens was waiting on me when I got home tonite. I took some quicky pix with my Fuji Finepix 602z and the DV953 in still photo mode. Those have been posted. The file names should be self-explanatory.

Observations: The lens is about 8x zoom through. Pix get soft at 10x, but are pretty good in the center without flash. The flash on the 953 is too bright for most shots. Also, as Alex noted, the Ektanar shadows the lower portion of the picture with flash. You will get a lot of chromatic aberration at full zoom and flash (see the 10x Angel pix).

Alex,
Thanks for the shots. Cute little girl, I might add. I note the same types of problems in my shots...flash shadowing and chromatic aberration (CA) at full zoom with flash. Were your shots handheld? I suspect the OIS is introducing some of the aberration. I'll test this further later.

Actually, I'm pretty impressed with what I see. Any lens and a moderately large hood will shadow the flash. Folks will just have to take that into consideration. The CA is reduced if you don't use flash. I suspect that this lens will be a little soft at full zoom but with little CA when shot in natural light. Barrel distortion seems to be about what you would expect with a .6x lens. All-in-all, I 'd recommend this lens, especially for the price.

confused.
 

I guess i am confused, all those pictures look very poor quality to me. Is this expected?