Anyone planning to get the Wide Angles lens accessory?
 

Is anyone else planning to get the VCL-HG0862K wide angle lens for the V1U, or are most folks here planning to mate the V1U to an M2/Mini35 etc.?
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...-V1U/acce.html
Greg

I have ordered one for run and gun. Have not received yet.

I am planning on using a 28mm lens with a Brevis adapter for wide-angle shots. If I was going to do more event video, I would get the WA adapter or maybe one from another company in a .7x strength. Since the V1/FX7 are wider than the "normal" 50mm focal lenght 35mm film lens, I don't think a really wide lens is necessary. I used a .7x on my VX2000 and it has something like a 47mm equivalent in film lenses while the V1 has more like a 37mm equivalent. I don't like fisheye lenses, so .8x may be just the ticket.

This question of wide angle 35mm film lens equivalent has been a quiz for me on adapters like the Brevis or the M2.

What 35mm lenses would you need to get a real wide angle on this cameras?

Am I wrong or you can't get the equivalent of .7x or .8x wide field with any of these adaptors?

A 30 mm (equivalent) wide-angle converter is hardly worth the effort involved in doing the lens switch in my view. ISony make this expensive bayonet-on zoom-through and it comes with a deep hood. Deep because let's face it - it isn't particually wide-angle.

I think you really should look wider. You can always zoom in to the 0.8x position if that's the focal length you want to shoot at, but if you buy a 0.8x then that's as wide as it'll go of course.

The 0.8x as sold for the FX1/Z1 makes more sense as that takes the equiv down to 26 mm - noticeably wider for more dramatic shots and better perspective control.

BTW Marcus, a 0.7x on a VX2000 gives an equiv of 30 mm as well.

tom.

There's pics of the 0.8x lens and it's hood here:
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...-V1U/acce.html

I personally think that 30mm (35mm-equiv) is actually a pretty good wideangle. Yes the FX1/Z1 with their converter is a lot wider, but 30mm is still pretty good. Without the 0.8x on, the max. wideangle on V1 is 37.4mm and that really *isn't* very wide, so definitely worth getting one of the 0.8x converters IMO.

Not to skew the post at all, but I was just thinking....any decent, not over-priced fisheye lenses for this camera? I use the Raynox fisheye w/ my Z1U's but obviously this camera will require yet another lens.

Sorry to get off topic. :)

Any suggestions on a non-zoom through W/A lens ? I don't need the zoom through feature, nor the additional expense.

I know Centruy Optics makes one for the FX1.

Coming from the VX2000, the V1's angle of view isn't so bad. The VX2000 was something like 47mm equivalent and I almost always left the WA adapter in place. With .8x in front of the V1, I'll feel right at home for event videos and I'll use my 28mm Nikon for wide shots using the Brevis. I like the field of view on the FX1 without a wide-angle, but I admit something a bit wider would be nice. I'm sure another manufacturer will come out with an adapter in the .7-.65x range. Heck, I'll bet some of the 58mm threaded WA adapters will work with the V1 with a step-down ring. I won't spend too much money testing that theory, but I'm sure someone has a 58mm adapter left over from a GL or PD/VX series of cameras. Since the V1's threads are only 4mm larger than the 58mm standard, one of the older adapters is bound to work.

"Am I wrong or you can't get the equivalent of .7x or .8x wide field with any of these adaptors?"

As you can see, anything less than 30mm focal length will give a wide field of view on the 35mm adapters like the Brevis or Redrock M2. I have a 28mm lens that should be just fine. I found a decent 28mm affordable, but the price jumps quickly when getting a 24mm Nikon or wider. 24mm is the widest common Nikon lens.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "real wide angle", but you can certainly get wider than the stock lens with a 0.7x adapter - Nikon (for instance) make 35mm SLR lenses down to 16mm that are rectilinear (i.e. non-fisheye), although they do start to get very slow. The 20mm Nikkors are excellent and are available down to an f2 maximum aperture - that's much wider than even the Z1's stock lens with wideangle adapter, which as previously mentioned has a 35mm equivalent length of around 26mm...

If you start talking about PL mount glass like Zeiss and Cooke then you can get even wider - there's a 12mm Cooke S4 and I believe Zeiss make lenses down to around 8mm for 35mm coverage.

Edit: Sorry Marcus, I just read the end of your post and realised you'd already answered Carlos - my bad! FWIW though, whilst I'm editing, the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor is pretty widely available and still *reasonably* inexpensive (compared to the 24mm's, at least) - and much better optically, imo, if you do decide to go for something wider then the 28mm.

Can someone clarify - what is the 35mm equivalent angle of view of the standard V1 lens without adaptor?

How? Some weeks ago I got the following explanation from Dennis Wood over this question at the Cinevate forum:

"Focal lengths would be exactly the same as the 35mm lenses and in some cases (fast 50mm for example) more. The same would apply for academy format lenses. FOV may be a bit different (more) with HD as the 16:9 frame can utilize a slightly wider section of the image cone than 4:3."

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to mean that using the Brevis (or other adaptors), you get their very same length with photo lenses. That is a 35mm lens, which would be a WA in 35mm photo, would still be a 35mm lens when using the adapter in a DV/HDV camera, but no longer a WA. 35mm would be tele lens now.

Using a 7.22 rate to find the equivalent on DV/HDV camera (as used by Sony in the Z1 specs), a 35mm photo lens would be something like 252.7mm in the video camera.

A 20mm lens would be a 144.4m tele now.

Are you sure those Zeiss and Cooke lenses were not 16mm film lenses?

In any case, if my assumption is correct (which I don't know if it is) an 8mm lens equivalent (57.76) would still be a tele.

If I misinterpreted all this please tell me so. I am willing to buy an adapter like the Brevis, but I want it for wide angle too.

Maybe the adapters DO allow the lenses to cover the same field they did in 35mm. Do they?

The VX2k is and was 43.2 equiv at wide-angle, Marcus, and the FX7 (and V1 of course) have a 35mm Equivalent of 37.4-748mm (16:9 Camera Mode), and 45.7-914mm (4:3 Camera Mode) - this info for Mike.

So although the V1 has smaller chips than the VX it does start out with a clear wide-angle advantage. I'm still of the opinion that a 0.5x converter is the best option to go for though, as you can always zoom up to the 0.7 or 0.8 times position whether it be a zoom-through or not.

Most wideangles will add to the barrel distortion which is unfortunate, though there are aspherical lenses ouut there that keep straight lines straight - as god intended.

tom.

I like to be able to see the entire back wall of the room I am in from the far wall, be it a church or living room. I found that the .7x adapter on the VX2000 was fine and I just went full wide and left it there in smaller rooms. I liked it to stop at that field of view so I could quickly pull back in a snap and leave it there. That is just my shooting style. I also don't like significant barrel distortion and don't want to spend the money on a high-end adapter.

In other news:

"Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to mean that using the Brevis (or other adaptors), you get their very same length with photo lenses. That is a 35mm lens, which would be a WA in 35mm photo, would still be a 35mm lens when using the adapter in a DV/HDV camera, but no longer a WA. 35mm would be tele lens now."

Carlos, you officially stand corrected. Using a 35mm adapter like the Brevis, a 50mm Focal Length (FL) "normal" lens will have approximately the same field of view as it would on a 35mm SLR camera. That is the whole point of the 35mm adapters. There is no magnification factor. The adapter's internal diffusion imager is what the camcorder lens works with. The adapter is like a little movie screen inside that always plays whatever the 35mm (whatever focal lenght) lens sees with a similar field of view and depth of field.

Dominic, thanks for the heads up on the 20mm lenses. When I bought my lenses last year, the wider ones seemed prohibitively expensive while the 28mm F2 was less than $200. I'll look into the 20mm f2.8 if I feel the need for a wider view. With an HD camera, perhaps sweeping vistas are a new option for me.

In fact I officially stand wrong, which in this case pleases me. I thought adapters were too precious a tool not to be able to use them for wide angles too.

Keeping the same view field was the idea, and the diffusion imager seems to do that. Is that the one that spins (on M2) or vibrates (more expensive designs), right?

I thought there was a magnification, as when you used 35mm lenses in 16mm cameras. I'm glad there is none.

To me anything more than 32mm is useless for run and gun shooting. In fact, the lack of a native wide angle on the V1 could potentially be a deal killer for me.

So if I go with the V1, the wide angle will be on the camera most of the time. I would love to hear from anyone who has one - how good the wide angle adapter is. Does it reduce sharpness, does it reduce light, does the zoom range hold up, is it zoom through?

Nothing's for free Brett, and any wide-angle converter you place in front of your camcorder's zoom will degrade the performance slightly.

Generally the vignetting is more noticeable, the flare is increased a bit, the sharpness is reduced slightly, barrel distortion is increased and there's a small light loss. This all makes it sound terrible, but the reason you're fitting a widie is to see wider, and this is what you'll get.

Generally zoom-through converters are three element designs (though some are two and four, this is unusual). Most partial zoom-throughs are single element designs, so generally flare less but show greater chromatic aberation.

I'm a lover of the single element converters. They're generally more compact and lighter and yet still allow you to use half of your zoom's original range.

tom.

Just to summarize, would the wide angle adaptor for the V1 be a good purchase ? Does another wide angle lense would do better ?

Thanks

You can believe that the genuine Sony converter will work ok with the FX7 and V1 - the only real downder being the increase in barrel distortion. This doesn't bother some folk - but I'm not one of those people.

That's exactly right, the ground glass screen creates an area that the image can be - essentially - rear projected onto, just like in an SLR, maintaining the lens' FoV and DoF characteristics perfectly.

Just to quickly answer your questions re: 35mm vs 16mm lenses, no - they *are* 35mm lenses! Did a quick bit of research and in fact the widest Zeiss 35mm prime that Clairmont Camera hold is the 10mm T2.1 Ultra Prime - that's bloody wide!!!

Happy shooting Carlos!...

Agh trying not to get too off topic but how well does the raynox fish work? im still trying to toss up between it and paying the price for the century.

Have a look around the Raynox site, Joe - they put more into their demos than any other lens converter manufacturer I know.

I've used and tested two Raynox lenses and found them both to be good.

http://raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx1/index.htm

tom.

Certainly bloody expensive too!!!...

Tom,

Was it you that had used or bought some Schneider or Switar aspherical adapters?

Yes, the Raynox look like a very good bet. Their DCR-7900ZD is costing $230 from Amazon.

The only problem that I foresee is they are still threaded mount, instead of bayonet mount like the Sony or Century.

That's me Carlos. I've used and owned wide-angle converters made by Century, Raynox, Cavision, Tecpro, Kenko, Bolex, Red Eye, Canon, Schneider, Sony and probably some others that I've forgotten about.

Most were ok, some were good but only one is excellent - and that's the single element aspheric made by Bolex for their 16 mm prime Switar lens. It's not cheap, it's hard to find, it needs a special 85 mm to your filter thread size adapter making up and it's not full zoom through. But it is the best I've used.

Look here to see what a 0.5x rectilinear converter can do for you.

tom.

By not cheap, can you say how much? Who's selling it?

Yes, I had seen that comparison of yours before, and it's very revealing. Barrel distortion is a concern for me too, because it shows when you move your camera in any way.

In my case I should get a Z1 very soon, and the original zoom seems to have that BD distortion too. There's a Century .6x WA that I bought too, but that may take longer to get here (Brazil). Will report about it when it does.

The aspheric's test seems to show some chromatic aberrations, like on the vertical lines. Is that so or am I imagining so?

You didn't by any chance do any WA comparison including more lenses, did you?

The subjective information I got on the WA adapters for the Z1 (which should be valid for V1 and FX7), is that one of the best lenses seems to be the Century .7x type, also bayonet, and the .6x a close second.


Carlos

TOm, that looks unbelieveably fantastic! Where in Europe can the Bolex Switar be found?

Lol, yeah that's true!! But they're not really designed to be bought - most DPs will simply rent them when required...

That Switar W/A converter is dead sweet Tom, great info - can you give extra info to make sure anyone buying one gets the right thing? It's marked "Bolex 0.5x", I presume? Any other distinguishing markings?

I virtually never shoot without the M2/Nikkor kit these days, but I might be tempted by one of those for doco/run'n'gun stuff if I can find one kicking about...

Great find!

Well, that might be the case for full-budget producers. I was thinking of something indies could use.

I think I saw something aspheric going around the web sometime, but it was Schneider, if I am not wrong. On above, the mark on the lens should be Switar, never Bolex.


What's your camera?

I agree they're not particularly indie-friendly lenses - I included them simply to demonstrate the answer to your question of whether 35mm lenses could get a wider image than a stock camcorder lens, not in suggestion you should run out and start using them!!

OK, so I'm looking for a Switar 0.5x adapter - any other info on what exactly should be written around the lens ring to avoid confusion??

I'm currently shooting primarily on the Z1, although I've used the system on a whole bunch of 1/3" cameras - DVX, XL Series, PD-150, even an XM-1...

I wasn't!... ;)

Tom has the word on that.

Good, then we should be talking based about the same equipment.

What is the WA adaptor that worked best for you?

The M2/Nikkor combo does well on the Z1?

Lol!!!

I haven't got a W/A adapter for the Z1, as I said I rarely use it "stock". I've used the Century Optics one, which was ok but nothing special.

The M2/Nikkor combo works beautifully on the Z1, but you will need to be careful when selecting lenses - for some reason the M2 (in fact all 35mm adapters - I've used the Mini35, MovieTube and SGPro as well) seems to be more fussy about the glass than 35mm film SLRs.

For instance, I found that the following lenses, whilst fine on my FE, were too soft for my liking on the M2:
50mm f1.8 (the f1.4 version is fine)
24mm f2 (haven't found a 24mm I'm happy with - stick to the 20mm f2.8, imo)
105mm f2.5 (the f1.8 version is fantastic though)

I've also found that all of the Nikon Series E lenses (the budget versions of Nikkors) that I've tried are soft on this system, but my experience with these is limited...

The .6x I bought had several cons and pros, the later being more important at this moment: bayonet mount and price. But I will see how it does on the Z1.

Consistency is something which is more essential sometimes in video or film. That is why film primary lenses had to be mated as a set. In photo perhaps more disparities are easier to correct in the lab, as you don't see one photo after the other. Perhaps what you describe as fussiness is really lack of consistency, which is essential for continuity.

The adapter I was considering was the Brevis, but I would love to try or hear from those that tried several adapters.

I had a Nikon F about 30 years ago, so I don't quite remember which lenses were the good ones. The 28mm and the 85mm were great, I think. The 50mm 1.4 was good, and there was also a 55mm. 1.2. The wide-angles are the ones to look for, at least I see as the most critical.

How do you identify the Series E? I had a quick look at eBay, and found quite a lot of Nikkors. But I don't think I should buy any lens without trying it on the adapter I get.

I'm listening guys, just a bit busy to reply right now. So here's a couple of pictures to make you drool...

wide angle
 

I know that this can really vary depending on artistic decisions, etc.

But is there a TYPICAL lense angle that is used in big-screen narrative movies?

I mean what would the equivalent mm of that be for use on a V1?

Nope, definitely just plain soft - trust me, I know when an image is sharp!! Colour and contrast consistency between lenses is actually very good with Nikkors - but of course on video you can always white balance after lens changes to negate colour inaccuracy if you feel it's necessary...

You can identify Series E lenses by the fact that they are not Nikkors - they will read "Nikon Series E 50mm 1:1.8 123456" around the lens ring (for instance), rather than "Nikon NIKKOR 50mm 1:1.8 123456".

I've seen some very nice images from the Brevis and the M2 is excellent, I'm sure you'll be very happy with either - happy shopping!

That looks like a lovely piece of glass Tom, I'm going to be keeping my eyes open for one of them...