More Wide Angle Converter Questions at DVinfo.net

Michael Middleton · November 18th, 2003, 01:35 PM

I've gotta get a wide angle converter, but I don't want to spend over $150. It seems the Century Optics DS-HR65-37 is made specifically for the PDX-10, but it's a little out of my price range. I know Boyd is a fan of his Digital Optics converter, but am also considering the Kenco and the Tiffen. However, I can't figure out which of these, if any, have zoom through capabilities. For my application, zoom through is a must.

I like the price on the Kenco ($79 at B&H) and the Tiffen ($69 at B&H). Can anybody confirm if these are zoom through?

Michael

Harry Settle · November 18th, 2003, 03:15 PM

Don't skimp on the cost of glass. I recommend the Canon wd-58.

Boyd Ostroff · November 18th, 2003, 03:54 PM

That sounds like a real monster for a camera with a 37mm mount. Anyone actually use one of these on the PDX-10 or TRV-950? I'm sure it would be great on the VX-2000 or PD-150.

Jan Roovers · November 18th, 2003, 07:30 PM

I am also looking for good zoom thru wide angle lens.
Can anybody tell me how good the Rainox HD-5000PRO is?

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/vide...0pro/index.htm

It specifies 600 lines/mm. How do I have to read that?

Does it suit the 16:9 picture of the PDX10 without vignetting?

Frank Granovski · November 18th, 2003, 07:40 PM

Quote:

I like the price on the Kenko ($79 at B&H) and the Tiffen ($69 at B&H). Can anybody confirm if these are zoom through?

The Tiffen is better than the Kenko in the 37mm thread size. There are also 2 Tiffen wides available. (See Tiffen's website.) The Raynox HD-5000PRO might be better that both the Kenko and Tiffen. I don't believe any of them are "zoom-through." I don't know how the PDX10's 16:9 mode/video quality will be effected.

Tony Caronia · November 18th, 2003, 08:33 PM

I have the Tiffen Mega WIde .56 that I use with my PDX10. It is not zoom thru. But it is very nice for $69.
Best,
Tony

Michael Middleton · November 19th, 2003, 08:47 AM

Thanks. The Raynox is an interesting option.

Does the Tiffen have front filter threads?

Chris Long · November 19th, 2003, 08:56 AM

..and the Raynox site shows a video clip, supposedly using the HD-5000PRO, while zooming. It looks like it might be good, but so hard to say from a small, compressed clip.

B and H mentions the resolution as "Achieving an amazing high definition of 500-lines resolution power at center..."

I guess I'm in the market too, since the holidays are approaching, so here's a stupid question: At what point (what fractional power factor, I guess is how I should say it) does one go from "wide angle" to a more "fisheye-like" effect? When does such distortion become REALLY obvious? (I actually like the look...)

Tony Caronia · November 19th, 2003, 01:07 PM

Yes the Tiffen MegaPlus 0.56X WA that I have has 72mm threads to accept filters.

It also fits the Cavision split ring 75mm OD for the 3 X 3 matte box.

Tony

Michael Middleton · November 19th, 2003, 01:32 PM

Thanks. I ordered the Tiffen this morning. The more I think about it, I can't really think of too many situations where I'd need the zoom through.

Now, about wireless lav's....

Tom Hardwick · November 22nd, 2003, 01:59 PM

A genuine fisheye lens implants a circular image onto the film Chris, and the lens 'sees' 180 degrees. Barrel distortion is 100%. A full frame fisheye (FFFE) doesn't vignette the image in this way, but you only see the full 180 degrees from diagonal to diagonal.

The term fisheye is abused in the same way as macro is, but it doesn't matter much. Any barrel distortion in a wide-angle lens is seen as a 'fisheye effect' and lens power has very little to do with it. Minolta make (for their 35mm cameras) a 16mm FFFE with huge amounts of barrel distortion, yet their 15mm rectilinear wide-angle is almost completely devoid of distortion.

tom.

Chris Long · November 22nd, 2003, 09:47 PM

Tom, thanks for the info. A related question:
What is the widest angle "normal-looking" power? Something around .5? If I get something in the .4 range, is it starting to veer into the odd effect category, and is not as naturalistic?

I realize this is a near impossible thing to talk about without images as examples, and I'm afraid I'm doing a poor job of it...all of it is so subjective, and the terms are abused, as you say.

Guilty!! ;^)

Tom Hardwick · November 23rd, 2003, 02:47 AM

Good question Chris, but look at it this way. Your PDX10 has a maximum wide-angle that should be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptio Act, for it's only wide in the fact that the lens sees more than at any other setting in the zoom range. In 35mm terms it equates to 50mm, and nobody ever called that a wide-angle.

If you pick up a Panasonic DVX100 you'll see that it's wide-angle is excellent - equating to 32.5mm right out of the box. Now say you attach a 0.5x w/a converter to each camera - the Sony now has a decent 25mm focal length and the Panasonic has a wild 16mm focal length (both converted to 35mm film terms as they use different sized chips which confuses the mathematics).
So yes, I'd say that you need at least a 0.5x on the Sony, but a milder (and less distorting) 0.7x will do on the Panasonic - and it'll STILL see wider than the PDX10.

All my tests show this: the more powerful the w/a converter, the greater the losses. Look at the Centyry fisheye - the loss there is to your bank account. But generally a 0.5x converter will be less sharp, will distort more, have more chromatic aberation and so on than a 0.7x. But as I say - in your case a 0.5x is about right and you'll have to live with the losses.

tom.

Chris Long · November 23rd, 2003, 08:58 AM

Great answer, Tom. Exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks!!

Jan Roovers · November 23rd, 2003, 11:07 AM

I ordered friday the Rainox HD-5000pro.

I could get it in Leiden NL for € 89,- !!

I must give it a try. I let you know, how this lens performs when I have got and tried it: probably next week.

November 18th, 2003, 01:35 PM	#1
Michael Middleton Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, TX Posts: 71	More Wide Angle Converter Questions I've gotta get a wide angle converter, but I don't want to spend over $150. It seems the Century Optics DS-HR65-37 is made specifically for the PDX-10, but it's a little out of my price range. I know Boyd is a fan of his Digital Optics converter, but am also considering the Kenco and the Tiffen. However, I can't figure out which of these, if any, have zoom through capabilities. For my application, zoom through is a must. I like the price on the Kenco ($79 at B&H) and the Tiffen ($69 at B&H). Can anybody confirm if these are zoom through? Michael

November 18th, 2003, 03:15 PM	#2
Harry Settle Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bemidji, MN Posts: 276	Don't skimp on the cost of glass. I recommend the Canon wd-58. __________________ "DOH"!!!

November 18th, 2003, 07:30 PM	#4
Jan Roovers Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Amsterdam NL -Turnhout BE Posts: 158	Rainox HD-5000PRO wideangle 0.5x zoom thru I am also looking for good zoom thru wide angle lens. Can anybody tell me how good the Rainox HD-5000PRO is? http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/vide...0pro/index.htm It specifies 600 lines/mm. How do I have to read that? Does it suit the 16:9 picture of the PDX10 without vignetting? __________________ ___________ Jan Roovers www.jtv.be

November 23rd, 2003, 11:07 AM	#15
Jan Roovers Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Amsterdam NL -Turnhout BE Posts: 158	Rainox I ordered friday the Rainox HD-5000pro. I could get it in Leiden NL for € 89,- !! I must give it a try. I let you know, how this lens performs when I have got and tried it: probably next week. __________________ ___________ Jan Roovers www.jtv.be

November 18th, 2003, 03:54 PM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	That sounds like a real monster for a camera with a 37mm mount. Anyone actually use one of these on the PDX-10 or TRV-950? I'm sure it would be great on the VX-2000 or PD-150.

November 18th, 2003, 08:33 PM	#6
Tony Caronia New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York Posts: 5	I have the Tiffen Mega WIde .56 that I use with my PDX10. It is not zoom thru. But it is very nice for $69. Best, Tony

November 19th, 2003, 08:47 AM	#7
Michael Middleton Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, TX Posts: 71	Thanks. The Raynox is an interesting option. Does the Tiffen have front filter threads?

November 19th, 2003, 08:56 AM	#8
Chris Long Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Middletown, Maryland USA Posts: 177	..and the Raynox site shows a video clip, supposedly using the HD-5000PRO, while zooming. It looks like it might be good, but so hard to say from a small, compressed clip. B and H mentions the resolution as "Achieving an amazing high definition of 500-lines resolution power at center..." I guess I'm in the market too, since the holidays are approaching, so here's a stupid question: At what point (what fractional power factor, I guess is how I should say it) does one go from "wide angle" to a more "fisheye-like" effect? When does such distortion become REALLY obvious? (I actually like the look...)

November 19th, 2003, 01:07 PM	#9
Tony Caronia New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York Posts: 5	Yes the Tiffen MegaPlus 0.56X WA that I have has 72mm threads to accept filters. It also fits the Cavision split ring 75mm OD for the 3 X 3 matte box. Tony

November 19th, 2003, 01:32 PM	#10
Michael Middleton Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, TX Posts: 71	Thanks. I ordered the Tiffen this morning. The more I think about it, I can't really think of too many situations where I'd need the zoom through. Now, about wireless lav's....

November 22nd, 2003, 01:59 PM	#11
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	A genuine fisheye lens implants a circular image onto the film Chris, and the lens 'sees' 180 degrees. Barrel distortion is 100%. A full frame fisheye (FFFE) doesn't vignette the image in this way, but you only see the full 180 degrees from diagonal to diagonal. The term fisheye is abused in the same way as macro is, but it doesn't matter much. Any barrel distortion in a wide-angle lens is seen as a 'fisheye effect' and lens power has very little to do with it. Minolta make (for their 35mm cameras) a 16mm FFFE with huge amounts of barrel distortion, yet their 15mm rectilinear wide-angle is almost completely devoid of distortion. tom.

November 22nd, 2003, 09:47 PM	#12
Chris Long Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Middletown, Maryland USA Posts: 177	Tom, thanks for the info. A related question: What is the widest angle "normal-looking" power? Something around .5? If I get something in the .4 range, is it starting to veer into the odd effect category, and is not as naturalistic? I realize this is a near impossible thing to talk about without images as examples, and I'm afraid I'm doing a poor job of it...all of it is so subjective, and the terms are abused, as you say. Guilty!! ;^)

November 23rd, 2003, 02:47 AM	#13
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Good question Chris, but look at it this way. Your PDX10 has a maximum wide-angle that should be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptio Act, for it's only wide in the fact that the lens sees more than at any other setting in the zoom range. In 35mm terms it equates to 50mm, and nobody ever called that a wide-angle. If you pick up a Panasonic DVX100 you'll see that it's wide-angle is excellent - equating to 32.5mm right out of the box. Now say you attach a 0.5x w/a converter to each camera - the Sony now has a decent 25mm focal length and the Panasonic has a wild 16mm focal length (both converted to 35mm film terms as they use different sized chips which confuses the mathematics). So yes, I'd say that you need at least a 0.5x on the Sony, but a milder (and less distorting) 0.7x will do on the Panasonic - and it'll STILL see wider than the PDX10. All my tests show this: the more powerful the w/a converter, the greater the losses. Look at the Centyry fisheye - the loss there is to your bank account. But generally a 0.5x converter will be less sharp, will distort more, have more chromatic aberation and so on than a 0.7x. But as I say - in your case a 0.5x is about right and you'll have to live with the losses. tom.

November 23rd, 2003, 08:58 AM	#14
Chris Long Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Middletown, Maryland USA Posts: 177	Great answer, Tom. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!!