Wide Angle Adapter

Tom Hardwick · May 11th, 2004, 02:37 AM

At the price point the coating isn't too bad, though not the best - which is why I stress the importance of using an efficient hood.

Ony the front element of my Tecpro is coated, whereas with more expensive lenses all the elements will be coated. But the exit pupil is working 'in the dark' so its coating is far less important.

When you get it I'll be interested to hear what you think of the barrel distortion.

tom.

Dave Largent · May 11th, 2004, 02:54 AM

Yer makin' me nervous, Tom. But I will let you know.
I was told by the distributor that, if you were to
zoom in to the same angle of view as the
Century wide, that the distortion is similar
percetage-wise.
I think I can live with some distortion.
Basically all wides distort -- even the
"highly regarded" ones -- from what
I gather. With maybe one or two
exceptions, but there you're dealing
with other trade offs such as sharpness
and price.

Tom Hardwick · May 11th, 2004, 03:09 AM

Yes, that's probably about right. If you fit the Tecpro and zoom up to the 0.65 position so as to equal the field of view of the Century the distortions will look about the same I'd guess. It's not a test I've done.

My Bolex Aspheron 0.52x doesn't distort but you're right about the price tradeoff. How nice to be without the distortions though. Just last week I was tracking backwards through all these rooms of a grand hotel as the bride and groom followed me. The door frames, the hanging pictures, the walls and windows were all composed of straight lines - just as they are in real life.

tom.

Bob Anderson · May 17th, 2004, 10:57 AM

Tom, you are correct, It was not the lens cousing the softness at max zoom it was the combination with the filter I had on. I was curious after your post as the TecPro did not show that on my other 2000 or my DSR 250 - I have one on each cam. I changed the filter and it is verry sharp allthe way zommed in. My Bad! And I sell these lenses - I was thinking I was being 100% honest but instead I was just dumb! Oh well!

Gabriel Selmi · June 23rd, 2004, 01:58 PM

I have researched many forums for an answer or at least a clue as to what kind of 58mm wide angle lens I should buy for my VX2100 and I am confused. The battle rages between the:

Sony VCL-HG0758 for $269 at http://tinyurl.com/3x2u4

and the

Century Precision Optics DS-65CV-58 0.65x for $399.00 at http://tinyurl.com/3bxwp

From what I can piece together the Century is the best of the two. But by how much. I am just an amatuer videographer and do a couple of jobs here and there. Has anyone used either and had good or bad results? I am worried mainly about the amount of viginetting both in unzooomed mode and full zoom. I just want to get a feel for what people are using. I am leaning toward the Sony because of cost but do not want to make a $300 mistake. Any input is welcomed. Thank You

Boyd Ostroff · June 23rd, 2004, 03:04 PM

I got that Sony lens about 3 years ago for my VX-2000 and have been very happy with it. Seems to zoom through fine and I don't see much if any distortion. I believe I read that it's manufactured by someone else (Kenko?) and branded by Sony. This makes sense, because I discovered the band that says "Sony" and the model number is actually sort of a thin rubber band in a groove which comes off. The only downside is that it doesn't have filter threads.

Matt Stahley · June 23rd, 2004, 05:32 PM

For the money the Canon WD-58 works well. I have had no problems with full zoom thru at least with my eyes and little to no distortion. The only downside is its .7 and is screw on with no filter threads. You may also want to look at the Optex .65 bayonet mount. $299 from ZGC.

Gabriel Selmi · June 23rd, 2004, 08:05 PM

That's very interesting that the Sony lens is not done by Sony. Could that mean there is an equivilant that's cheaper in price?

I have heard alot about the Canon and did not even consider it until now. For now I think I will go with the Sony.

The closest thing I can come to to protecting the lens is this item:

http://tinyurl.com/3d6cl

But the $$$$$ are tooooo high. Thanks for the input

Boyd Ostroff · June 23rd, 2004, 08:52 PM

I think these are probably a lot less expensive...

Greg Wolfinger · June 24th, 2004, 02:51 PM

the kenko pro .65x WA is supposed to be the same thing as the sony WA. what's nice about the kenko is the front filter threads. i tried to buy this a month ago but apparantly is discontinued. you can still find the bayonet mount version on B & H.

i ended up getting the canon wa for my vx2100 and it works great...plus it comes with a lense hood.

Michael Bendixen · July 13th, 2004, 01:07 PM

Do know how much this lens costs retail?

Michael Bendixen · July 13th, 2004, 01:14 PM

Does anyone know how much the included wide angle for the PD170 costs by itself. Thanks.

Wayne Orr · July 13th, 2004, 02:48 PM

The lens costs about $270.00 at B&H Look on their site for the VCL HGO758
You can see it on my camera with a Cavision lens shade at http://www.digitalprods.com/flare.htm

Boyd Ostroff · July 13th, 2004, 03:48 PM

I'd second Wayne's impressions. I have this lens for my VX-2000 and it is quite nice.

Leslie Wand · July 13th, 2004, 06:01 PM

agree with wayne - have it on a 170 (came bundled). very nice, but never use it full wide, just slightly off....

June 23rd, 2004, 01:58 PM	#260
Gabriel Selmi Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 30	Wide Angle View I have researched many forums for an answer or at least a clue as to what kind of 58mm wide angle lens I should buy for my VX2100 and I am confused. The battle rages between the: Sony VCL-HG0758 for $269 at http://tinyurl.com/3x2u4 and the Century Precision Optics DS-65CV-58 0.65x for $399.00 at http://tinyurl.com/3bxwp From what I can piece together the Century is the best of the two. But by how much. I am just an amatuer videographer and do a couple of jobs here and there. Has anyone used either and had good or bad results? I am worried mainly about the amount of viginetting both in unzooomed mode and full zoom. I just want to get a feel for what people are using. I am leaning toward the Sony because of cost but do not want to make a $300 mistake. Any input is welcomed. Thank You

July 13th, 2004, 01:14 PM	#267
Michael Bendixen Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Corvallis, OR Posts: 109	wide angle price Does anyone know how much the included wide angle for the PD170 costs by itself. Thanks.

May 11th, 2004, 02:37 AM	#256
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	At the price point the coating isn't too bad, though not the best - which is why I stress the importance of using an efficient hood. Ony the front element of my Tecpro is coated, whereas with more expensive lenses all the elements will be coated. But the exit pupil is working 'in the dark' so its coating is far less important. When you get it I'll be interested to hear what you think of the barrel distortion. tom.

May 11th, 2004, 02:54 AM	#257
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	Yer makin' me nervous, Tom. But I will let you know. I was told by the distributor that, if you were to zoom in to the same angle of view as the Century wide, that the distortion is similar percetage-wise. I think I can live with some distortion. Basically all wides distort -- even the "highly regarded" ones -- from what I gather. With maybe one or two exceptions, but there you're dealing with other trade offs such as sharpness and price.

May 11th, 2004, 03:09 AM	#258
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Yes, that's probably about right. If you fit the Tecpro and zoom up to the 0.65 position so as to equal the field of view of the Century the distortions will look about the same I'd guess. It's not a test I've done. My Bolex Aspheron 0.52x doesn't distort but you're right about the price tradeoff. How nice to be without the distortions though. Just last week I was tracking backwards through all these rooms of a grand hotel as the bride and groom followed me. The door frames, the hanging pictures, the walls and windows were all composed of straight lines - just as they are in real life. tom.

May 17th, 2004, 10:57 AM	#259
Bob Anderson New Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: MA Posts: 15	Tom, you are correct, It was not the lens cousing the softness at max zoom it was the combination with the filter I had on. I was curious after your post as the TecPro did not show that on my other 2000 or my DSR 250 - I have one on each cam. I changed the filter and it is verry sharp allthe way zommed in. My Bad! And I sell these lenses - I was thinking I was being 100% honest but instead I was just dumb! Oh well!

June 23rd, 2004, 03:04 PM	#261
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	I got that Sony lens about 3 years ago for my VX-2000 and have been very happy with it. Seems to zoom through fine and I don't see much if any distortion. I believe I read that it's manufactured by someone else (Kenko?) and branded by Sony. This makes sense, because I discovered the band that says "Sony" and the model number is actually sort of a thin rubber band in a groove which comes off. The only downside is that it doesn't have filter threads.

June 23rd, 2004, 05:32 PM	#262
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	For the money the Canon WD-58 works well. I have had no problems with full zoom thru at least with my eyes and little to no distortion. The only downside is its .7 and is screw on with no filter threads. You may also want to look at the Optex .65 bayonet mount. $299 from ZGC.

June 23rd, 2004, 08:05 PM	#263
Gabriel Selmi Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 30	That's very interesting that the Sony lens is not done by Sony. Could that mean there is an equivilant that's cheaper in price? I have heard alot about the Canon and did not even consider it until now. For now I think I will go with the Sony. The closest thing I can come to to protecting the lens is this item: http://tinyurl.com/3d6cl But the $$$$$ are tooooo high. Thanks for the input

June 23rd, 2004, 08:52 PM	#264
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	I think these are probably a lot less expensive...

June 24th, 2004, 02:51 PM	#265
Greg Wolfinger Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Botswana, IL Posts: 29	the kenko pro .65x WA is supposed to be the same thing as the sony WA. what's nice about the kenko is the front filter threads. i tried to buy this a month ago but apparantly is discontinued. you can still find the bayonet mount version on B & H. i ended up getting the canon wa for my vx2100 and it works great...plus it comes with a lense hood.

July 13th, 2004, 01:07 PM	#266
Michael Bendixen Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Corvallis, OR Posts: 109	Do know how much this lens costs retail?

July 13th, 2004, 02:48 PM	#268
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	The lens costs about $270.00 at B&H Look on their site for the VCL HGO758 You can see it on my camera with a Cavision lens shade at http://www.digitalprods.com/flare.htm

July 13th, 2004, 03:48 PM	#269
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	I'd second Wayne's impressions. I have this lens for my VX-2000 and it is quite nice.

July 13th, 2004, 06:01 PM	#270
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	agree with wayne - have it on a 170 (came bundled). very nice, but never use it full wide, just slightly off....