Wide angle solution? How about a Century WA video conversion lens?

[derbrocks09]

I have no idea if this would work with an AF100 but I thought I'd ask.

Would it be a workable solution to mount a camcorder wide angle conversion lens attachment to a standard 35mm wide angle lens. Like say the Canon 16-35 L II?

[Barry_Green]

Interestingly Stephen Mick and I have been discussing this in PM's. I finally just tested it; I put my 16x9Inc 0.75x wide-angle converter lens on my 14-140, and sent him the footage to judge for himself. He said it looked pretty good.

Problem with that particular arrangement is that the converter is way too heavy (24 oz!) and the 14-140 way too fragile to support such a heavy adapter on the front. A RedEye converter might be a lot more practical consideration, because it's comparatively feather-light (5 oz).

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

http://www.0-360.com/

25142

Are you guys happy yet?!

[derbrocks09]

That's very interesting Barry. I think a rod support used with a mattebox solves the weight issues. Does anyone know which lens would be ideal in terms of IQ? Also, a F2.8 lens would still be a 2.8 right?

[jpmulligan]

F2.8 is F2.8, it is a ratio relationship between the focal length of the lens and its aperture width set at a particular f- or t- stop

[Barry_Green]

http://www.0-360.com/

25142

Are you guys happy yet?!

But... Ryan... wouldn't the 1.18 crop factor mean this is really only a 313 degree field of view?

:evil:

[Steve Kahn]

F2.8 is F2.8, it is a ratio relationship between the focal length of the lens and its aperture width set at a particular f- or t- stop
Still, I'd expect to lose a stop or two

[Taylor Rudd]

Still, I'd expect to lose a stop or two

There will be some light loss, depending on the design, but it shouldn't be very significant.

It would take a lot of work to lose a full stop. Remember, 1 stop means a 50% transmission of light, so 2 stops is 25% light transmission. I can't think of any WA adapter that cuts that much light. Extenders? Absolutely. WA adapters? Notsomuch

[Steve Kahn]

There will be some light loss, depending on the design, but it shouldn't be very significant.


Ah, you are right! I was thinking extender.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

F2.8 is F2.8, it is a ratio relationship between the focal length of the lens and its aperture width set at a particular f- or t- stop



As Trudd said, wide angle adapters are different from telephoto extenders.

Using a wide angle converter I'd expect you would lose a very small amount of light.

Any time light passes through glass, it must obey the law of reflection and although we have lens coatings to help prevent this, (I don't know what this particular adapter has in the coatings dept), you can always guarentee, thanks to physics, if the light has to pass through more surfaces, there will be some light loss. Light passing through uncoated glass usually has a 4% reflection. Meaning 96% of the light will pass through the glass while 4% bounces off the surface and scatters elsewhere. This is also per element. The most advanced lens coatings can reduce this down to perhaps under 1% or as Cooke boasts, 1/10th of a percent... but as mentioned, the coatings on this wide angle adapter is unknown to me. Additionally this law of reflection becomes more important and its' effect worsens when we talk about wide angles. Light most successfully passes through glass when hitting the surface at a true perpendicular 90*. Incoming light, striking the surface from very off angles (away from perpendicular) will tend to bounce in greater percentages. Thus very very wide lenses can often have an exposure vignette. This is very obvious in older un-coated lenses, especially zooms, where there are many many optical elements that can reflect and scatter the light.

JP Mulligan makes an interesting point...a F/2.8 lens I guess will always be a F/2.8 lens as it is a mathematical formula. However, that lens is probably a T/3 in real life when taking the true transmission value of the lens... and that will certainly change when a wide angle adapter is introduced. There will be light loss from the adapter, however, the exact amount is something you will need to test, as it may be only subtle enough to change about 1/10th of a T-stop. It could be greater. But I do know it will reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor.

[john deaver]

Forgive if it's already been mentioned but I'm personally in love with my Olympus 9-18

I shoot as many stills with it as I shoot video and find myself using it where i usta use my HMC150 with a 0.4 fish eye for crazy wide shots but unlike the fisheye the barrel distortion is minimal.

The down side is that it is Slow at f/4 and the breathing is pretty bad if the AF starts to hunt. As long as the Autofocus doesn't go crazy it's fine. The up side is i picked it up for half what the Panasonic 7-14 lens goes for (it was on sale).

heres a few stills

Im about 10 feet from the Theater here standing just in the street. and this is my son who is roughly half as tall as i am so his head is about 2 feet from the camera

2514625147

[Cavemandude]

Here are my tests with a couple WA adapters using the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens. The Canon 0.7x I used has a 55mm thread so it can screw onto some of the older Canon FD prime lenses like my 35mm f and works just fine. There was no light loss with the Canon WA adapter.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?203822

Randy

[groveChuck]

http://www.0-360.com/

25142

Are you guys happy yet?!

Never. Doesn't it go without saying? :grin:
So... do you have anything wider than a 360???

[plasmasmp]

I've thought about this as well. Sounds like a good article/ video roundup subject comparing the lenses on the AF100. Would be nice if there is at least one .65 that is compatible with say a Oly 35-100 f2. Would make a good "low light" run and gun lens.