wide angle

[caldwell]

what about a wide angle... the jvc one is coming in at close to 10,000 us. and wide angle is absolutely essential for any important cocumentary making in my opinion... please don't bite on that comment its just my opinion... more curious about wide angle lens accessory

[stephenlnoe]

I'm sure it's in here somewhere but how wide is the lens it comes with?

[AZsspvideo]

From what I have read and what the brochure shows, there are going to be two wide angle options.

1. A Th13x3.5BRNU (Fujinon) lens and

2. A WCV-82SC Wide converter, apparently for the included 16x5 lens.

[scharky]

cocumentary?
all jokes aside, I completely agree with you. No wide angle is no fun.

[Barry_Green]

The included lens is 5.5mm, about the same as an XL2 and just a hair wider than the PD150.

The optional wide-angle lens starts at 3.5mm, which is way wide, about equivalent to a DVX with a .8 wide-angle adapter on it.

[Gibby]

Adding the .8 wide converter onto the 16x5.5 lens should bring it out to 4.4, about halfway between the angle of view of the stock lens (5.5) and the optional wide angle (3.5). 4.4 should be plenty wide for most wide angle needs. Of course, the $12k 13x wide angle lens should give you a much crisper image than the 16x with .8WA converter.

Whether you use the 16x with the .8WA, or the 13x, having the Anton Bauer or IDX batteries on the back would be a good counterbalance idea...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[athouguia]

Whether you use the 16x with the .8WA, or the 13x, having the Anton Bauer or IDX batteries on the back would be a good counterbalance idea...

Is the 0.8WA so heavy that it'll be necessary the AB or IDX batteries to counterbalance? I thought that the HD100 has a good balance, better then a XL2 (I hope)... would the wide adapter make the difference? Is it worthy to spend $10000 on the 13x lens when you can have an wide adapter for $100? I'd like to know your opinion.

[ARRIguy]

Is the 0.8WA so heavy that it'll be necessary the AB or IDX batteries to counterbalance? I thought that the HD100 has a good balance, better then a XL2 (I hope)... would the wide adapter make the difference? Is it worthy to spend $10000 on the 13x lens when you can have an wide adapter for $100? I'd like to know your opinion.
I remember you asked the same question a couple of months ago. Then I gave you my experience with lens converters - both wide and tele. Some are good (very little degradation of the prime lens) and some pretty lousy (lots of degradation). One thing I failed to mention then is there's no way of knowing about the quality of this converter or how it effects the camera's balance until the product is out. Most important, until you (or someone else that's objective) can test it there's no way anyone can advise you. I mean advise you well.

As far as balance goes, i think it's already been mentioned that the 13x lens will be substantially heavier and thus require more weight on the camera back for decent balance. At least this is the case compared to the supplied lens without 0.8x converter.
Comparing the camera balance between the supplied lens with the 0.8x converter and the 13x lens will mean having both on hand and checking them.

For a good answer to your question... I'm afraid you'll have to wait .

[athouguia]

Arriguy, thank you for your opinion. I've tried some wide converters and, besides you lose the zoom capability you notice some soft unfocus on the sides. I often use a 13x Canon lens on a Sony Digital Betacam (not mine, unfortunately) and the image is perfect. Anyway, my budget is not enough for the 13x lens... I'll go for the wide converter that costs about $500 and not $100 as I posted before...

[videoteque73]

The wide angle doesn't vignette and doesn't substract much light. Sharpness in the corner seemed unchanged. I tried it in a demo in Rome a month ago and I was very very satisfied with the HD100, including the wife angle adapter.

The tests we did weren't scientific, though!

[mezelf27]

a wife angle adapter of all things... hhmmm... that would be something... :-)

[mmm]

lol:)

[Ralph Oshiro]

Some are good (very little degradation of the prime lens) and some pretty lousy (lots of degradation).I agree with ARRIguy. Some converters are good, some are horrible. I suspect the Fuji converter to be on the "good" side. In low grade optics, I've seen a HUGE loss of resolution. In high grade optics (as far as converters go) I've seen very sharp ones (e.g., the broadcast Century Precision Optics series).

But here's the MOST significant difference I've seen between a several-hundred dollar wide angle converter and a multiple-thousand dollar wide angle lens: the degree of barrel distortion present. All of my sub-$1,000 converters for my 1/3" cameras introduce a SIGNIFICANT amount of barrel distortion. One thing I've noticed with my 14mm Nikkor still lens (on a Nikon D70 DSLR, the equivalent "35mm" focal length of a 14mm Nikkor lens is 1.5 x 14mm = 21mm) is almost NO barrel distortion! And a 21mm 35mm-equivalent focal length is pretty darn wide!!

So, the moral is, if it's decent quality glass, it will be reasonably sharp, BUT, you may have to live with a marginal-to-unacceptable amount of barrel distortion. IMHO, the Fuji wide angle lens is so expensive, it has made me consider buying a 2/3" 24p SD camera (Sony DSR450WSL) and buying the "cheap" $5,000 Canon 2/3" wide angle lens instead (but, I digress). So, to summarize, IMO, this is a put-the-adapter-on-an-actual-HD100-camera-and-see kind of purchase decision. We won't know how good or bad the barrel distortion will be on the Fuji converter (again, I assume it will be fairly sharp) until we actually get to see one on the camera--hopefully, it won't be that bad!

P.S. For whatever reason, both wide angle adapters and tele-adapters that go on the FRONT of the lens incur NO light loss whatsoever. Tele-adapters that go behind the lens incur a significant light loss.