Raynox makes several variants of this - I think the
one of interest is both zoom-through, and 58mm threaded;
these WA converters can look good on video cameras
(which have lower lower optical requirements than still
cameras), and terrible on still cameras (this is generally
true, and I have seen only one or two WA converters that
are acceptable for still use, and then only with the
lens stopped down to f16-22 or so - yet many look great
for video use...). More, after I get the Raynox Pro-58
6060 .66X to actually try...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:17:50 GMT, "Martian Welk"
>the raynotx
>well i saw this thing on thier site
>http://www.raynox.co.jp/comparison/video/comp_xlwide.htm#xl-660058
>here is the link for anyone lookin
>
>it has "limited zoom through
>BUT a lense that cant be zoomed through might make the smallest lightest
>SINGLE purpose type of lens
>
>and beings i would remove it or anything else altering my pic QUICKLY when
>completed with the task it was doing
>it might just be the right one for me
>
>THEN i looked at pics that people did with it on the various web sites using
>thier digital still cams
>which in reality that is what the thing is for
>and it looked like poop
>it looked like the crapyest lense anyone can get actually :-)
>course people who skimp on everything,
>and are NOT overpriced experts,
> often dont have the skill to use it well anyways
>
>also its a 52 that adapts to 58, i remember adapting before YUK
>
>as far as having very little distortion, the pics even though they are
>Designed for the lenses, really show that this one doesnt BEND everything
>all over the place to achieve its wide, or in reality it is Bending
>everything BACK :-)
>
>any ways i just thought i would keep the discussion going
>and point anybody lookin to see what we is talking about
>
>
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3b4e1228.15403815@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:23:19 GMT, "Martian Welk"
>>
>>
>> >has anyone tried all three of these lenses in the title of this post ?
>> >or even SEEN all 3 of them
>> >any reviews?
>> >it isnt about the money anymore
>> >
>> >i want the best one for the least distortion
>> >without any excessive weight
>> >
>> >did anyone RETURN one of these for the other ?
>> >
>> >is this post just asking for a Salesman to come in desguised and put up a
>> >psudo answer ?
>> >
>> >mabey Reuther knows ?
>>
>> Naw, sorry.....;-)
>> The Canon .7X WD-58 is quite sharp - good enough to leave on
>>
>> all the time, but if linear distortion bug(g)s yuh, well,
>> the much more expensive and heavier Sony version is reputed
>> to have less distortion... (see WD-58 dstill-photo example,
>> at: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/images/porch-view.jpg,
>> the road at the bottom is actually straight...;-)
>> I have never heard much about the Century - but I was not
>> impressed with the century-XL1 combo (frame-grabs on my web
>> site at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm),
>> with the image of frame-grab of .7X Century on XL-1 zoom at:
>>
>http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/web_photos/camcorders/xl-1/cent-.7X-xl1.jpg
>> (Note the color fringing in the corners, and image softness
>> at even the edges...) Maybe most interesting to you would
>> be the Raynox Pro-58 6060 .66X - it is rated as having no
>> distortion (the FL magnification factor is the came for both
>> center and corners), though the camcorder lens itself has
>> some distortion... I ordered one, and will report on it
>> when I have had a chance to try it out. The price is
>> reasonable, too: $93, with shipping, as I recall...
>>
>> David Ruether
>> d_ruether@hotmail.com
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
>> Hey, check out www.visitithaca.com too...!