On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:59:15 GMT, "joe" wrote:

>I shot some stills with my VX2000 to compare the stock lens with the Marumi
>wide angle attachment I bought at a hamfest for $15. They don't look bad, to
>me, but I don't know if I could expect more from a "name brand" adapter. I
>don't really mind spending more money if I can notice the quality increase.
>If someone could look at the image at
>http://www.members.home.net/bradyphotography/compare2.jpg
>and tell me if the quality of the wide (right) picture is good, bad, normal,
>etc, I would greatly appreciate it. If you think the Century (the $300 one)
>or another brand performs better, I would like to hear that too.
>The images were taken on a tripod, in automatic. I moved the camera in
>closer to obtain an equal subject size with the wide attachment. I figured a
>brick wall would be good for detail and parallel lines.
>
>You can email your opinion, or respond, here, so others can see it, too.
>Thanks,
>Joe
>bradyphotography@hotmail.com

There is considerable barrel distortion, some
color fringing, and a bit of softening toward
the corners, but this looks relatively good
for a WA converter (it would be interesting
to see how it performs at full-wide, and with
the lens at its widest stop - I would expect
it to look considerably worse...). The only
WA converter on a VX-2000 that I have seen
with almost no WA barrel distortion is the
Raynox HD6600-58Pro (a couple of frame-grabs
with a couple of Century WA converters on the
Canon XL-1 standard zoom [full-wide, full-open]
are at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
and they don't look as good [but the conditions
were more difficult - though the Raynox is
sharp in the corners and doesn't show color
fringing with the VX-2000 under similar
conditions]). The Canon WD-58 is also excellent
on the VX-2000, and it is sharp through the whole
zoom range (unlike the Raynox), but it shows more
linear distortion...