On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 11:34:41 -0700, "Paul Tauger"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3da9977a.4593860@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:00:00 -0700, "Paul Tauger"
>>
>> >"Neuman - Ruether"
>> >news:3dae7d04.7268315@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> >> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 10:51:29 -0700, "Paul Tauger"
>> >>
[...]
>> >I'd prefer to
>> >avoide a screw thread model, only because there's so much weight hanging
>> >off the lens.
>> I think the thread is more secure than depending on
>> those thin plastic bayonette wings. I'm always careful
>> to install a threaded converter by upending the camera,
>> placing the converter in place on top, then back-turning
>> it until it drops into the proper thread before
>> screwing it into place. With the Canon and Sony .7X
>> converters, you may never want to remove them
>> again...! ;-)
>That's actually the plan. I never removed the wide angle lens (a high
>quality Sony) on my two previous cameras.
Then buy either the cheaper/lighter/bit-more-barrel-
distortion-but-sharp-throughout Canon WD-58H (with
shade, though this converter does not flare easily),
or the bigger/heavier/lower-distortion Sony HG - both
will perform VERY well. BTW, if the linear distortion
"bugs" you, see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/perspective-correction.htm
Barrel "distortion" is actually undistorted spherical
perspective, and it really is the way we see - and it
offers advantages in video when showing people near
the corners, and with panning and tilting without
"disturbing" results with WA...;-).
>> The Raynox .66X has some advantages
>> at the short end, though, and the Sony VCL-ES06 is
>> wider than all and quite good, but it has only about
>> 2:1 zooming range (oddly, I often find this enough,
>> if I'm shooting mostly WA material and want only the
>> occasional pan-zoom for variety).
>The most appealing thing about the Raynox was its low barrel distortion.
>However, full zoom through is something I need.
Yes - it does not provide this, but is good for
about 2/3rds zooming from WA end.
>> The frame-grabs you
>> have on your web site show (even in the small sized
>> grabs) that the converter you have is not an adequate
>> performer. I would return it.
>First thing Monday, I'll call B&H and get an RMA -- one of the good things
>about dealing with a reputable mailorder hourse.
>> With a good WA converter
>> for the VX2000, the image quality looks about the
>> same to the corners (TV-area, not full-frame...) with
>> or without the converter on, even wide open...
>That's what I used to get on my previous cameras (using a Sony 37mm
>adapter). It wasn't quite full zoom through -- there was some image
>degradation at full zoom -- but it was beautiful at wide angle.
I found this, also, with the expensive/heavy "HG"
Sony in 37mm mount - the WD-58 is without problems
throughout (and without the color fringing at the long
end) - I highly recommend this $200 (with shade)
converter...
>I'm going to order an Optex on Monday -- ZGC has a return policy, so if it
>doesn't work out, I'll return it. From what I've read, it's a good lens
>(someone said the BBC uses them with the VX2000), and it's bayonet-mount.
>If it doesn't cut it, I'll probably spring for the Sony.
I would also get the Canon from B&H with the Kenko return,
and compare it. The thread-mount is secure, and you just may
prefer it to the more expensive Optex (let me know...;-).
>BTW, thanks again for your excellent website -- it's a wealth of
>information.
Thanks for the comment.