OT : When Do I use Wide Angle?

cervama wrote on 2/19/2008, 11:51 AM

I was wondering I have a PD170 that I use for weddings and it came with a wide angle lens. I used it the other day and the resolution seems to be a little blurry at times. When is the right time to use wide angle lens and the regular lens?

Your response is appreciated.

Comments

craftech wrote on 2/19/2008, 11:57 AM

Mostly when you are too close to a subject or area that needs to be included and don't have a choice.

They are blurry, I must say. Even the more expensive ones are blurry IMO.

John

farss wrote on 2/19/2008, 1:05 PM

Which brand and model WA adaptor?
Some are not zoom through and meant to be used only at the widest endo of the zoom range.

Bob.

riredale wrote on 2/19/2008, 9:04 PM

When I had my VX2000 a couple of years ago I used a Canon wide-angle lens all the time. I think it was a "WD-58." Fully zoom-through and very sharp. Should fit the 170 camera just fine.

On my FX1 I use the Sony .8x lens all the time also. It, too, is zoom-through and sharp. Can't recall the model number off the top of my head but it's the one specifically featured for the 72mm HDV camera family.

Much of my stuff is handheld and a wide angle minimizes motion.

craftech wrote on 2/20/2008, 1:04 AM

Riredale. Did you really find the Canon WD58 attachment that sharp on the VX2000? That's the one I use. I can really notice a difference between the sharpness with and without that lens attached. Did you not notice a difference on yours?

John

Grazie wrote on 2/20/2008, 1:19 AM

Is it possible that there IS a slight aberration due to an already step-up from a filter? Have you attached the Can-WD directly to the 58 of the Sony?

The Can58WD is a great piece of glass and zoom thru'.

craftech wrote on 2/20/2008, 1:24 AM

Graham,

It is attached to the end of the Sony and is "blurry" compared to the sharpness of the VX2000 itself with no lens. I only used the term "blurry" consistent with the OP who used that reference. Maybe a better way to put it is that it is not as sharp. I can clearly see a difference when I zoom in with it. As you zoom out, you don't notice it. When you zoom in on a subject there is definitely a difference. The VX2000 is tack sharp all by itself.

John

Laurence wrote on 2/20/2008, 5:29 AM

I use a .8 wide angle lens all the time. I have a Z7 on order and one of the things I'm looking forward to most is being able to use a replacement wide angle instead of an add on wide angle adapter with this camera.

Ros wrote on 2/20/2008, 6:08 AM

I had a PD150 with a Canon WD-58, and everything was fine.

Then I sold my PD150 and bought a PD170 with the Sony wide angle attachment. I then quickly noticed that at wide aperture and zoomed in, it was very soft, not usable. So I contacted the person who bought my PD150 with the Canon WD-58 and did several tests side by side with my new PD170 and Sony wide angle. I also tested another Sony wide angle attachment.

Conclusion is that the Sony lens, which is almost twice the price of the Canon lens, is not as sharp when zoomed in and at wide aperture, making it useless at those settings. On the other hand, the Canon proved to be sharp no matter what! Great lens!
So my dealer exchanged the Sony wa for the Canon wa.

90% of what I shot had the Canon wide angle attachement since I haven't seen any difference with or without the Canon lens. Several of those videos have been broadcasted as well.

Rob

BrianStanding wrote on 2/20/2008, 2:05 PM

I've been using a Century .65x, non-zoom-through adaptor on my PD150 for some time. I think it's one of the best investments I ever made. I do notice a very slight softness to the image, compared to the camera without the lens attached, but it's well worth it for the creative possibilities it allows.

I've always been a fan of the deep depth of field "Citizen Kane" look. And obviously, if you're shooting in a cramped space a wide angle is a godsend.

But some advantages I didn't anticipate include:
- MUCH steadier handheld shots. The wider the angle, the less noticeable all those bumps and shakes look on the screen. I've even gotten good footage by holding the camera down by my feet and running through prairie grass for a travelling "worm's eye view" shot.

- Under the right circumstances, better AUDIO, too. I do a lot of "man on the street" stuff, where I'm a one-man band doing handheld "vox-pop" interviews with random passersby. With a wide angle lens on the camera, I can put a shotgun mike on the camera (something everyone tells you not to do) but can stand close enough to the subject to get good audio -- even when there's noisy traffic behind them. [The inverse square rule is a videographer's -- or a sound engineer's -- best friend!]

I don't miss the zoom-through feature much. You can still zoom through the widest half of your lens's range. If I want a telephoto shot, I simply take the adapter off. Also, I think you can get better optical quality for less money if you don't care about zoom through. I also wouldn't bother with anything that isn't at least .7x or wider. At .8x, you're gaining so little in terms of field of view or depth of field, that it's hardly worth the added weight and loss of sharpness.