Following up from a previous thread, I got a wide angle adapter - a Raynox
DVM-700 from Jessops for 35 quid. I took the camera with me, filmed a short
clip with each of the adapters I was interested in, and then checked them
out at home. Here's a review of the four that I tried...

--------------------------------------------------------
Raynox QC-303, 0.3x, £20
Stars: [ * x x x x ] and a half

Optically bad slimline clip-on. Poor at the edges, with blurring and lots of
chromatic abberation. Goes out of focus when the camcorder lens is zoomed.
Goes very wide. Cheap and cheerful semi-fisheye for £20. I'd consider this
for trying composition ideas, unless there's something much better for not a
lot more money.

--------------------------------------------------------
Raynox QC-505, 0.5x, £20
Stars: [ * x x x x ]

Slimline clip-on which is optically pretty bad. Poor at the edges, but not
as bad as the wider QC-303. Goes out of focus when the camcorder lens is
zoomed. Not wide enough to have the novelty of the 303, and optically so
poor, it hardly seems worth 20 quid.

--------------------------------------------------------
Raynox DVR-5000, 0.5x, £50
Stars: [ * * x x x ]

Screw-in type of medium size which comes with three plastic thread adapter
rings. Edges were reasonable, but chromatic abberation was clearly evident.
Might have had a front filter thread. Overall, this was disappointing - the
chromatic abberation was close enough to that of the cheap clip-ons, that I
failed to see what made it worth 50 quid.

--------------------------------------------------------
Raynox DVM-700, 0.7x, £35
Stars: [ * * * x x ]

Screw-in type which is very small. Edges were reasonable-to-good, and it's
easily the best of the bunch in terms of chromatic abberation - after trying
the other lenses, this one didn't seem to have any of note. Comes with two
metal filter thread adapters, but has no front filter thread. A surprisingly
capable performer for an amazingly low price.

--------------------------------------------------------

I was really after a 0.3x for mega-panoramas of landscapes, with the ability
to zoom to get other focal lengths. I expected the clip-ons to be poor, so I
had kinda set my sghts on the 50-quid DVR-5000 0.5x, thinking that that
would be suffciently close to the magnificaton I wanted while providing
acceptable quality. However, I felt that the DVM-700 was such a better
performer than the other three that I decided to have a 0.7x for now and
take my time with tracking down a better quality semi-fisheye adapter.

My camcorder's 35mm-equivalent focal length range is 40-400mm, so the 0.7
adapter changes this to about 28-280mm - a good general purpose range. The
DVM-700 is small enough to leave on the camera, which is where it's been
since just after it was bought.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

In message , Wally
writes
Following up from a previous thread, I got a wide angle adapter - a
Raynox DVM-700 from Jessops for 35 quid. I took the camera with me,
filmed a short clip with each of the adapters I was interested in, and
then checked them out at home. Here's a review of the four that I
tried...

I correspond with a video enthusiast in the USA, where they seem to have
a better selection. He recommends the Pro range, which he reckons are as
good as the Sony HG. He also put me onto an Ebay link:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZlandloop for getting such lenses. You
don't seem to have mentioned your camcorder's lens filter size [1], so
you'd have to troll through the offerings. You have to remember that the
dollar is very weak just now, so you can get really good deals. I've
just bought a 37mm 2x telephoto (yes, I know, I said I'd never buy one),
and so far it has given an excellent picture.

[1] It's generally a bad idea to use any adapter that has to use a
stepping ring. One way, you'll lose the corners and the other
way you'll get low light transmission with possible distortion.

I had the problem of not having a front thread on my Sony HG WA, but
I've solved it with some success by measuring the inside diameter of the
front of the lens and getting a UV filter of a diameter that is a close
fit - then I araldited it in. I checked first though to ensure that I
didn't lose anything at the corners. I can even add a polariser and WA
lens hood without losing the corners. On my Sony HG WA I had to get a
62mm UV filter that gave a snug fit. The UV glass also protects the
front element of the lens.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

Tony Morgan wrote:

I correspond with a video enthusiast in the USA, where they seem to
have a better selection. He recommends the Pro range, which he
reckons are as good as the Sony HG. He also put me onto an Ebay link:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZlandloop for getting such lenses.

Interesting. How much do these deals work out to by the time the thing
arrives in the UK?


You don't seem to have mentioned your camcorder's lens filter size
[1], so you'd have to troll through the offerings. You have to
remember that the dollar is very weak just now, so you can get really
good deals. I've just bought a 37mm 2x telephoto (yes, I know, I said
I'd never buy one), and so far it has given an excellent picture.

[1] It's generally a bad idea to use any adapter that has to use a
stepping ring. One way, you'll lose the corners and the other
way you'll get low light transmission with possible distortion.

My camcorder has a 30.5mm filter thread. The stepping ring is low profile,
like a filter rather than any sort of tube. I think the lens fits a 30mm
thread. Haven't noticed any vignetting (didn't notice any with the wider
lenses that I tried in Jessops, either).


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

In message , Wally
writes
My camcorder has a 30.5mm filter thread. The stepping ring is low
profile, like a filter rather than any sort of tube. I think the lens
fits a 30mm thread. Haven't noticed any vignetting (didn't notice any
with the wider lenses that I tried in Jessops, either).

That shouldn't make any difference. I was talking about 30/37 or 37/30.
Most consumer camcorders seem to be either 30 or 37. Tele front threads
seem to mostly come in at 52, and WA at about 62 (if they have threads
at all).

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

I have found the best wide angle lense by far.
I have looked and looked and by far this IS THE VERY BEST.

http://www.royal-lens.com/index.htm

and with all the money people pay on video equipment, you can always
tell the crap cheap-O lense someone is using. Vinettes are such a
turn off and makes all video look crappy, amature and cheap.

http://www.royal-lens.com/vignette.htm

I love them because the optics are so good, no vinettes and the
profile is so small. The other lenses look like you are mounting a
soup can on them. Long and bulky. This one rocks and you can buy it
in the EXACT thread size you need.

In message , Segator
writes
I have found the best wide angle lense by far. I have looked and looked
and by far this IS THE VERY BEST.

I'm deeply suspicious I'm afraid. The manufacturers obviously know
something that the other lens makers don't. Most half decent wide angles
come in with 5 coated elements in 3 groups. And you are telling us that
a single-element uncoated lens can match them?

Have you actually GOT one of these (and used it)? What is the edge
resolution like? Why the limit of only being able to use only half-zoom
- does this mean that the resolution degenerates into a misty blur?

Sorry to be so cynical, but before biting the bullet and going for a
Sony HG, I tried in a couple of Jessops branches a selection from the
really cheapo's through up to the one I actually bought. The cheapo's I
tried, without exception, progressively lost resolution, colour
saturation and contrast as you zoomed between the tele setting to the WA
setting.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

"Wally" wrote in message
.uk...

Interesting. How much do these deals work out to by the time the thing
arrives in the UK?
snip

Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Here's a real sample of 1 item (headphone amplifier) bought last month from
New Jersey. ( I know it's not photographic, but I can use it on my
camcorder!)
Order was placed over the internet, charged to my VISA account, and I had to
email images of both sides of my card, as Barclarcard VISA isn't validated
internationally, it seems.

Prices etc. were as follows:
Cost of headphone amplifier $99
Small belt clip for same $7 (It's worth all of £1, but have yet to find
anything similar in the UK)

Fed Express (International) Packing & Postage $37.94 OUCH!!
(Didn't seem to be any choice once I'd entered UK on the address field)

Hit to my Visa card inc fee (on US total of $143.94) £79.27 (included fee
of £2.12)
Duty (?), VAT & handling fee in the UK £18.66 (included fee of ~£4) .This
was collected by FedEx about 2 weeks later.

So in the end my "cheap" $99 (~ £56) amplifier cost me £97.93 - and that's
at the recently good £ : $ exchange rate.
With this particular example, and slightly worse £ : $ rates, it's easy to
see why the 1£ = 1$ parity is so difficult to shift. The service was
superb, with the courier trying to deliver the item the next day after my
order was processed in New Jersey - pity I was out!
What isn't clear from my example is how the fees, which are quite
significant in this example, would work out on larger orders.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

In message , Malcolm Stewart
writes
"Wally" wrote in message
o.uk...

Interesting. How much do these deals work out to by the time the thing
arrives in the UK?
snip

Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Here's a real sample of 1 item (headphone amplifier) bought last month from
New Jersey. ( I know it's not photographic, but I can use it on my
camcorder!)
Order was placed over the internet, charged to my VISA account, and I had to
email images of both sides of my card, as Barclarcard VISA isn't validated
internationally, it seems.

Prices etc. were as follows:
Cost of headphone amplifier $99
Small belt clip for same $7 (It's worth all of £1, but have yet to find
anything similar in the UK)

Fed Express (International) Packing & Postage $37.94 OUCH!!
(Didn't seem to be any choice once I'd entered UK on the address field)

Hit to my Visa card inc fee (on US total of $143.94) £79.27 (included fee
of £2.12)
Duty (?), VAT & handling fee in the UK £18.66 (included fee of ~£4) .This
was collected by FedEx about 2 weeks later.

So in the end my "cheap" $99 (~ £56) amplifier cost me £97.93 - and that's
at the recently good £ : $ exchange rate.
With this particular example, and slightly worse £ : $ rates, it's easy to
see why the 1£ = 1$ parity is so difficult to shift. The service was
superb, with the courier trying to deliver the item the next day after my
order was processed in New Jersey - pity I was out!
What isn't clear from my example is how the fees, which are quite
significant in this example, would work out on larger orders.

The trick is to ask the vendor/seller to underprice the value, complete
a Customs Declaration (if they haven't got one, then a visit to your
local VAT office (that's also C&E) for a declaration), scan it and
attach to e-mail (first convert to 2-colour GIF which keeps the filesize
down), and get the vendor/seller to declare it as "Used (second-hand").
Make sure that the declaration is attached on the outside of the package
in a clear plastic bag. Oh yes, make sure that the value is clearly
marked as in "US Dollars", numbers alone may be interpreted as being in
pounds Sterling.


--
Tony Morgan
http://www.rhylonline.com