Oct 12, 2010, 2:20 PM
Post #1 of 17
(1429 views)
Shortcut
Opteka Platinum Series 37mm 0.2X Low-Profile "Ninja" Fisheye Lens?
Can't Post
Has any used the Opteka 0.2X Low-Profile "Ninja" Fisheye Lens for Camcorders? It looks the same as the Royal Lens Platinum 0.2x. I jump the Royal lens Platinum 0.2x but i scratched it and i don't want to pay $249.99 USD for a new one. The Opteka 0.2x Ninja is $69.95 on there website. is there any Vignette with this lens? I tried a Liquid 2 x0.25 Wide angle lens with 37mm threads and i got vignette.
ok am digging this thread up from the dead. I am in need of a .2 HD lens and was wondering if this would fit the bill. I know the .3 is HD and not quite up to par with the Century glass. However Century does not make a .2 lens. Does anybody know definitively if this is a HD lens?
A century .3 fisheye lens has a wider field of view then the .2 Royal lens by just a little bit, but the clarity of the glass is definitely noticeable. I just switched to the Century lens from the .2 Royal do to the clarity difference.
none of the small barrel lenses are HD. Century, Diamond, Cookie, Opteka, Waycool, Sony...they might stamp "HD" on there, but there isn't one of them that can resolve more than 300 lines (if that)
Somewhere here on DZ.com, I tested a bunch of them with a rez chart a couple years back.
When compairing the Century lens to the Royal, it appeared to me to be a little wider but I guess it is a tad narrower. I just took the pictures below with each lens and I think anyone could see the major diference in the quality.
That's weird. I got an email from janet (at) opteka (dot) com on the 17th of January this year, stating that they were HD in response to my asking them. Although looking at the quality of the image, it is quite soft.
I wouldn't call it marketing, if it is not in fact High Definition, I'd call it lying. The box says "High Definition". A representative of the company told me it was High Definition when I asked them directly. In the UK we have the Trades Description Act and Sale of Goods Act legislation and Trading Standards authority that protects consumers from being misled or punish those who do.
Maybe it depends on the definition of High Definition. But seeing as Opteka's website says,
Quote:
Opteka's glass optics define High Definition. Change the way you view the world with Opteka.
I would have thought that they met, if not exceed, the standard definition for HD (whatever that is).
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Aug 30, 2011, 9:05 AM
Post #13 of 17
(755 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't call it marketing, if it is not in fact High Definition, I'd call it lying. The box says "High Definition". A representative of the company told me it was High Definition when I asked them directly. In the UK we have the Trades Description Act and Sale of Goods Act legislation and Trading Standards authority that protects consumers from being misled or punish those who do.
Maybe it depends on the definition of High Definition. But seeing as Opteka's website says,
Quote:
Opteka's glass optics define High Definition. Change the way you view the world with Opteka.
I would have thought that they met, if not exceed, the standard definition for HD (whatever that is).
There are multiple ways to use the term "HD" as marketing hype and not be in violation. If it can pass an image while mounted to an HD acquisition device (camera) then it can be considered HD in terms of marketing.
If the glass passes ahigher resolution than the normal offerings the company produces, it'll fall into that realm too. in the most strict sense, very few lens adapters actually pass more than 600 lines. To be "real" HD, the lens needs to resolve more than 700 lines. HD acquisition is exclusively one of three resolutions: 1280 x 720 1440 x 1080 1920 x 1080
Nothing else, nothing less. However...GoPro's are considered HD even tho their imagers aren't "true HD" and their lenses can't begin to resolve more than 500 lines.
It is mostly market hype, based around -deliverable- resolution vs acquisition resolution. It's honestly not something worth worrying too much about if you're using small-sensor AVCHD cameras. If you were dealing with .5" sensors, this would be a different discussion.
cpoxon (D 11665)
Moderator
Aug 30, 2011, 9:24 AM
Post #14 of 17
(751 views)
Shortcut
Generally speaking, yes. However, due to the greater resolution of the camera (usually) the possiblity of CA/Chromatic Abberation is higher. Find out by shooting something Black/white. If you see color on the edges, the lens adapter has a high CA.
Is it the idea that because the light is entering from such an extreme angle getting bent that it is nearly impossible to avoid a "prism" effect that breaks up white light?
The front element would almost have to be a complete half sphere to avoid something like that. Correct?
Just strap the Nikon 13mm lens on the front and go to town.
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Sep 1, 2011, 3:11 PM
Post #17 of 17
(638 views)
Shortcut
Is it the idea that because the light is entering from such an extreme angle getting bent that it is nearly impossible to avoid a "prism" effect that breaks up white light?
The front element would almost have to be a complete half sphere to avoid something like that. Correct?
Just strap the Nikon 13mm lens on the front and go to town.
You got the idea. Funny you'd say "strap on..." Saw a guy GAFF TAPE a piece of convex glass on a lens the other day, and damned if it didn't work pretty well. Slight vignette, but it worked out fine.
CIMG8409_.JPG
