beatcreation 0 #1 March 29, 2009 Hey all, just wanted to get some quick input before I purchase yet another lens. Im looking at getting the raynox 3032 but have some slight hesitations due to it sticking out so much. I dont really want to drop $300 buck on the century 0.3 baby death either. Has anyone tried these lenses (opteka)? Im assuming that they are probably just crap or at least no better than waycool or royal lenses. I have an HC5 top mounted and I need some thing very wide for close flying head down 2-3 ways. http://www.opteka.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=155 http://www.opteka.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=156 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdctlc 0 #2 March 29, 2009 I have a HC5 top mount with the Raynox and a BH Box. The lens does not stick that far out and the set up works great Scott C. "He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beatcreation 0 #3 March 29, 2009 Thanks dude, Im probably going to go qith the raynox in the end but I thought I would at least ask about these optekas as well. Do you have any pics of your setup that you can post? Thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beatcreation 0 #4 March 29, 2009 also forgot to ask about the inability to put a uv filter on the raynox to protect it from scratching. Anyone have issues with this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #5 March 29, 2009 UV filters degrade your image, and the raynox isn't that expensive anyway, so just don't scratch it ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #6 March 29, 2009 Quote UV filters degrade your image, Evidence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #7 March 29, 2009 Quote Quote UV filters degrade your image, Evidence? Plenty, look at any photography website (except those trying to sell you UV filters LOL). Also in our case they add to lensflare so even if you get a good filter (the multicoated ones, from a good brand like B+W, Nikon or Hoya) it can show in your video, plus the good filters are as expensive as the raynox lenses are so why even bother Should you scratch the lens, buy a new one Or be more careful ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #8 March 29, 2009 I know what the websites say. I know what my own experience is with color charts, resolution charts, and real-world use. Yes, there are UV filters that CAN degrade your image. Even with those, I challenge you to a comparison and tell me which of two photos has and has not a UV filter. Yes, it will create a flare at the appropriate angle. Some people like this effect. Some people encourage this effect. Making a blanket statement like "UV Filters degrade your image" is strong, and not necessarily correct. For the amount of degradation they do, most folks would prefer to protect their lens investment if they've got more than 50.00-100.00 in their glass. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Merely using a lens adapter degrades your image. Far moreso than does a UV or Sky filter. Using a lens adapter also can cause flaring (and given the lenses most skydivers seem to buy, it's quite common). CCD's cause flaring too. So, until someone builds a CMOS camera with a 15mm lens (35mm equivalent) video camera... many will rightfully continue to use a UV or Sky1A on the front of their camera. Me? I use an ND to accomplish the same thing. The shot that won Scotty Burns the USA Today contest had a Sky on the lens, the video that is #15 on CNN.com has a Sky on the lens, all of my skydiving footage has a filter on it. Photoshop degrades your images too. I've seen your photos that are heavily cropped. Cropping seriously degrades images. So does recompression. Virtually anything on the front of the actual camera lens, any electronic image processing in camera, and any post processing "degrades" the image. Me? I'd much rather "degrade" the image in glass than in post. Back to the OP. Opteka is a jobber that buys OEM product and stamps their name on it. Some of it's decent, some of it is not. I haven't jumped their lenses, but am very familiar with their flashes and photoframes. I'll look at their glass at NAB if you'd like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
garywainwright 0 #9 March 29, 2009 I glued a 72mm - 77mm step up ring on the end of my raynox 0.3 to add a filter. It was more for the fact that the lens seemed to fog up a lot in the UK (its cold here!) than for protection. In certain conditions I do see a lot of flare but it doesn't fog up now.http://www.garywainwright.co.uk Instagram gary_wainwright_uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pattersd 0 #10 March 30, 2009 Anyone else think that the lense shown in the Prod=155 link looks an awful lot like the .3 Babydeath lense? what are the chances it is a rebranded babydeath lense? I'm seriously considering dropping the $100 to find out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beatcreation 0 #11 March 30, 2009 QuoteAnyone else think that the lense shown in the Prod=155 link looks an awful lot like the .3 Babydeath lense? what are the chances it is a rebranded babydeath lense? I'm seriously considering dropping the $100 to find out. Thats kinda what I was thinking myself. Be awesome to risk the 100 and find out its basically the same but would suck to get stuck with a 100$ piece of crap. Does anyone have any experience with this brand? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guscabana 0 #12 March 30, 2009 I have the Century in front of me and looks pretty much the same, but with 2 differences: -The Opteka has a rigid hood, and even comes with the screwdriver to adjust it after put the lens in the camera. The Century has a crapy soft one, which need to be gaffertaped to not come off. And a crapy lens cap too. -and for 1/3 of the price is a no brainer. If you want a real fish eye, buy it, but remember is big and heavy in an CX100... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beatcreation 0 #13 March 30, 2009 Only reason I'm even considering something other than the raynox is because I was reviewing 5050 vs 3032 comparisons on raynox.com and the 3032 doesn't seem dramatically wider. I have the century .55 and I want something drastically wider than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Waldschrat 0 #14 March 30, 2009 Quote Back to the OP. Opteka is a jobber that buys OEM product and stamps their name on it. Some of it's decent, some of it is not. I haven't jumped their lenses, but am very familiar with their flashes and photoframes. I'll look at their glass at NAB if you'd like. This would be nice. What is NAB? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #15 March 30, 2009 National Association of Broadcasters. NAB show in two weeks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #16 March 31, 2009 I found this on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/Opteka-Baby-Death-0-3x-Fisheye-Lens-25mm-30-5mm-37mm_W0QQitemZ300304215190QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamcorder_Lenses?hash=item300304215190&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72:1234|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318|301:1|293:1|294:50 They even call it the baby death ... /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Waldschrat 0 #17 April 10, 2009 QuoteNational Association of Broadcasters. NAB show in two weeks Hi DSE... Do you have luck at the NAB, with the opteka glass/lenses? Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #18 April 10, 2009 I guess you didn't view the link It begins a week from tomorrow, show floor opening a week from this coming Monday. In other words, it hasn't occurred yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Waldschrat 0 #19 April 10, 2009 sorry, you are right. I think , this was one drink to much, this night.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjuggler 0 #20 April 22, 2009 Any more input with regards to the Opteka Baby Death quality and the century baby death? Is it just a re-brand with a smaller price tab or is it a poorer version? Gustavo, didn't see you last weekend when I visited, but I saw Kuri's century 0.3x on his camera and it looks a nice set up. You think it's too heavy for the CX105 as implied by an earlier post? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainMorgan 0 #21 April 27, 2009 QuoteQuoteNational Association of Broadcasters. NAB show in two weeks Hi DSE... Do you have luck at the NAB, with the opteka glass/lenses? Thanks! Any word on this glass now? Did anyone find out the quality at the NAB?The Captain Makes It Happen.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guscabana 0 #22 April 27, 2009 I was cave diving in Palma de Mallorca last week... The Century is heavier, but better quality than any 0.3. and the cx105 lighter anyway, to compensate As allways is down to personal needs...for me is extra work to have that big chunk of glass which need to take care off all the time, to not scratch it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blink 1 #23 May 10, 2009 Bump. Did anyone happen to get a look at the Opteka 0.3X lense at NAB? Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #24 May 10, 2009 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3552653#3552653 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blink 1 #25 May 10, 2009 Thanks for the reference DSE, although that doesn't say much about the quality comparison, except for speculation. I've attached a comparison I found elsewhere. If you're interested and have lots of time to read, a friend pointed me here: 16 Pages: http://forums.skateperception.com/index.php?showtopic=217875 54 Pages: http://forums.skateperception.com/index.php?showtopic=209966 There's some good information there, don't mind the annoying repetitive posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
