Opteka Platinum Series 37mm 0.2X Low-Profile "Ninja" Fisheye Lens?

[Marc84 0]

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.

http://opteka.com/optekaplatinumseries37mm02xlow-profileninjafisheyelensforcamcorders.aspx

[DSE 3]

I haven't seen the Opteka, but betting it vignettes too.
it's a .2 lens on an already wide host.

[Dokeman 0]

I would be very curious to see how this compares to the .2 royal lens

[jtiflyer 0]

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?

[TheCaptain 2]

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.

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[raceface 0]

cannot confirm if it really is HD grade,
but at least Opteka says it should be.
corners/edges are really soft,
but it is zoomable...

my pictures

[jtiflyer 0]

I got a quick reply from opteka which I wasn't expecting. They said it is not a HD lens. Guess I stick with the cookie till I can get a Century .3

[DSE 3]

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.

[TheCaptain 2]

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.

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[cpoxon 0]

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.

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[PharmerPhil 0]

That's not weird at all, that is just marketing. Remember "digital ready?"

[cpoxon 0]

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).

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[DSE 3]

Quote

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 0]

OK, so is the quality noticeably better than an "SD" lens?

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[DSE 3]

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.

[mnskydiver688 0]

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.

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[DSE 3]

Quote

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.

[degeneration 5]

Bringing up an old post rather than starting a new one.

I got the Opteka 0.2 and notice on my cx115 that around the edges the colours are splitting. Is there something that can be done to reduce this (other than buying a new lens), or is it just how its going to be?

Sky Switches - Affordable stills camera tongue switches and conversion adaptors, supporting various brands of camera (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic).

[DSE 3]

That's just how it is with a low-cost lens adapter. Aberration and spherical distortion come with the price.

[degeneration 5]

Cheers, and that sucks!

So, any footage from it is not going to be used for anything commercial, just my own fun and filming 4 way.

But if I were to want to upgrade to a similar FOV lens that doesn't have those effects, what would be the cheapest suitable alternative? Doesn't have to be perfect, just better than the Opteka.

Sky Switches - Affordable stills camera tongue switches and conversion adaptors, supporting various brands of camera (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic).

[Zlew 0]

Do you really need it that wide?

If you need something near fisheye/180 degrees with a decent picture, have you considered one of the action cams? You can probably pick up a gopro white addition for less than the cost of a decent .2x to throw on a CX.

[Zlew 0]

also, when you say filming 4 way, do you mean inside or outside filming?

I know a few guys like the fisheye lens for 4 way, including some of the best in the world, but I'm not sold on them. They can help for some exits, but a lot of guys that shoot that wide end looking so far away that the teams look like ants. On my CXs right now, I usually shoot a .55 century on active stabilization for my primary, and a sony .8 for my backup when i run two. Standard stabilization on the .8 gives it about the same FOV as the .55 with Active.

Edit to add- this just hit me... you might try changing to active stabilization if not already. It zooms the image in a bit, and might help fix your corners... not sure what the overall impact would be, but worth a shot.

[degeneration 5]

Cheers for the reply. I mean outside filming.

Need that wide? No idea on the whole!

Reason I'm asking:

I've gone 2 CX 115's in my set up now. My main one has an Opteka 0.43 lens which is zoomed in a little to remove the heavy distortion and the "black ring" round the outside. While in most cases this is more than enough FOV to capture everything, as I try to get closer and closer to the formation and just in case I have a "distracted moment", my secondary is going to have a wider FOV. Obviously anything wider than a 0.43 would probably do. I went with the opteka 0.2 because of the low profile, which appealed lots, so in my head I've wrongly stuck to the 0.2 rating, when it is really the low profile nature I'm after coupled with wider than the 0.43.

I think I had standard stabilization on for some jumps last year, and on my setting on the 0.43 I did have them going out of my FOV briefly at times.

So any lense wider than a 0.43 and low profile.

I changed to a second CX from an actioncam because I just wanted something a bit more pro looking! And the cost of my second CX and the opteka 0.2 lens was less than what I sold the action cam for, so the money return was appealing. COuld come back to bite me now...

Sky Switches - Affordable stills camera tongue switches and conversion adaptors, supporting various brands of camera (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic).

[dragon2 0]

As a rule of thumb, low profile = lowish quality lens. Not entirely true as there are a couple of good low profile lenses, but those cost $$$$. Why the need for low profile? I use a Raynox pro hd30-series lens on my CX105 for both tandem and FS4, very good lens for both and for a very good price too. There's a list somewhere of good skydiving lenses, should be in theis forum somewhere...

BTW the numbers on lenses from different manufacturers do not match, ie I used to have a sony .6 that was wider than the raynox .3 on the same camera. If you have to add a conversion ring the angle changes a bit too. If you use different cameras the difference can be quite big.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[degeneration 5]

There is no definite NEED for low profile, just what I would prefer. In my head I'm concluding that smaller = less possibility of something going wrong (in the interfering with my rig/lines sort of way).

The 0.2 Opteka certainly seems like a cheap piece of crap at the moment, as it is notably worse in terms of clarity and quality than my other Opteka, the 0.43.

I've seen a raynox semi fisheye hd3030 on ebay - that the sort of one you are meaning?

What about the Waycool low profile lenses? In one UK DZ online shop, each colour is £175 ish - so not cheap. Is the red one any good?

Sky Switches - Affordable stills camera tongue switches and conversion adaptors, supporting various brands of camera (Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic).