HD lens for CX100

[baronn 111]

Ok. I have a Century .55 lense for my CX100. I'm being told by someone at my DZ that this is not an HD lense and my camera will not record in HD because of this. I called B&H and they tell me this will not effect the recording of HD and it is more or less the lense of choice for this setup. Makes sense to me. Anyone got any input? DSE help please!

[Hellis 0]

Think of it as if your googles where dirty.
Your eyes will still work the same but it wont look the same.
Your camera will record in HD, but there will be "dirt in front".

I bet DSE can fill in with all the tecnical aspects of it.
Try and borrow your friends lens and video something with close distance and compare it with your lens.
Only you can decide if its worth the money

[Zlew 0]

I think this is one of those questions that might turn into a really interesting reply. There are lots of misconceptions, buzz words, and general "fuzzyness" about the "HD Lens" concept.

Forget that we are talking about video, and just think in terms of cameras. If you buy the top of the line pro camera that has the biggest, highest resolution sensor out there it will take amazing pictures IF you do your part and IF the lens you put on it is capable of letting all of those beautiful dots of color be recorded sharply and accurately. Take that wiz bang camera, and put a piece of $hit lens on it that isn't capable of being as sharp as the camera can record...and you get poor photos.

The camera is trying to record whatever you project onto the sensor, but if the weak link is the lens, it can only record as sharp as the lens is.

For Video, if you put a lens on that is not capable of letting the camera record in it's full HD glory (can be a resolution issue, a vignette issue, a lens designed for a 4:3 camera instead of widescreen etc, you will get video that is sub par compared to what it could be or what you paid for with your HD camera.

IMO, there is no "HD Lens". there are just lenses that allow you to get more out of your HD camera than others. HD Lens seems to be the buzzword (just like HD laser eye surgery)

I can tell you that when I put the sony conversion lens on my cx150 when I first got it, it looked like shit. It was a .6x conversion lens designed for my old PC5 (mini dv, 4:3). It wasn't sharp, big time vignette and in general looked bad. The "HD" lens I have on it looks amazing.

[billvon 2,384]

>I'm being told by someone at my DZ that this is not an HD lense and
>my camera will not record in HD . . .

It will record in HD. It just may be pointless to use HD because of the quality of the lens. Might as well use SD and save money on the cards.

It's like jumping a Velocity 79 with a 26" noncollapsible pilot chute. Is it still a high performance parachute? Yes. Will it fly like one? No.

[pilotdave 0]

It may not have the highest possible resolution, but it's a fine lens. What are you filming that requires the highest possible quality? It's tiny and much higher quality than a royal/waycool/cookie/etc. You won't likely notice any degradation.

Dave

[Zlew 0]

Most places sell that lens as a "hd lens", and it is what I currently have on my camera. It is fantastic, and I highly recommend it. Very small and low profile, super sharp and a great all around lens.

It is non "zoomable", but that isn't an issue for me. I think the OP would be very happy with this lens.

[Fast 0]

Quote

It may not have the highest possible resolution, but it's a fine lens. What are you filming that requires the highest possible quality? It's tiny and much higher quality than a royal/waycool/cookie/etc. You won't likely notice any degradation.

Dave

Yeah I agree with this. You can search and find a whole bunch of info on it here too cause it's been talked about over and over. It's the smallest/highest resolution lens that we would really want to use for skydiving as far as I recall. It's what I have on my camera and so do many people at my DZ.

It doesn't resolve fully to HD, but none of the low profile lenses do. Your only other option is to get a larger multi element lens. That might have changed since I last had to look into buying something but I don't think so.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[Laszloimage 0]

I have one of those cheper HD lenses from ebay.
I compered with my Raynox 5050 using a newspaper as an image. The cheap .45 lens not as wide as the .5 Raynox. The image taken with the cheap lens is inferior compare to the Raynox. Raynox showed a very slight softening towards the edges but gave a descent picture, while the cheap lens had a some sharp image in the center and the rest of the picture was very soft.
So yes HD video requires descent lensens in order to capture true "HD details" not only "HD sized video files"

[johnmatrix 21]

Quote

The "HD" lens I have on it looks amazing.

Which lens is that?
Also (sorry to piggyback!) what's a good HD lens with the least fisheye effect?

[DSE 3]

Somewhere in the hundreds of posts on lenses I posted shots of a rez chart with all the various "choice" lenses.
Bottom line is this:
the .55 is a very good lens, capable of letting your camera resolve over 600 lines. It's clean, it works great. It's 3X what the Diamond or Cookie lenses resolve. Is it 1080 clean? No. For 150.00...nothing is going to be.
It is by standard, capable of resolving full resolution for 720p, and it's JUST FINE for HD (and SD) work. No, it's not full rez. Who cares?
B&H is right.