Sony or Century Optics lens extender
 

Have any of you used either the sony or century optics lens adapters. The century optics is 2x, the sony is 1.7, The sony is less money but is the quality as good. $400 for the century optics doubler seems pricey, the sony is $250. Do either of these produce vignetting? Any experiences with either of theses lenses would be appreciated.

No advice for you other than to say I'd put my faith in any glass made by Century over Sony. Just wanted to say hi. I grew up in St. George during the eighties. I went to Dixie High.

Hi Rob,

I haven't used the Sony, but I do own the Century 2x which I use for my GL1. The lens is good (just because of distance). Image quality is just par at full zoom( a bit soft). (Mid to Mid High zoom has good image quality). There's definately few goods sides as well as a few down sides...

Good sides:

1. You can zoom very far! total of 40x!!! Wow!
2. very portable/light weight with amount of distance you get..
3. I can still zoom with a remote.(personal preference.)(as opposed to
xl1+film lens, where you cannot use remote zoom feature)
4. easy twist on twist off design.. opposed to a screw on style... turn ... turn ..turn.. turn.. etc...

Bad sides:

1. Very noticeable Purple fringing in light areas.. (highlights especially)
I haven't tried using a polarizer filter, but it can help.
2. Noticable Softness at full zoom.. It is NOT as sharp... Almost as if your
shooting through a clean glass window... Not the same....

3. Venetting at full wide to mid wide. Unusable range unless you're going for a "007" look.

Conclusion: Do I think $400 buck is worth it? Yes!
Because Gl1+2x Century is the best bang for your buck when it comes down to price/quality/distance. This is a bargain..

Hope this helps...

-John

I use the Century for wildlife work and I would have to take the Glass over plastic any day. Not supersharp at max zoom, but acceptable for me.
And sucks in a lot of light, enough to use it almost right up to last light.
Bayonet mount also means quick fitting, although you have to remove any filters on the main lens first.

Is the sony lens made of plastic? Marco what year did you graduate? Thanks guys.

I was the class of '87. I went to Dixie high, but moved to San Francisco during my junior year. That was before they tore up the Black Hill to build all those houses. Real sad that. It used to be beautiful. Hope they don't ruin the Red Hill too.

Has anyone used the sony adapter? Marco, I was class of 89 but I went to PineView.

Ah, Pine View. I remember when they opened that school. It completely split the community in half. I guess there are other high schools now, but until then there was only one. It was a really big deal.

Rob,

I have been using the Sony 1.7X adapter for four years now, and I am very pleased with it.

Here in the UK, it is a lot cheaper than the Century lens.

Yes, it vignettes badly if you zoom out; but then why use an extender if you do not want maximum focal length?

Yes, the image is a shade softer - but I have only noticed this since I upgraded my TV from a twelve year old 17" CRT to a new Philips 23" widescreen LCD - but then the image quality is vastly superior to that if you use digital zoom to achieve the same image.

I use my camera exclusively for wildlife photography - principally birds - and always try to use a tripod. The image stabilisation does not work well with the extender fitted. Having said that, I have got excellent results with the camera hand-held following birds in flight

Thanks Allen.

The Sony is glass, not plastic. And, it is quality glass, as with their wide angle lens. The big benefit of the Century is the bayonet vs screw on. Is it worth the price difference? Up to you.

Wayne Orr, SOC