Century Optics 0HD-65CV-SH6 reviews?

Paul Frederick · June 25th, 2007, 06:15 PM

On wednesday I'll have time to post a frame grab of the Century .65 so you can all make up your own minds with an actual image. I hate to change anyones mind with just my report. I may be fussier than others.

Paul Frederick · July 2nd, 2007, 01:33 PM

Here are the stills I promised...a few days late! These are straight 1440x1080 frame grabs. One with the attachment at full wide, one without the attachment at full wide. As you can see, the distortion at full wide with the attachment is pretty severe. Too severe for me.

Paul Frederick · July 2nd, 2007, 01:34 PM

I don't mind the distortion from the bowing of the straight lines. I mind the severe Chromatic Abberation and fuzziness at the sides and corners. I guess that is why Sony only elected to use a .8 WA on it.

Tip McPartland · July 2nd, 2007, 02:01 PM

I shot and ingested (into Cineform Prospect) some footage for a couple of frame grabs and ZAP, my computer died -- it was the power supply. I will try to post a frame or two, it's just a window in my house with the verticals near edge of frame, this at full wide.

I'm not a home to do the frame grabs now, but the computer is fixed and its on the agenda. Just to hint at what is to come, there is very, very little barrel with this converter and pending a closer look no CA that jumped out at me, must be some of course.

I guess you get what you pay for, too bad you have to pay so much for this excellent converter.

Tip

Paul Frederick · July 2nd, 2007, 02:25 PM

Tip,

What did you pay for that if you don't mind my asking? I see it lists for close to $1k!! I'm still in the market for a good wide angle adaptor. I can live with a .75 as long as it doesn't introduce these kinds of severe distortions.

I'll be interested in seeing your frame grabs!

Tip McPartland · July 2nd, 2007, 04:36 PM

Paul,

I think I paid $895, plus, and this really hurts, $235 for the lens hood. Talk about a gouge job on the lens hood. Also for the V1 you need an adapter with deep threads to support the weight of the converter, probably $50 or so, can't recall that. My mind is suppressing the memory of this purchase as too painful!

16x9 sells a 3-element converter that is .7 for much less money, and that one is specifically made for the V1. Check their web site or the Band Pro site. I doubt if it's as good as the 4-element converter, but I have a question.

If you use an adapter on Camera A, and don't need one on Camera B, doesn't that change the relationship between the lens and the converter enough to affect at least zoom through focus?

Tip

Paul Frederick · July 2nd, 2007, 04:49 PM

OUCH!! Man, that is alot of scratch for an accessory! I bought the 1.6 extender for my FX1 and that was close to $1k. Earlier in this thread the Raynox had pretty good focus to the corners (brick wall shot), I can also live without full zoom through so maybe I'll try that route. It's only $200ish too.

I'm not sure I follow your question though? Are you talking the SAME kind of camera? Or are you thinking about different cameras? The zoom through on most non-zoom through lens adaptors (partial zooms) will only work if the camera is on auto focus as it needs to change as the lens is zooming.

Paul Frederick · July 2nd, 2007, 05:38 PM

Actually it wasn't this thread, it was the one on the Raynox that had the still grabs of the brick wall. I stand corrected!

Tip McPartland · July 2nd, 2007, 09:17 PM

Actually, I'm concerned that my converter's adapter ring positions the converter just a bit further forward than if it screwed into the lens itself.

That's because it's not a step-down adapter ring. Instead it fits a bigger add-on accessory that won't srcrew inside the lens' threads. So a male thread on the the adapter screws into the lens, and a bigger female thread protrudes for the converter to attach to.

This is because it's actually made for the Z1 which I guess has a bigger filter size. So wouldn't the converter being 1/8" or so farther forward muck up the geometry between the lens and the converter? Have I confused everyone yet?

Tip

Piotr Wozniacki · July 3rd, 2007, 12:26 PM

Does anyone know of a good lens hood to fit with the Century/Schneider 0.65x converter?

Tip McPartland · July 4th, 2007, 12:50 PM

With computer fixed I've attached a full rez frame (bmp). There's definitely some barrel distortion, but much less than the Century .65, but then this is .75 so it should have less. Seeing it on a big monitor I do see CA which wasn't apparent on the flipout LCD. I'm interested in everyone's thoughts.

Sorry, I'm editing this post to say that I've used the "manage attachements" function to add the frame, but I don't see it as being attached, so sorry if you don't see it either.

Can anybody clue me on how to get this attachment to display, I've uploaded it (twice). Moderator feel free to delete, the file name is Wide Angle Test.bmp.

Tip

Paul Frederick · July 5th, 2007, 10:35 AM

Tip,
Now I know what you mean about the lens being further away from the converter. Not sure I have an answer for you though! I think it would change the focal distance, but as long as you focus manually or automatically, it should still work fine. The lens on the camera will be focusing on a different "plane" 1/8 inch away but it should still be able to focus on it no problem.

Not sure whay we can't see your images. I'm anxious to see them so keep on trying!

Piotr Wozniacki · July 6th, 2007, 04:15 AM

I'm just having the opportunity to test and compare the Century .65x with Sony .8x; my decision on whether to upgrade for the Century depends to a much extent on a lens hood availability for it; any suggestions?

Paul Frederick · July 6th, 2007, 11:28 AM

That was my next step if I was going to keep the lens. I have a lens hood that I got with my Century 1.6 Tele, for my FX1. That also fit the 6.5 Wide Angle Century I got for the FX1.

No such luck fitting this new Century. It's a different size. Much smaller.

I'm curious to see what you think of it compared to the Sony .8x.

Piotr Wozniacki · July 11th, 2007, 03:18 PM

I only got the Century .65x today; I put it on my V1E, and one thing is certain: it really is much wider than the Sony .8x (obvious thing I know, but the difference is striking). And with the barrel distorsion at full wide not so much more visible than with the Sony...

Tomorrow I'll give it a more thorough testing, including full zoom-through comparisons with the Sony converter. If it's no worse, I'll really seriously be after some decent lens hood for it!

Does anyone know of a good lens hood for this adapter? Century does offer the 0VS-CS90-00 Compact Sunshade, but it's not 16:9 in shape...

July 2nd, 2007, 01:33 PM	#17
Paul Frederick Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: WestChazy, NY Posts: 291	Here are the stills I promised...a few days late! These are straight 1440x1080 frame grabs. One with the attachment at full wide, one without the attachment at full wide. As you can see, the distortion at full wide with the attachment is pretty severe. Too severe for me. Attached Thumbnails

July 2nd, 2007, 02:01 PM	#19
Tip McPartland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Crestline, California Posts: 351	16x9 .75 converter I shot and ingested (into Cineform Prospect) some footage for a couple of frame grabs and ZAP, my computer died -- it was the power supply. I will try to post a frame or two, it's just a window in my house with the verticals near edge of frame, this at full wide. I'm not a home to do the frame grabs now, but the computer is fixed and its on the agenda. Just to hint at what is to come, there is very, very little barrel with this converter and pending a closer look no CA that jumped out at me, must be some of course. I guess you get what you pay for, too bad you have to pay so much for this excellent converter. Tip

July 2nd, 2007, 04:36 PM	#21
Tip McPartland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Crestline, California Posts: 351	Financial slaughter Paul, I think I paid $895, plus, and this really hurts, $235 for the lens hood. Talk about a gouge job on the lens hood. Also for the V1 you need an adapter with deep threads to support the weight of the converter, probably $50 or so, can't recall that. My mind is suppressing the memory of this purchase as too painful! 16x9 sells a 3-element converter that is .7 for much less money, and that one is specifically made for the V1. Check their web site or the Band Pro site. I doubt if it's as good as the 4-element converter, but I have a question. If you use an adapter on Camera A, and don't need one on Camera B, doesn't that change the relationship between the lens and the converter enough to affect at least zoom through focus? Tip

July 2nd, 2007, 09:17 PM	#24
Tip McPartland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Crestline, California Posts: 351	Adapter rings... Actually, I'm concerned that my converter's adapter ring positions the converter just a bit further forward than if it screwed into the lens itself. That's because it's not a step-down adapter ring. Instead it fits a bigger add-on accessory that won't srcrew inside the lens' threads. So a male thread on the the adapter screws into the lens, and a bigger female thread protrudes for the converter to attach to. This is because it's actually made for the Z1 which I guess has a bigger filter size. So wouldn't the converter being 1/8" or so farther forward muck up the geometry between the lens and the converter? Have I confused everyone yet? Tip

July 3rd, 2007, 12:26 PM	#25
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Does anyone know of a good lens hood to fit with the Century/Schneider 0.65x converter? __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

June 25th, 2007, 06:15 PM	#16
Paul Frederick Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: WestChazy, NY Posts: 291	On wednesday I'll have time to post a frame grab of the Century .65 so you can all make up your own minds with an actual image. I hate to change anyones mind with just my report. I may be fussier than others.

July 2nd, 2007, 01:34 PM	#18
Paul Frederick Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: WestChazy, NY Posts: 291	I don't mind the distortion from the bowing of the straight lines. I mind the severe Chromatic Abberation and fuzziness at the sides and corners. I guess that is why Sony only elected to use a .8 WA on it.

July 2nd, 2007, 02:25 PM	#20
Paul Frederick Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: WestChazy, NY Posts: 291	Tip, What did you pay for that if you don't mind my asking? I see it lists for close to $1k!! I'm still in the market for a good wide angle adaptor. I can live with a .75 as long as it doesn't introduce these kinds of severe distortions. I'll be interested in seeing your frame grabs!

July 2nd, 2007, 04:49 PM	#22
Paul Frederick Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: WestChazy, NY Posts: 291	OUCH!! Man, that is alot of scratch for an accessory! I bought the 1.6 extender for my FX1 and that was close to $1k. Earlier in this thread the Raynox had pretty good focus to the corners (brick wall shot), I can also live without full zoom through so maybe I'll try that route. It's only $200ish too. I'm not sure I follow your question though? Are you talking the SAME kind of camera? Or are you thinking about different cameras? The zoom through on most non-zoom through lens adaptors (partial zooms) will only work if the camera is on auto focus as it needs to change as the lens is zooming.

July 2nd, 2007, 05:38 PM	#23
Paul Frederick Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: WestChazy, NY Posts: 291	Actually it wasn't this thread, it was the one on the Raynox that had the still grabs of the brick wall. I stand corrected!

July 4th, 2007, 12:50 PM	#26
Tip McPartland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Crestline, California Posts: 351	Frame grab from 16x9 .75 WA converter With computer fixed I've attached a full rez frame (bmp). There's definitely some barrel distortion, but much less than the Century .65, but then this is .75 so it should have less. Seeing it on a big monitor I do see CA which wasn't apparent on the flipout LCD. I'm interested in everyone's thoughts. Sorry, I'm editing this post to say that I've used the "manage attachements" function to add the frame, but I don't see it as being attached, so sorry if you don't see it either. Can anybody clue me on how to get this attachment to display, I've uploaded it (twice). Moderator feel free to delete, the file name is Wide Angle Test.bmp. Tip

July 5th, 2007, 10:35 AM	#27
Paul Frederick Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: WestChazy, NY Posts: 291	Tip, Now I know what you mean about the lens being further away from the converter. Not sure I have an answer for you though! I think it would change the focal distance, but as long as you focus manually or automatically, it should still work fine. The lens on the camera will be focusing on a different "plane" 1/8 inch away but it should still be able to focus on it no problem. Not sure whay we can't see your images. I'm anxious to see them so keep on trying!

July 6th, 2007, 04:15 AM	#28
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	I'm just having the opportunity to test and compare the Century .65x with Sony .8x; my decision on whether to upgrade for the Century depends to a much extent on a lens hood availability for it; any suggestions? __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

July 6th, 2007, 11:28 AM	#29
Paul Frederick Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: WestChazy, NY Posts: 291	That was my next step if I was going to keep the lens. I have a lens hood that I got with my Century 1.6 Tele, for my FX1. That also fit the 6.5 Wide Angle Century I got for the FX1. No such luck fitting this new Century. It's a different size. Much smaller. I'm curious to see what you think of it compared to the Sony .8x.

July 11th, 2007, 03:18 PM	#30
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	I only got the Century .65x today; I put it on my V1E, and one thing is certain: it really is much wider than the Sony .8x (obvious thing I know, but the difference is striking). And with the barrel distorsion at full wide not so much more visible than with the Sony... Tomorrow I'll give it a more thorough testing, including full zoom-through comparisons with the Sony converter. If it's no worse, I'll really seriously be after some decent lens hood for it! Does anyone know of a good lens hood for this adapter? Century does offer the 0VS-CS90-00 Compact Sunshade, but it's not 16:9 in shape... __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive Last edited by Piotr Wozniacki; July 11th, 2007 at 05:01 PM.