Z1U wide angle: 16x9Inc or Century Optics?

[Tom Hardwick]

Carlos - it looks to me as if RedEye have come up with a new design of lens. They say:

''The Red Eye FX uses a high grade glass with low dispersion qualities, reduced barrel distortion, improved resolution, AR coatings and contrast.''

Now this is interesting, as the 58mm 0.7x and 0.5x RedEye's I tested on a VX2000 were very disappointing in the barrel distortion stakes. They were aspherical high pressure injection mouldings, so the move to glass and hopefully a more complex aspherical surface may well have put these lenses in a different league.

But showing pictures taken into the corner of a room like that is the way to disguise barrel distortion, as any straight line passing through the centre of the frame will be undistorted however poor the correction. I'd very much like to see and test the new 0.5x on my Z1, and put it up against the Bolex Aspheron.

tom

[Carlos E. Martinez]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Now this is interesting, as the 58mm 0.7x and 0.5x RedEye's I tested on a VX2000 were very disappointing in the barrel distortion stakes. They were aspherical high pressure injection mouldings, so the move to glass and hopefully a more complex aspherical surface may well have put these lenses in a different league.

But showing pictures taken into the corner of a room like that is the way to disguise barrel distortion, as any straight line passing through the centre of the frame will be undistorted however poor the correction. I'd very much like to see and test the new 0.5x on my Z1, and put it up against the Bolex Aspheron.

Yes, that comparison with Aspheron lenses might be great. Pity the Bolex (Switar?) are so expensive and difficult to find.

I supposed the RedEyes were glass, not plastic.

[Tom Hardwick]

Nothing wrong with plastic lenses. Their refractive index will never match glass, but all this means is that generally plastic lenses are thicker and lighter, that's all. Once the hugely expensive injection moulding tool has been beautifully polished, the aspheric elements pop out quite cheaply.

I've met many who refuse to believe that they already shoot through plastic aspherical lenses in the 12 to 15 element line-up inside a modern camcorder's zoom. As far as aspherical surfaces go, glass is exorbitantly expensive. It may well be less prone to scratching than plastic (though the multi-coating won't be) but deep inside a multi-element zoom that's not a problem in the slightest.

tom.

[Myles Williams]

Ken Jan of CTL in Silver Spring who does my editing, thinks so yes. They do offer one that has limited zoom capabilities, but is 10% wider and THAT is what I will use for all my wide shots from now on.

Myles

[Carlos E. Martinez]

Originally Posted by Myles Williams

They do offer one that has limited zoom capabilities, but is 10% wider

Limited zoom capability, after enduring it with my Century 0.6X, is not something I quite like to live with.

[Myles Williams]

thats why I like the Century i have, ,as it has full capabilities. But sometimes , for example when I shot this small piece for Speedtv.com I needed more.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...bctid909937486


Myles

[Myles Williams]

When I shot this I was jammed in the ceiling ( i aM 6.3) and couldnto get back enough to get a wider view of her. I really needed my old HC3 for this one.

Myles

[Bankim Jain]

J11 someones knows about it ,... does the century .6x zoom thru thing gives similar effect when panning or tilting etc @ widest end................................................................................................. ..........

[Greg Patch]

I have the Century .7x and I love it. It does make the camera nose heavy but its worth the extra weight...

[Carlos E. Martinez]

Originally Posted by Greg Patch

I have the Century .7x and I love it. It does make the camera nose heavy but its worth the extra weight...

Its diameter is also larger than the .6x. It won't fit my matte-box.