I own a Century WA. If you're not shooting a Beastie Boys video or something avant-garde...it's an ideal paperweight.

The Canon is a monster. It’s a badass monster that was designed specifically to produce the best and widest possible image for the camera in question…which they make…in addition to the highest quality lenses in the world. How can there even be a debate?

Anything that you put in front of a canon lens that ISN'T a canon lens will not produce the best possible image. That's not a prediction, that’s a fact of life.

If someone can prove this wrong I'd be glad to know.

Fact:

I had a brand new 0.6x WA adapter from Century Optics that is sold as being HD compatible.

I had a 4 year old version of the same lens that was designed for the XL1...not HD.

Placed both of them on my H1 and could tell no difference. Both softened the image some and under the right/wrong cirmcumstances significantly softened the edges. If there was any difference it was not apparent at all.

I called CO and asked and was told that it is optically the same glass. The mount has been re-tooled for the newer HD cameras.

Take it for what it is worth.

I sent back the new CO .6x and got a refund ( only had it for a week) and I bought a used one off of ebay for $100.

Also, since it is a bayonet mount you cannot use the Canon lens hood so you will need something to use to block peripheral light....the .6x flares to high heaven if you don't.


The 0.8x Century looked so much better....but was not as wide.

get the Canon glass, the WD-H72 is worth it

get the Canon glass, the WD-H72 is worth it

They are all worth it. The fact that the Canon is in the same price range is shocking though!

The Canon WD would be a bargain at $1000. It's that good.

FYI...

I purchased my Canon WD lens for $400 at Samys Camera with the "Educator/Teacher" discount (from $499). You do have to ask for the "Government/Industrial Sales" department...

PS: The purchase was a "no-brainer". BTW, did I mentioned how good that lens looks? ; )

Just a couple of questions..

Whats the closest focal point I can get with the A1? With tehDVX and HVX, i can literally be 5cm from the subject, so macro is awesome.. in fact its one of the main reasons i use these cameras..

BUT to the point.. just wondering if anyone is using the adapter with the A1... ?
Its the official Wide Converter WD-H72 wide angle adapter... I remember Chris Hurd put up a post/thread with some still frames taken of a white building.. i cant find that post now.. :(
I was wondeirng if it distorted the image at all? Also, with the adapter attached, what would be the 35mm equivalent in focal width? I know without it, i beleive the A1s widest focal length as about 35mm, but im wondering if there is any lux or resolution loss by using this. As i shot events, im usualy either in tight confined spaces (bedrooms with 3 or 4 subjects.. no its not porn..) other times, i have the cam on a mono pod and hoist it up about 15ft... so a wide lens is always handy..

does anyone have wide shots i can take a look at? Maybe a coparison of DVX/HVX width vs A1 width?? That would be nice...

oops forgot to ask... does the adapter mess with the lens hood or do i need to get a mattebox.. any one have a pic of their setup?

Normal lens 35mm equivalent = 32.5mm - 650mm.
The WD-H72 wide angle converter will give you a 26mm.

I can't remember how close you can get for macro work, as it's been a while since I used the stock lens in that capacity.
For macro work I currently mount a Zeiss 60mm S-Planar Macro lens which gives me a 1:1 magnification.

thx for that info :)

Peter, I'm really happy with the Canon WA.
In extreme wide situations, there's a bit of distortion but up close it's great.
I'll just upload some stills from my current timelines, macros and wides, and you can judge.

different focal lengths with the wide angle. hdv to dv.

You can get up even closer.. if you dare.
I just leave the WA attached all of the time and use only the supplied hood.

Eric,
Now you have made me thirsty.
Come on 5 o-clock!

ok possible dumb question - but judging by the shape of the lens, does it sit tucked almost flush with the A1 hood mount's front end?

And beautiful pics btw

trish

ok possible dumb question - but judging by the shape of the lens, does it sit tucked almost flush with the A1 hood mount's front end?

And beautiful pics btw

trish

Thanks Trish. Here's some pic's that another user posted of the A1 with the WA attached

http://www.io.com/~smg/xha1/0195_WA_SideMounted.jpg
http://www.io.com/~smg/xha1/0169_WA_QuickFocusObstruction.jpg

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78929]

OhhoOOhh i have a dumb question too! Does it disable the auto foucus? looks liek its blocking the sensor? =D

The I-AF sensor is blocked so you have to switch to normal through the lens focusing.

Paul.

I could use some advice. I'm considering getting the WD-H72 wide angle lens. I like to use a polarizing filter since I film a lot of waterfalls, but I don't see a way to do this without getting a matte box. I had looked at Cinetastics, but couldn't decide on what might work. I was really wondering if a a 4x4" filter would be big enough to not block the lens if mounted with a filter holder? Does anyone have a recommendation of what they would use?

I have been wondering if it is worth the trade-off to gain the wide-angle at the loss of the polarizer if there is no good solution. I would appreciate any opinions.

The Canon wide angle would need a 109mm opening for the matte box. I cannot do it now, but see if Century makes a filter holder for that size.

If not, you may have to consider another brand (like Century) of wide angle that has a size that is compatible with a Century or other filter holder. They are about $125, I believe.

Steve, I appreciate your reply. It helped.

I really discourages me that so many people could have looked at this thread but yet not be willing to even throw out an opinion.

i have the canon wd-72. i love the lense but i am very wary about using it because i cannot place a filter in front of it without buying a matte box. i had seen one a few days ago that said that it was compatible with the wd-72. ill see if i cant find it again and get back to you.

**edit** http://www.cinetactics.com/Detail.bok?no=15
here is a link for one that the manufacturer claims will work with the wd-72. it is cheap enough so i think that i may pick it up and see.

I had looked at that one, but just wasn't sure. If you decide to buy one, please let me know what you think of it. I really liked that it was collapsible to fit in bags.

Steve, I appreciate your reply. It helped.

I really discourages me that so many people could have looked at this thread but yet not be willing to even throw out an opinion.

Consider that some viewers might have a similar question and are looking for an answer themselves. There are several good threads already on the merits of the WD-H72 that could inform your decision, so you might try the search.

As far as a trade-off between wide angle vs. polarizer, your shooting needs and priorities could answer that. Isn't there a screw-on filter out there that you could mount the adapter to? Haven't tried this myself, but I may.

Chrisopher, i hear ya but there there are not too many options for this.
The WD-72 is the ideal choice and is worth having for other applications.
for this specific application, you will need a giant polarizer and box with the WD-72. it will be a front-heavy monster that i ceratinly would not be dragging around al fresco.

You can also buy a lesser brand WA with front threads and matching polarizer, which may slightly besmirch your image. Search around here and you will see the ones that were discussed.

with the gl2, i used the canon WA and put the polarizer on before the WA with great results. with an xl1-s, the WA 3x lens had front threads..so, my ass is a little chapped over this too.

on the upside, the A1 is pretty damn wide. for such shots that would need
a polarizer, i've just shot without a WA and did just fine.

Eric, the added weight of the matte box and filter is something I hadn't considered in addition to the wd-h72 weight. That might add up to enough to make roaming around falls and rocks for different angles a bit tough.

I had wondered about attaching a polarizer, then the wd-h72, but I wasn't sure how sturdy that would be since the filter rotates. I also wasn't sure about how mounting the wd-h72 to a filter would affect it's use. From what you said, it sounds like you had good results with that.

i do that with a gl2, not an a1. the a1 wd mount is different.

i'm saying.. i think there are some third party lightweight WA's for the A1 with front threads. i don't own any, but some people on here do.

you'd probably have to do something like this

http://www.schneideroptics.com/century/dv/xh-g1/xh-g1.htm
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/474572-REG/Schneider_68013002_102_mm_Circular_True_Polarizing.html

but, i'd really just try shooting some waterfalls without a WA first. trust me, that stock lens is pretty wide, crisp, and 72mm polarizers are easy to come by.

I have the Century .8x and it's awesome. Small and lighter than the Canon, and shows minimal barrel distortion (considering the A1's built-in lens already distorts a lot).

It has an 86mm front thread. With all wide angle lenses, you run the risk of vignetting when putting a polarizer on the front. I tried a standard polarizer on my Century and saw a slight vignette. So I returned the polarizer and am contemplating purchasing a slim polarizer designed for wide angle lenses.

Hope this helps. I've struggled with the wide angle / polarizer set up myself. Other alternative is to spring for a matte box and polarizer, which, although expensive, could be used with future cameras.

Had a Vitacon 0.5X WA attached with the Macro lens. Well, the macro lens is pretty good, very shallow DOF. However the WA is giving me lots of Vignetting. Zoom out to remove it is ineffective and as I might as well use the fixed lens.
Anyone can recommend any 0.7X or 0.5X WA for the A1 without any vignetting? Good price preferably. Thanks. :)

Folks report good results with the Canon WD-H72.

However, are you proposing to stack adapters?

Kenny,

Schneider/Century Optics has the following available

0HD-06WA-XLH .6X WIDE ANGLE ADAPT HD CANON
http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1385&IID=6219

0VS-08CV-72 .8X HD W/A CONVERTER 72MM
http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1075&IID=2974

Have always heard great responses on their products.

Scott Cantrell
TapeWorks Texas Inc - HDVinfo Sponser

I have this .6x from Century. It works very well:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1385&IID=6219

It is the same as the one sold before by Century, but it has differences in the mounting mechanisms for the XH camera.

It is also fairly lightweight.

(This is the first one listed in the post above.)

The .6x from Century is also not a zoom through W.A lens. only the higher priced ones are.

For $399 the Canon WD-H72. is the best in it's class. It is also a zoom through and it comes with a sun shade too.

I have this .6x from Century. It works very well:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1385&IID=6219

It is the same as the one sold before by Century, but it has differences in the mounting mechanisms for the XH camera.

It is also fairly lightweight.

(This is the first one listed in the post above.)

May I know how heavy is it? I'm using it with Merlin so weight is pretty important I guess. Does it need any step up/down rings to be mounted onto the A1 and is there any vignetting when zoom out? Thanks.

Folks report good results with the Canon WD-H72.

However, are you proposing to stack adapters?

I only had a UV filter attached to my camera lens.

how about fish eyes lens? Any recommendation?

May I know how heavy is it? I'm using it with Merlin so weight is pretty important I guess. Does it need any step up/down rings to be mounted onto the A1 and is there any vignetting when zoom out? Thanks.

The Century .6x wide angle weighs 8.9 ounces.

It attaches to the camera securely using the built-in bayonet mount of the camera. There is no step ring involved. It works very well. It attaches directly to the lens and does not allow a filter between the wide-angle and the camera lens.

I see absolutely no vignetting. To make sure, though, you can call Century and speak to them. They will tell you if there is any vignetting or not. I don't see any. Here is the contact info for Century:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/contact/contact.htm
(Van Nuys is the office I have called in the past. Before I bought the converter, I went into the office and they setup the .6x on their XH-A1 to show me what it looked like.)

The Century .6x is a converter (not an adapter), so it is generally not zoom through. However, on the XH cameras, if you set the camera to regular autofocus this converter _is_ zoom through for the first half of the zoom range. This makes this adapter good on the Merlin with the XH camera, which the cameras excellent autofocus.

I bought this to use on the Merlin. The combined weight with the XH-A1, small battery, tape, built-in mic mount (but no extra mic) and the Century .6x is 5 lbs. 9.1 oz.

I don't think you'll find anything better in this amount of magnification for the XH-A1.

This is the same glass as used on the .6x Century sold for previous Canon cameras. The older version will fit on the XH-A1, but not securely and Century doesn't recommend using the older one without sending it in and having the mounting changed. They said they can do this, but I don't know how much they would charge. The point is, you may be able to save money by finding the older version. You can call Century about this. They have always been straight forward in giving out accurate information about their products, not just sales spin.)

If you're interested.
One of the Dutch XH-A1 users send me an email a few weeks ago.
He just got a Canon Wide Angle Lens and told me about his experience with it.
He made some photo's of the lens and also made two photo's of his garden with the A1. It gives an impression of what you can film with and without the lens.

Here you can find the article: http://www.xha1.nl/?p=159

(Credits to Henk for all the photo's he made)

Well, after spending a week with my new A1 I definitely love it...Now I am looking for wide angle adapter / lens...

Any product suggestions ?

Thanks

SC

I'd probably go for the Canon.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/464579-REG/Canon_1724B001_WD_H72_72mm_0_75x_Wide.html

Steve,

I have the 0.75X Wide Converter for HDV Model #HDV75X82 made by 16X9 and think it's very good. Tried some less expensive ones and was not happy. The only downside was the cost. Think it was around $900 US. And by the way you need a new sunshade, that will set you back around $180. (Model # HU-104.) Oh and maybe a filter. It takes the 105mm thin filter and B&W makes some nice ones. I think the UV was about $140 and the polarizer was about $400, give or take a hundred.
You can find them for a lot less but depending on if you want focus through and can live with the distortion at the edges, but this is one area where you really get what you pay for. Good Luck!

I've read some posts suggesting you don't need a wide angle with the HX-A1. I currently have the Canon GL-2 with the wide angle. Do you know if the HX-A1 without a wide angle has as much coverage as the GL-2 with a wide angle?

Some discussions on it here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=138

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=103732&highlight=WD-72

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=105296&highlight=wide+angle

I use the WD-72 and it is a great wide-angle, but kinda big; if you can stand how front-heavy it makes your camera it is worth the money. I hate shooting tight without it.

I've read some posts suggesting you don't need a wide angle with the HX-A1. I currently have the Canon GL-2 with the wide angle. Do you know if the HX-A1 without a wide angle has as much coverage as the GL-2 with a wide angle?

If memory serves me the stock XH-A1 not quite as wide as GL2 with WD-58, which I used to use as well. Once I put it on I almost never took it off.

you'll get a bit wider horizontal and a lot more vertical with the canon wa.
it's very good.

I got the Canon, it's kind of spoiled me. Great sharp lens that when mounted to the A1 doubles as a great workout. Yeah, it's heavy--but so very good.

So, I'm tempted to purchase this ridiculously cheap wide angle adapter:
http://www.bestlaptopbattery.com/b.cfm/Camcorder/CANON/XH-A1/-45XWide-.htm

Obviously, it's going to be of very low quality...but given that I'd be using it to shoot a few POV "dream sequences," I might be able to live with/pass off the distorted image as being stylistic...and because it's soooo damn cheap it couldn't hurt giving it a try. If I like the angle but not the quality I can always rent or buy a nicer lens.

But what exactly should I expect from a low quality/cost lens like this other than barrel distortion and maybe some vignetting on full wide?

Even at a "great price," if the thing is junk, it is very EXPENSIVE junk--as it appears to be.

But it has PROFESSIONAL written on the box--and the word TITANIUM! It must be good!

But what exactly should I expect from a low quality/cost lens like this other than barrel distortion and maybe some vignetting on full wide?
LOTS of chroma aberration. And that can't be passed off as "stylistic" as hard as you may try.

Travis, if I were you, I'd put that $40 in my gas tank instead.

You get what you pay for in this business.