Wide Angle Adaptor for XH A1?

[Mark Finch]

Hello everyone.

I'm having difficulty deciding whether to go for the Century (0.8x VS08CV72) or Canon (0.75x WD-H72) wide angle lens for the A1. The Century has a more universal front filter size, but costs more. The Canon comes with a lens hood (the Century one doesn't as far as I can tell) but does not have a thread for a front filter. A matte box is not a consideration at present as it will be quite awhile before I can afford one!

Does anyone have any experience with either or both of these lenses? Is Century better quality or should I stick with 'manufacturer's own'?

[Bill Pryor]

Have you got the camera yet to see if you really need the wide angle adapter? The lens itself is ususually wide.

I have a Canon .7X I bought a few years ago for a DSR250. It was cheap, and it has quite a bit of distortion when there are strong vertical lines near the edges. The only times I have used it are usually in a car, shooting a driver, so the distortion isn't too noticeable. If it's something you need to use a lot, you'd be better off to spend more money on a better one. Just my opinion.

[Mark Finch]

I have checked the lens already on the camcorder - fantastic, for both wide and telephoto (in my newbie opinion). I guess I just want to be prepared, in case I am in the situation where I will need the lens to go wider (like shooting in a car for example). So do you think it's worth the little bit extra for the Century?

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Mark Finch

I have checked the lens already on the camcorder - fantastic, for both wide and telephoto (in my newbie opinion). I guess I just want to be prepared, in case I am in the situation where I will need the lens to go wider (like shooting in a car for example). So do you think it's worth the little bit extra for the Century?

Mark, please clarify which wa have you actually checked? I'm after a good one myself!
What is the Century's weight and performance (barrel distorsion, color fringing, is it fully zoom-through)?

[Bill Pryor]

I think the lens on the XH A1 is wide enough for anything I'd do in a car. What I'd recommend if you just want the adapter to have one for the really unusual situation is buy the cheaper Canon. You can pay a lot more for the Century which gives you zoom-through and probably a little less edge distortion, but in my opinion it's not really worth it.

[Steve Wolla]

I have the Canon, and it's very nice. Its only real negative is that it isn't threaded for using filters. In terms of sharpness, etc. it's very good.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I have a couple Century lenses for my Z1 and they're very nice. They don't have filter threads, but Century has a relatively inexpensive lens shade/filter holder which clamps on to the outside of the lens. This is the Sony version, but it may also work on the Canon lens because I think they just provide different adaptors for the basic lens. I have one of these and it's very nice. Similar to a mattebox but the filter holder doesn't rotate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

This item wasn't on their website the last time I looked. When I got my lenses they had a promotional flyer enclosed in the box offering a discount on the filter holder which brought the price under $100. Give Century a call or send e-mail to see if it's compatible with their Canon lenses and if there is still a discount.

[Mark Finch]

When I said I had already checked the lens on the camcorder, I meant the built in Canon 20x lens. Sorry if I didn't make that clear!

Is the Canon WD-H72 zoom through? I might go for that one if it is, simply because it's cheaper and the general consensus seems to be that it works just as well as the Century (and it comes with its own shade - unlike the Century where you have to buy one seperately for an extra $120, or get a matte box, and I just can't afford either at the moment).

Also, has anyone here had any experience with Digital Optics lenses? They do wide angle lenses too.

[Tom Hardwick]

Unlike Bill, I feel the XH -A1's lens is pretty so-so at the wide end, being the equivalent of 32.5 mm. Nobody ever calls that wide in still terms, so I feel a 0.5x converter would be much more useful, and especially so when in the confines of a motor car.

And don't go thinking that wide-angle converters are threaded 'for filters'. When you're working at focal lengths as minute as 2.5 mm, filters are often going to degrade the image more than they're going to help. The threads are there invariably for hoods, and with widies hoods are good, very good.

The Century 0.65x I had for my VX2k was beautifully made, exceedingly sharp, very expensive and wonderfully coated. But my Raynox 6600PRO gave me far less barrel distortion at one third the price, so if avoiding the bends is important to you, beware of zoom throughs that use spherical elements in their construction.

There's no substitute for the adage 'suck it and see'.

tom.

[Mark Finch]

Not having had much experience with additional lenses, what with being a bit new to this (ok, I haven't had ANY experience with wide angle lenses - I'm just learning what I can from forums such as this), would anyone be able to recommend a 'wider' wide angle lens other than the Century and Canon as discussed above (preferably something that isn't going to take a great chunk out of my bank balance, or give my wife an excuse to leave me).

On a side note, I have ordered a Raynox HDP-9000EX High Definition Telephoto conversion Lens 1.8X, which is supposed to be very nice, and a Raynox HD-FXR180 High Vision 180-degree (diagonal) Fish-Eye Conversion Lens (which was designed for the Sony HD cams such as the Z1 but is apparently compatible with all 72mm mount threads) - apparently Raynox are the oft over-looked but good quality lens manufacturers. Has anyone had any experience with Raynox, or indeed the two lenses I have just mentioned?

[Steve Wolla]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Unlike Bill, I feel the XH -A1's lens is pretty so-so at the wide end, being the equivalent of 32.5 mm. Nobody ever calls that wide in still terms, so I feel a 0.5x converter would be much more useful, and especially so when in the confines of a motor car.

And don't go thinking that wide-angle converters are threaded 'for filters'. When you're working at focal lengths as minute as 2.5 mm, filters are often going to degrade the image more than they're going to help. The threads are there invariably for hoods, and with widies hoods are good, very good.

The Century 0.65x I had for my VX2k was beautifully made, exceedingly sharp, very expensive and wonderfully coated. But my Raynox 6600PRO gave me far less barrel distortion at one third the price, so if avoiding the bends is important to you, beware of zoom throughs that use spherical elements in their construction.

There's no substitute for the adage 'suck it and see'.

tom.

Just curious Tom, but how would filter use degrade image quality? Filters for wides are used constantly in still photography, and I have not seen a case where image quality was worse for using a filter. But I am not claiming to know everything here.

I have however, seen several cases where a once-good lens has been converted to scrap because of cleaning marks from cleaning an unprotected lens with the best of care over time have caused all kinds of undesireable effects. I have also had lenses saved by filters taking the brunt of an impact (while back packing) and from objects striking the filter instead of my expensive lens (while filming a road bike race).

The real risk to image quality is not in using filters but in damage to the lens from not using one, that may not be realaized until after a critical shoot (as can happen if you are not careful with cleaning mark). Then you have a real problem.

I somehow failed to check the Canon wide for threads before purchasing it. Would I have bought it anyways had I known? That would depend on the cost diff between the Canon and the Century, which I believe is threaded.

[Tom Hardwick]

Filters are used for wideangle lenses in still photography, sure. But a wide lens on a 6 x 6 camera is 50 mm and a wide lens on a 35 mm camera is 28 mm (say). A wide lens on a PDX10 (to take an example) is 2.5 mm.

See the difference? Space your fingertips just 2.5 mm apart and see how minute such a focal length is. And when you're shooting at such focal lengths it very difficult indeed to avoid imperfections (dust and fingerprints that are all but invisible to the naked eye) from being within the depth of field and appearing pretty sharply on your image.

You've all seen the wide shot against the light spoilt by dirty filters. Hooding a widie is difficult at the best of times and these imperfections I'm talking about are painfully obvious. Another point - adding but one filter adds two reflecting (and maybe dusty) surfaces.

Modern multicoatings are really hard these days and it takes a halfwit to scratch the front element by scrubbing. I have a super multi-coated Hoya and an uncoated Tiffen, both UVs. In 10 seconds flat I can show any one of you out there the degradation caused by using an uncoated filter, and you'd never use an uncoated filter ever again. And the shorter the focal length, the easier it is to show the flare.

Of course there are times when a clear UV is good mechanical insurance protection Steve. Sticky-fingered children's parties, wind-swept beaches and so on. But when you don't need the protection, don't use them. If Canon, Sony and Panasonic thought that adding another element to the line-up of 15 would give you better pictures, you can bet the camera would come with one.

tom.

[Neil McLean]

I called Schneider Optics in California after being refered to them by their colleagues on the east coast.

When I asked about HD adapters and convertors for the Canon XH-A1, I was informed the following will be released in 45 to 60 days.

x.6 w/a adapter (partial-zoom)
x.7 w/a converter (full-zoom)
x.8 w/a converter (full-zoom)
x.3 fisheye
x.4 or x.45 fisheye (couldn't confirm at the time)

[Barry Richard]

do you know if the .7 use the bayonet mount ??

[Neil McLean]

Originally Posted by Barry Richard

do you know if the .7 use the bayonet mount ??

Barry,

the woman I talked to (on #107) told me all their heavier duty converters etc were bayonet mount so they don't strip some of the plastic threaded camera inserts.