There used to be a red eye sample on this thread post 30:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=red+eye+wide

but the link doesn't work. I was thinking about getting the red eye until I saw the sample. Looked pretty average to me, lots of distortion and soft edges. If you can afford it the Aspheron is the one you want. Fairly light weight, but needs a custom step ring (attached image).

http://www.bolex.ch/NEW/?p=3

Do a search for Tom Hardwick's posts, he's tried just about every wide there is.

Thanks, Andy. I did check out those threads... and there is a lot of discussion about different adapters, but I find almost no mention of the Century WA adapter. Sure would like to see some sample pics.

Looking at the pics you posted... does the bayonet-mount fit on the XHA1 without an adapter? Is there something on the front of the lens that I haven't noticed that would allow the bayonet-mount to grab hold? (I'm at work now so I can't check.) Or is the bayonet-mount threaded on one side? (Or maybe... just maybe... it works with the lens shade bayonet mounts?)
Thanks!

There are at least two generations of the Century 0.6x, the one that came out for the XL1 many years ago, which does not quite fit on the XH A1 (but can be made to fit with a bit of manipulation), and a new version that apparently fits all the X series camcorders.

Not clear that other changes were made, but there are some. The weight and physical dimensions are a bit different. I suspect that the original for the XL1 may not work as well optically on the new HDV camcorders, thus the mount change, but I have not seen any side-by-side comparisons.

No for the Aspheron you will need to get a custom adapter made, you can connect to either the thread or the lens hood bayonet, the picture I posted shows a bayonet adapter that I don't have. I've ordered one that attaches to the thread mount, attaching to the bayonet would hold the lens a little closer so less likely to vignette in the corners.

I found some samples of a century here, not sure if it's the same as the one for the A1 but I would assume it will be, lots of distortion:
http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/ce...e06/index.html

It really depends how wide you want it and if you are happy with barrel distortion. I hate barrel distortion so that basically leaves the Aspheron. I don't think there's any other wide angle that is as wide and doesn't distort.

Finally! Although those pics are about three years old... they still show the look I was going for. I think I may have made my decision.
Thanks for helping!

I bought the Century .6x. It is pretty light and the image looks good. It attaches using the bayonet mount.

It blocks the fast autofocus.

You can use the autofocus with about 1/2 the zoom range.

Since the xh-a1 is already fairly wide for normal shooting, I got this for using in tight places, for getting full shot from close range and to use with the Merlin in certain situations.

As shown in the examples, the just how obvious the barrel distortion is depends on the shot. In any case, for a shot this wide, it looks quite reasonable and I don't think is any different than an "experience TV viewer" would expect to see.

I do wish that Century included a case with its lenses, but this one doesn't include one... just a cardboard box.

Thanks, Jack. I'm going for it!
I'll check back after I get it and let y'all know what I think.

um, they look awful?

ps, I us the canon wide, love it

Not sure where you got the "look awful" from. It wasn't from me. When I said the pictures were three years old I meant that the adapter sold today should be even better and adapted to 16X9/HD.
The Century adapter is perfect for my intentions. Light weight, quick on & off... should work well with my Glidecam 2000 Pro and give just the right effect/affect I was looking for.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecomm...=1385&IID=6219

I just bought the Canon and if you think you might do any handheld shots your wrist may take a beating with this monster. It is a nice lens but a little heavy. I think I am going to return it for the Century 0.8.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Converter.html

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

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.

Educator/Teacher's Discounts...
 

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? ; )

Wide Converter WD-H72 Matte box or lens hood?
 

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.

With Canon WA
 

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

"Macros" with Canon WA attached.
 

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

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_...bstruction.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.

Pondering the WD-H72 Wide Angle
 

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.

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/centu...h-g1/xh-g1.htm
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...olarizing.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.

What Wide Angle lens if good for the A1?
 

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?