Wide angle adapters?
 

Has anyone had experiance using the Century Optics .6x wide angle adapter and the .7x wide angle adapter on the standard Canon XL2 20x lense.I read somewhere there was a problem with fitting on the 20x ,evidently the adapter touched up against the lense glass or something? I would like to know how much distortion there is in the image and how they compare to the standard Canon 3x wide lense? I am considering one because of their compactness and price,its one less full size lense I will have to carry around.Also does anyone know where i could get a good deal on the adapters. joe

Hi Joe,

There *was* a problem fitting the 20x, but it has been corrected.

Your best deals will come from our Sponsors (see link in my signature).

On the same topic. On Century Optics' website, it states that the .6 adapter gives you 40% more view. Would that also be true for the 3x lens? I'm trying to get even wider angle then the 3x can give me without having to use the fisheye adapter. Can the .6 mounted on the 3x give me even wider angle of view?

Rafal,

A 3x with a .6 mounted on it? Resulting in a 1.8. You really want to see around corners with that thing, don't you. ;)

Thanks Patrick. Yeah, I have a script which calls for these surreal look with the main subject almost right on top of the lens and the background as visible as possible. Glad you answered my question because the rumor I heard was that the adapter only worked at the most telephoto part of that lens. I guess the truth is different. Should I expect a lot of vignetting?

The Canon 3x zoom lens isn't very wide at 3.4 mm, but of course wide-angle converters can be added to that in the same way as they can be added to any lens. The vignetting problems will only become apparent after a trial I'm afraid, so it's important to try befoore you buy. If you're having to zoom-in-a-bit to lose the black corners, you'll be losing a lot of the wide-angle that you've paid dearly for.

I'd look to use one of the non-zoom-through converters. You can generally use about 65% of the camera's original zoom ratio, so calling them non zoom-through is a somewhat negative adjective.

tom.

Probably Paranoid
 

So that I have it clear in my tiny mind: I got a XL 2 recently to augment my aging fleet of SD cameras as I hold off on the jump to HD. I have the Century .6X wide angle adapter, which I use on many an occasion. Last night in a theater, in fact. I've been happy with it for years, and don't mind the lack of full zoom, as it is a wide angle I'm seeking when I affix it. My concern is that it is ONLY the .7X Century adapter (a different beast) the had the fit question with the 20X Canon lens. That is what I glean, but Century gives me no definitive answer, except that if I buy now, it's been fixed. My glass is several years old, but the optics don't go obsolete.

Short story long. Sorry. I could have just said: Century .6X adapter OK with XL2 standard 20X lens?

The .6x adapter is fine with the 20x lens. All newer .7x adapters are fine too. If you get your hands on one of the older ones (pre-xl2) it can be modified by century to fit your 20x lens too.

Good Luck!

This is on the bottom of Zotz's .6x Century product page...

"The .6X Wide Angle Adapter also comes in a version for Canon's 3X Wide zoom. A true fixed-focal length adapter, adding it to the 3.4–10.2mm lens reduces the effective focal length to just 2.04mm (99° horizontal angle of view)."

You might have to specify the type you want when you order it?

2.04 mm with pretty nasty barrel distortion. I dislike door frames bowing outwards as I track room to room. Makes it look as if I'm a fattie.

Don't Bother
 

I don't understand why someone would pay 5-700 dollars for a wide angle converter when they could just buy the 3x lens and be done with it. No vignetting , no barrel distortion, and no worries. The biggest drawback of the canon wide lens is that with 3x zoom it makes it hard to check focus in a fast moving environment.

I find its biggest drawback is the omission of OIS. Not only that but it's only usefully wide at the equivalent of 26.6 mm and not superwide as we've become accustomed to seeing every day on our TV. On top of this it costs a great deal of money. I'd be interrested to know how many XL1/2 owners go for it. 5 in a hundred, maybe?

tom.

Who needs OIS on a wide lens? No point really. The 3X is FAR SUPERIOR glass to any adapter. I know, I have used them all. The Century wide adapters are good, the .6 is the best, I do not like the .7 zoom thru, it introduces aberrations in many conditions.

Another issue, the XL2 is already top heavy with the standard 20X, adding a beefy adapter accentuates this. I do own a Century .6x that I use on occasion but almost always attached to the manual lens (which BTW has no OIS). I also own a Century Fish-eye that I use to get exteriors or edgy/artsy stuff.

I like to encourage all XL camera owners to try different set-ups/lenses/etc. it is what makes the camera shine and sets it apart from everything in its class. I have the 20X OIS, the 3X Wide, the 16X Manual, Century .6x adapter, Century Fish-eye adapter and various nice filters to play with. I used to have the EF adapter but it has no real practical use for the kind of work I do, great for nature guys though...


ash =o)

Who needs OIS on a wide lens? Me for one, Ash, and I guess there's a lot of us out here who go to the wide end to minimise the apparent camera shake, turn on the OIS and go tracking with the camera.
You say you've 'used them all', but I wonder if you've used the very best wide-angle converter made - the Bolex Aspheron? This single element 0.5x aspheric has an 85 mm thread so needs a special adapter, but it takes the lens down to an impressive 2.7 mm focal length, with zero barrel distortion. The 0.6x Century is a joke in comparison, though cheaper I'll admit.

Means you can keep your OIS turned on, you can still partially zoom and don't have to store and carry the big 3x zoom. We've talked about it over on the XL1 lenses forum.

tom.

Actually, I have used the Bolex, not an an XL camera though. VERY hard to find and fairly expensive, but beautiful yes. I have never even thought of needing OIS with the 3X and I have been in about every situation. Of course, if I am running around I usually am using a steadicam rig (Hollywood Lite).

I dont think the 3X is a burden to carry around at all. I mean, that is one of the biggest advantages of having an XL series camera, being able to change lenses.
I have used the 3X since the XL1 days and I still think it is gorgeous.



ash =o)