Century Optics X Wide Angle vs. Canon 3X Extra Wide Zoom Lens

[Ash Greyson]

Actually, the aberrations could cause some issues with keying which is already tough in the DV world...



ash =o)

Ash,

Thanks. I didn't know that. I'll have to give it a try when I get my ReflecMedia stuff. I bought the Century Adaptor one of our forum sponsors, so I'm sure if I'm not happy with the performance he'll work something out for me. I'll let you know what I find over the next few weeks. Thanks again.

[Ash Greyson]

Should not be a big issue... you might want to work uncompressed though... that will be the biggest help.



ash =o)

I was sitting there working on my computer and saw this orange color coming through my shades. I opend up my blinds and WOW. I'm so glad my XL2 was all set up and close to the window. Here's a .jpg of what I filmed with the new Century .7x Wide Angle adaptor on.

I made no alterations whatsoever (no filters, cc'ing, etc.). Simply imported the 24p footage and exported a still image as a .jpg from FCP 5.

http://www.thisis24p.com/centurysunset-dec28a.html
http://www.thisis24p.com/centurysunset-dec28b.html (3 minutes later)

This image quality is just another reminder of why the XL2 is such a great camera!

[Ash Greyson]

There was an amazing sunset up in Oklahoma tonight as well...



ash =o)

I was just looking at those screen grabs again and forgot to post above that the top left had the very bottom edge of the window in it. It's not some kind of weird adaptor thing.

[Jeff McElroy]

I am debating between the .6 adapter and the 3x, and the images here were very helpful.

I have one question... what does that edge distortion look like in motion? Does the distortion area morph and meld into focus as you move, and all that nasty stuff?

I will be moving frantically through some very tight spaces on a boat as giant sharks, cobia, and grouper are hauled in (ie, this isn’t just for a static exposition shots). Bieng the middle of the ocean with my camera all wrapped up in a portabrace, I can’t change lenses. The 3x’s limited focal length makes it an undesirable solution for me now.

About 60% of my footage will consist of wide angle shots, but I really like move up to the bow of the boat, and get some low angle, flattened telephoto shots of the guy’s reeling back and such, as the horizon/wave line moves in and out of frame behind them (you don’t see stuff like that too often on fishing shows, and I am trying to cultivate a new look here).

I know the .6x isn’t totally zoom through like the .7x (which I dismissed due to quality and weight), but it should be enough. To be honest, I kind of like the optical distortion given by the .6x, as it evokes a sense of claustrophobia.

*I just want to know if it will be distracting beyond all reason.
**Also, can I attach the XL lens hood, and my 72mm UV filter to the adapter, or will I have to buy new stuff?

[Marty Hudzik]

Originally Posted by Jeff McElroy

I am debating between the .6 adapter and the 3x, and the images here were very helpful.

I have one question... what does that edge distortion look like in motion? Does the distortion area morph and meld into focus as you move, and all that nasty stuff?

I will be moving frantically through some very tight spaces on a boat as giant sharks, cobia, and grouper are hauled in (ie, this isn’t just for a static exposition shots). Bieng the middle of the ocean with my camera all wrapped up in a portabrace, I can’t change lenses. The 3x’s limited focal length makes it an undesirable solution for me now.

About 60% of my footage will consist of wide angle shots, but I really like move up to the bow of the boat, and get some low angle, flattened telephoto shots of the guy’s reeling back and such, as the horizon/wave line moves in and out of frame behind them (you don’t see stuff like that too often on fishing shows, and I am trying to cultivate a new look here).

I know the .6x isn’t totally zoom through like the .7x (which I dismissed due to quality and weight), but it should be enough. To be honest, I kind of like the optical distortion given by the .6x, as it evokes a sense of claustrophobia.

*I just want to know if it will be distracting beyond all reason.
**Also, can I attach the XL lens hood, and my 72mm UV filter to the adapter, or will I have to buy new stuff?

The short answer is that the .6x is totally acceptable when panning around. You should not notice any "distorting" or motion type problems. The barrel distortion should only be a problem if filming perfectly straight architectural designs where any slight "bowing" is undesirable.

The .6x mounts on the lens where the lens hood normally goes so you can no longer use the lens hood or any of the 72mm filters with this adapter. You will need a specific lens hood by century and some of them accept larger filters...but you would have to purchase new ones for sure.

[Jeff McElroy]

Why does the .6x's partial zoom function only work with auto focus turned on?

[Bruce S. Yarock]

My 3x wide angle lens just went back to Canon for the THIRD time in 14 months! Each time there was no focus and no zoom.They've put in a new pcb 2 times.What will they do this time???
For the brief periods of time that it worked, it was a great lens.
Hey Canon....Can you say L E M O N?
Bruce Yarock

[Andy Joyce]

The 0.6x is totally worth it in my opinion. Since I'm shooting wide for a reason, I don't really care about full zoom-through. Plus the money you save by not buying the 0.7x can be put into something else.

Also, you still have all of the controls of the 20x at your disposal. The 3x doesn't have all of the same controls as the 20, right?

[Neil Fontaine]

So I guess you guys are calling the green and red lines everywhere in the wide angle shot abberations.

Does this happen if you use the letus35 and a 35mm wide angle lense? And does it show up that much if it is a moving image?

If so I would honestly find a way to just film the top part of a person, unless there is an important reason to get the full body in the shot, kung fu or something, not sure.