No problem, I'll be looking forward to it. Thank you very much for the effort.

Michael

I would think it's a toss-up between the Sony 0.8x and the Centrury 0.8x - and there must be a Century either with the FX bayonet or a 62 mm attachment thread. There should be no need to use step-up rings.

OK, so here's a not so scientific test. I'd like to thank Oscar, my model, for helping out. Note that the V1 I use is identical to the FX7 in the optical department.

I've attached a few pics:
- w-lens-wa1 has just the stock V1 lens
- w-lens-wa2 has the 0.8x lens on
- w-lens-wa3 is another angle (in the corner of the room) with the 0.8x lens on
- w-lens-wa4 is the same shot as WA3 with just the stock V1 lens.
- The last pic shows how close the camera and tripod were to the wall. It could move a few cm closer, but it would be a bit awkward.

The room is 2.8m by 2.8m.

There's a fair bit of barrel distortion with the Sony WA lens. I'm sure fact that it is zoom-through is good for interviews, as you get a lot of scope with that 20x lens to re-frame without having to fumble round with the lenses. You can also see that, as predicted, it doesn't go very wide!

I'm kind of glad I don't shoot interviews, especially not in a small room and especially not with the Sony wide angle!

I can't judge against any of the other lenses you mention. It may be possible that the Century has less barrel distortion - they may have samples on their website.

I use the Sony 0.8x to get just a little bit wider for panoramas etc. You have to be pretty careful to avoid vertical objects (lamp posts, walls etc.) at the edge of the your shot if the distortion is not to your taste.

Don't want to pour too much cold water on this, but at over £400 (inc VAT and delivery) for such a mild increase in view and big increase in barrel distortion seems somewhat excessive in my view.

Search - Proactive

My Bolex lens (0.52x) is far more powerful and exhibits no barrel distortion whatsoever.

tom.

I do agree Tom.

Unfortunately, at the time, I assumed that a Sony lens would be best for the Sony camera, and now I'm sort of stuck with it. I'll admit it doesn't get used terribly much. I don't think I'd get much for selling it 2nd hand.

At least my snapshots demonstrate the (relative lack of) power of a 0.8x lens, so it wasn't entirely futile!

Mike - you're one helluvan optimist, so keep smiling.

Mike,
Thank you very much! The barrel distortion is a bit to much for me. I thought it looked OK until I saw your closet door. That's what killed it for me.

The Century needs a step up ring. The Raynox has 62mm threads. They are the same price so that is a mute point. (The better lens that is 6000 something number).

You are correct it doesn't get much wider either. Oh yeah Century does have a video for theirs on the Schneider Optics website.

So we can take the Sony .8 out of the running and I need to look at the link above to see if that one may be an option.

Thanks again MIke this was very helpfull!

Tom - what a public service, £380 just to demo to people that it's no good. It's not a smile, it's clenched teeth!

(I wonder if I could actually sell it now - this hasn't been the best advert for it!)

Hey Tom,
I went to the link above and put (Bolex lens (0.52x)) in their search box and nothing comes up. Then I went to the W/A section under 62mm and nothing. They only seem to carry Red Eye, Sony andd Century. Any more info on your lens? I'm gonna go google it now.

Thanks

When I tested Century's 0.65x against Cavision's 0.5x and Raynox's 0.6x the Century was the overall winner, but it barrel distorted more than the Raynox. That's fine until you come to film inside any sort of building, when it just looks cheap.

Michael - I bought my Bolex Aspheron direct from the factory in Switzerland as there's no English importer. Don't google for it - simply search for my posts on it in DVi.

tom.

Hey Tom,

I looked at the Century website and saw their test with the .8. Looks good on the outside. But, you have me scared now. I need it for inside. Here is their test page .8X HD W/A CONVERTER 72MM - Schneider Optics

The high end Raynox HDP-6000EX High Definition
Wideangle conversion Lens 0.79x looks good actually. However, I do see that the edges look soft (not as clear) Hope I used that term correctly. Here is their link scxroll down to the HDP-6000EX
SONY HDR-FX7, HDR-FX7E, HVR-V1J, HVR-V1E, HDR-V1U, HVR-V1N HDV Camcorders Comparison shots with Raynox accessory lenses

I really appreciate all the imput fellas. I know you have better things to do on Saturday......

Maybe it's just me, but $615 for such a mild increase (makes the 37.5 mm wide-angle into a 30 mm equivalent) seem an expensive modification for not much return. Look, the Panasonic 151 is 28 mm right out of the box. Why not buy a 0.5x (DCR5000) and zoom up to the 0.8x position - that way when you want to go wider (and are prepared to accept more obvious distortions), you can.

I'm glad to see Century are putting little videos up showing the with and without footage, but why we have to watch a hand laboriously screwing the lens on beats me. They can still learn a lot from the excellent Raynox site.

If you 'need the lens for inside' Michael, there's simply no substitute for trying before buying. Some barrel distortion may be fine, but it can look pretty silly on Roman pillars and cathedral interiors.

Don't get too hung up on the edge definition. If your audience is scrutinising the corners of your frames you haven't exactly hooked them with your story-line, now have you?

If you don't mind a partial zoom-through, then these people make adapter lenses that are powerful yet don't barrel distort.

www.wittner-kinotechnik.de: Katalog

tom.

B&H has them for $480 but I see what you are saying.

LMAO I thought the same thing....LOL


Excellent point Tom.

OK Tom, now it's time to put you on the spot so we can put this to bed. Between the Raynox 6000 and the Century .8 which would you think will do the better job? I simply have no experience in this arena so I can not even try and make an educated guess. At this point I am thinking about getting both and seeing which one I like and returning the other. But if I don't need to do that I wont.

Looking at the outside video they both look pretty good to me. The problem is, I look once and say I like the Raynox better, then look again and think maybe the Century is better.

Maybe this will come down to a build quality thing. Such as which one uses better components such as glass and what not.

The Raynox has 3 Groups/4 Elements don't know if that means anything though and I couldn't find this info for the Century.

So that we don't have to beat this horse any more. Let me know what you think between the two and I'll bite the bullet one way or the other.

Thanks again for all the info...

I've owned both a Raynox and a Century wide-angle converter. The Century was better made, heavier, sharper, more expensive and had better coating. I can't answer your question because I haven't got both those lenses here to test, but both companies are serious contenders in this game and neither will disappoint. Unless you hate barrel distortion.

I will say though that I wouldn't buy a 0.8x, but that's just me. It's far too mild (read: dull) and I want a wide-angle to be frightening as you track through the forest or behind Danny as he navigates the corridors of the Overlook Hotel.

Three groups 4 elements shows an expensive construction, especially when you consider some manufacturers make zoom-throughs of the same power with but two elements.

Ball back your side of the net.

tom.

I'll order on Monday and let you know in a few days. Hows that?!...
Till then have a great weekend...