Maybe it's just me, but I'd be very disappointed, especially for such an expensive lens. I would return it and buy the much cheaper Raynox.

my personal verdict on the Century 0.65x
 

Well, so I did all the tests and I'm not replacing my Sony wa converter with the Century. And it's not the barrel distorsion (interestingly, it's not that much bigger than with the Sony), but ugly colour fringing and the zoom-through capability being, well... theoretical only - that is the reason behind my decision. I couldn't get really sharp focus when at infinity, and everything with contrasty edges was purple from the colour fringing!

The Sony "K" wa. may not be that wide, but at least you can leave it on the camera and forget about it for as long as you don't need full 20x zoom and/or the camera being lighter again...

PS. And one more thing: even though the lens hood coming with the Sony K wa. is also 90 mm, it won't fit on the Century (in case somebody is hoping it would, just like I did). Even if the mounting problem was resolved, the hood is visible all around the picture at the widest angle.

Info on Century 0HD-65CV-SH6
 

Hi, can you tell more on Century 0HD-65CV-SH6?
If using Sony VCL-HG0862 0.8x Wide Angle Conversion Lens I will get more quality of imag. I am not worried about barrel distortion but I need high definition and good chromatism. In few words I like to get a good image quality.
thanks for your suggestions.
Adriano

Adriano,

As I stated, the Sony VCL-HG0862K converter's only disadvantage when compared to the 0.65x Century is (obviously enough) the narrower angle. Otherwise, it's very neutral in terms of influencing the overall image quality; no extencive CA/fringing, no sharpness loss even in full telephoto.

If 0.8x is enough for you, I can recommend the Sony without hesitation.

I thank you for your interesting advice. But what I like to know more is ....
is the image difference very visible about sharpness loss and chromatism?
thanks again

Absolutely - with the Century, when fully zoomed in, you're getting blurry picture everywhere but the very centerof the screen. The contrasty edges are purple.

Nothing like this is visible with the Sony 'K' converter.

I'm sorry but I don't use the zoom, I will use it in wide angle only. Could you tell me if in wide angle Sony gives less sharpness loss and better chromatism?
thanks again

Adriano,

Yes, by all means - at the widest angle, there is no picture deterioration whatsoever (apart from some barrel distorsion, which you said is not a deal-breaker to you).

That's fantastic news. Thanks for sharing.

Craig,

Please reference other posts on this subject for exhaustive review. The general feeling on our .65x is mixed. Some people love it and are completely satisfied with the lens and others find it soft at the edges. The reason for this is a 5% discrepency in the placement of CCDs on Sony cameras. We find differing results from camera to camera and do our best to minimize this effect. Unfortunately, there is only one way to find out how good it is on your camera and that is to actually put it on and test it.

The our .8x which features a 72mm screw in feature works well for this camera and is free of all the issues of the .65x. You use a 72-62 step ring which we make and it will give you 20% wider field of view than your existing lens. This lens comes with a lens shade and the most key difference between it and the Sony is that it has an 86mm filter thread on the front so you can filter it unlike the Sony.

The best thing to do is go into a store that stocks our merchandise and test each one on your camera. Absent of that, try to make the best informed decision possible.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

century.65
 

I love my century .65 bayonet. It's really nice for run-and-gun style shooting where you need a quick lens change, and I havent had any trouble with dust or cleaning. I only wish my raynox fisheye was bayonet as well, but you get what you pay for.

I recommend it if you are a run-and-gun event shooter.