Century Optics 0HD-65CV-SH6 reviews?
 

Can anyone offer any feedback on the Century Optics .65X Wide Angle adapter for the V1U/FX7? Has anyone seen any official reviews from other sites?

I second this question - got disappointed with the Sony wa converter. I was hoping that due to the mild coefficient, it'd not introduce too much of a barrel distorsion; unfortunately it's quite substantial. The 0.8x is not worth such a price in image distorsion. I can't wait for the comparison with the 0.65x Century/Schneider!

16X9 converter is good too...
 

Band Pro, the industry's favorite Sony store in the LA area sold me my V1 and also steered me toward the 16x9 7.0 WA converter. It is large, heavy and expensive but it seems to work very well, and they said it was the best available.

It has four elements and supposedly the best coatings. It doesn't give significant barrel distortion and seems quite bright and clear.

Tip

Ooops, .75
 

The hot 16x9 converter is actually the .75 which has the four elements to combat geometric distortion and chromatic aberration.

The .7 only has three elements.

Here's the link to the four element .75

http://16x9inc.com/products/16x9/169...2-son-z1u.html

Tip have you actually now got that 16x9 lens?

interested in your practical experience with it if in fact you have purchased it.

thanks

OK, so before a screen grab is available with the 0.65x Century, I'm sharing a 10-sec clip of a scene (some of you guys will remember - yes, it's my garage), with and without the Sony "K" wa adaptor. Here's the link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/38906697/V1_wa.m2t, or
http://rapidshare.com/files/38929728/V1_wa.m2t (shorter)

It's only 0.8x, but I'm satisfied. Apart from somewhat increased barrel distorsion, I haven't noticed any picture deterioration, and the lens hood is sooo nice!

Do the Century Optics or Raynox WA lenses come with hoods of any type? Or just a lens cap?

That's the point, Craig - just a lens cup! I'd gladly pay quite a bit more for the 0.65x Century, should it come with a hood similar to the Sony K wa!

16x9 converter
 

Stu,

I do hvae it, and it seems to work very well. I bought it for a shoot requiring some very tight interiors and some inside-the-car stuff. The converter gave me no issues that I noticed, it was just like shooting without it only -- wider and heavier.

I didn't notice any barrel distortion to speak of with it. It seems to hold focus through the zoom. It is large, heavy and expensive, even the lens hood costs over $200 extra.

But the time I put that on and attach my Sony LED light, the V1 probably weighs as much as my XDCAM!

Tip

Tip,

While I can't imagine a .65x wa converter not giving any barrel distorsion, I totally agree on your second point - the V1 with any wa conwverter plus the HVL-LBP really becomes heavy! So much so that - when using both my Sony "K" wa and the lamp - I'm putting the DR60 drive into my shirt pocket, and the lamp's battery - into my trousers' pocket, so that I don't add any unnecessarry weight to the camera, and my arm(s)...

Not .65, but .75
 

Piotr,

You're probably right about the .65, but this one is only .75 and is very sophisticated with its four elements versus everything else three at most.

Anyway, it has very little barrel distortion, no doubt it has some. Next time I shoot with the camera I'll roll some footage with the converter on and post a frame grab at full wide with wall or ceiling edges or something usable for reference.

Tip

I am returning my Century 6.5 WA. I've had it a few days and feel the distortion, meaning blurry edges and CA up the wazoo was just unacceptable to me. I have many other WA's from Century and this one is just not very good IMHO. It looked fine in the middle ranges of the zoom, but full wide (which is what we buy these for!) was very blurry at the edges, plus the Chromatic Abberation was really bad. I didn't shoot any charts, didn't need to.

Man, I had high hopes for it, but am definatley disappointed.

Thanks for the report. Looks like I'll definitely go with the VCLHG0862K then and if I need extra coverage sometimes, I'll get the cheap Raynox with it.

I agree the lens hood is definitely a plus.

That's exactly my plan too.

Guys,

let me tell you here again, the 6600 model of Raynox turned out to be pretty acceptable for me (considering also the price tag).
It is a 0.6 wa, nice sharp picture full wide. Don't try to zoom in, it is not designed for that. But wide has to be wide, right?

On wednesday I'll have time to post a frame grab of the Century .65 so you can all make up your own minds with an actual image. I hate to change anyones mind with just my report. I may be fussier than others.

Here are the stills I promised...a few days late! These are straight 1440x1080 frame grabs. One with the attachment at full wide, one without the attachment at full wide. As you can see, the distortion at full wide with the attachment is pretty severe. Too severe for me.

I don't mind the distortion from the bowing of the straight lines. I mind the severe Chromatic Abberation and fuzziness at the sides and corners. I guess that is why Sony only elected to use a .8 WA on it.

16x9 .75 converter
 

I shot and ingested (into Cineform Prospect) some footage for a couple of frame grabs and ZAP, my computer died -- it was the power supply. I will try to post a frame or two, it's just a window in my house with the verticals near edge of frame, this at full wide.

I'm not a home to do the frame grabs now, but the computer is fixed and its on the agenda. Just to hint at what is to come, there is very, very little barrel with this converter and pending a closer look no CA that jumped out at me, must be some of course.

I guess you get what you pay for, too bad you have to pay so much for this excellent converter.

Tip

Tip,

What did you pay for that if you don't mind my asking? I see it lists for close to $1k!! I'm still in the market for a good wide angle adaptor. I can live with a .75 as long as it doesn't introduce these kinds of severe distortions.

I'll be interested in seeing your frame grabs!

Financial slaughter
 

Paul,

I think I paid $895, plus, and this really hurts, $235 for the lens hood. Talk about a gouge job on the lens hood. Also for the V1 you need an adapter with deep threads to support the weight of the converter, probably $50 or so, can't recall that. My mind is suppressing the memory of this purchase as too painful!

16x9 sells a 3-element converter that is .7 for much less money, and that one is specifically made for the V1. Check their web site or the Band Pro site. I doubt if it's as good as the 4-element converter, but I have a question.

If you use an adapter on Camera A, and don't need one on Camera B, doesn't that change the relationship between the lens and the converter enough to affect at least zoom through focus?

Tip

OUCH!! Man, that is alot of scratch for an accessory! I bought the 1.6 extender for my FX1 and that was close to $1k. Earlier in this thread the Raynox had pretty good focus to the corners (brick wall shot), I can also live without full zoom through so maybe I'll try that route. It's only $200ish too.

I'm not sure I follow your question though? Are you talking the SAME kind of camera? Or are you thinking about different cameras? The zoom through on most non-zoom through lens adaptors (partial zooms) will only work if the camera is on auto focus as it needs to change as the lens is zooming.

Actually it wasn't this thread, it was the one on the Raynox that had the still grabs of the brick wall. I stand corrected!

Adapter rings...
 

Actually, I'm concerned that my converter's adapter ring positions the converter just a bit further forward than if it screwed into the lens itself.

That's because it's not a step-down adapter ring. Instead it fits a bigger add-on accessory that won't srcrew inside the lens' threads. So a male thread on the the adapter screws into the lens, and a bigger female thread protrudes for the converter to attach to.

This is because it's actually made for the Z1 which I guess has a bigger filter size. So wouldn't the converter being 1/8" or so farther forward muck up the geometry between the lens and the converter? Have I confused everyone yet?

Tip

Does anyone know of a good lens hood to fit with the Century/Schneider 0.65x converter?

Frame grab from 16x9 .75 WA converter
 

With computer fixed I've attached a full rez frame (bmp). There's definitely some barrel distortion, but much less than the Century .65, but then this is .75 so it should have less. Seeing it on a big monitor I do see CA which wasn't apparent on the flipout LCD. I'm interested in everyone's thoughts.

Sorry, I'm editing this post to say that I've used the "manage attachements" function to add the frame, but I don't see it as being attached, so sorry if you don't see it either.

Can anybody clue me on how to get this attachment to display, I've uploaded it (twice). Moderator feel free to delete, the file name is Wide Angle Test.bmp.

Tip

Tip,
Now I know what you mean about the lens being further away from the converter. Not sure I have an answer for you though! I think it would change the focal distance, but as long as you focus manually or automatically, it should still work fine. The lens on the camera will be focusing on a different "plane" 1/8 inch away but it should still be able to focus on it no problem.

Not sure whay we can't see your images. I'm anxious to see them so keep on trying!

I'm just having the opportunity to test and compare the Century .65x with Sony .8x; my decision on whether to upgrade for the Century depends to a much extent on a lens hood availability for it; any suggestions?

That was my next step if I was going to keep the lens. I have a lens hood that I got with my Century 1.6 Tele, for my FX1. That also fit the 6.5 Wide Angle Century I got for the FX1.

No such luck fitting this new Century. It's a different size. Much smaller.

I'm curious to see what you think of it compared to the Sony .8x.

I only got the Century .65x today; I put it on my V1E, and one thing is certain: it really is much wider than the Sony .8x (obvious thing I know, but the difference is striking). And with the barrel distorsion at full wide not so much more visible than with the Sony...

Tomorrow I'll give it a more thorough testing, including full zoom-through comparisons with the Sony converter. If it's no worse, I'll really seriously be after some decent lens hood for it!

Does anyone know of a good lens hood for this adapter? Century does offer the 0VS-CS90-00 Compact Sunshade, but it's not 16:9 in shape...

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