Just got the Century .6x and 1.6x lenses

John Jay · February 13th, 2006, 08:17 AM

Hey Joe;

First time I've had a recipe named after me, ha ha

following is a short clip with both C-8 attached giving ~120mm or 2.24x

http://s49.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3...82572AG05MYGFQ

spot the magpie;

PS; this was taken last year when I was checking out all the BS about HDV not being able to tackle moving water and leaves moving in trees - as you can see there is a lot of movement and no worries.

Carroll Lam · February 18th, 2006, 03:27 PM

I didn't notice that I posted the same image link twice!

The image taken with the Z1U's standard lens at maximum zoom is:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/STD.jpg

and the image taken with the Century 1.6X tele is here:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/Tele.jpg

Sorry 'bout that!

Carroll Lam

Carroll Lam · February 21st, 2006, 04:27 PM

John Jay's "recipe" for cascading multiple adapters prompted me to perform the following tests with the Century 2X lens purchased for my PD150 and the Century 1.6X purchased for the Z1U.

The following image is a screenshot taken with the standard Z1U lens at max zoom:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-none.jpg

I then added a 72mm->58mm step down ring to the Century 1.6X teleconverter and mounted that on the Z1U and extracted this screenshot from the resulting video:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-16X.jpg

Then I replaced the 1.6X teleconverter with the 2X and extracted this screenshot from the video:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-2X.jpg

Finally, I mounted the rear of the 1.6X tele to the front of the 2X tele - they match perfectly. (How I kept the two converters together is left as an exercise for the student. 8-) ) Here's the screenshot obtained from the combined assembly:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-32X.jpg

Observations:

1. Center-of-field image quality of all the combinations seems to be quite good, at least qualitatively. Or, IOW, all the tele combinations compare favorably to the standard lens. Overall image contrast seems to hold up.

2. There is a modicom of vignetting on the left and right sides of the 3.2X combination but it is soft and not distracting. There also seems to be a little with the 2X converter also.

3. There is only a small amount of zoom (from maximum) that can be done without much more vignetting for both the single 2X converter and the 2X+1.6X (3.2X) combination.

Summary

I would have no qualms about using the two-converter combo if I really needed the "reach" they provide.

My thanks to John for tipping us off to this technique!

Carroll Lam

William Gardner · February 22nd, 2006, 09:03 AM

FYI, I just posted a free VirtualDub filter for correcting chromatic aberration (CA) that you all might find useful for correcting the type of CA that Boyd saw in his factory shots. Check out the following

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=61274

Cheers,
Bill

Carroll Lam · February 22nd, 2006, 10:15 AM

Thanks, Bill!

Carroll Lam

John Jay · February 22nd, 2006, 01:14 PM

Some folks stack three! :):)

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam...Support-1s.jpg

Carroll Lam · February 22nd, 2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Jay

Some folks stack three!

Hey. I'm jealous. 8-)

I am jealous of that neat adjustable lens support arm. I wonder if that's commercially available somewhere or was a custom make?

Carroll Lam

John Jay · February 22nd, 2006, 03:01 PM

I think its a Bogen/Manfrotto gizmo - check their catalogue

Shane Coburn · March 25th, 2006, 10:48 AM

On Century's site, why do they only list the .7x and .8x as "HD". Is the glass on the .3x, .6x, 1.6x and others somehow compromised or sub-spec?

February 13th, 2006, 08:17 AM	#31
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	120mm Hey Joe; First time I've had a recipe named after me, ha ha following is a short clip with both C-8 attached giving ~120mm or 2.24x http://s49.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3...82572AG05MYGFQ spot the magpie; PS; this was taken last year when I was checking out all the BS about HDV not being able to tackle moving water and leaves moving in trees - as you can see there is a lot of movement and no worries. __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

February 21st, 2006, 04:27 PM	#33
Carroll Lam Contributor Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 128	Mine's bigger than yours! John Jay's "recipe" for cascading multiple adapters prompted me to perform the following tests with the Century 2X lens purchased for my PD150 and the Century 1.6X purchased for the Z1U. The following image is a screenshot taken with the standard Z1U lens at max zoom: http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-none.jpg I then added a 72mm->58mm step down ring to the Century 1.6X teleconverter and mounted that on the Z1U and extracted this screenshot from the resulting video: http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-16X.jpg Then I replaced the 1.6X teleconverter with the 2X and extracted this screenshot from the video: http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-2X.jpg Finally, I mounted the rear of the 1.6X tele to the front of the 2X tele - they match perfectly. (How I kept the two converters together is left as an exercise for the student. 8-) ) Here's the screenshot obtained from the combined assembly: http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-32X.jpg Observations: 1. Center-of-field image quality of all the combinations seems to be quite good, at least qualitatively. Or, IOW, all the tele combinations compare favorably to the standard lens. Overall image contrast seems to hold up. 2. There is a modicom of vignetting on the left and right sides of the 3.2X combination but it is soft and not distracting. There also seems to be a little with the 2X converter also. 3. There is only a small amount of zoom (from maximum) that can be done without much more vignetting for both the single 2X converter and the 2X+1.6X (3.2X) combination. Summary I would have no qualms about using the two-converter combo if I really needed the "reach" they provide. My thanks to John for tipping us off to this technique! Carroll Lam

February 22nd, 2006, 01:14 PM	#36
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Some folks stack three! :):) http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam...Support-1s.jpg __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

February 22nd, 2006, 03:01 PM	#38
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	I think its a Bogen/Manfrotto gizmo - check their catalogue __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

February 18th, 2006, 03:27 PM	#32
Carroll Lam Contributor Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 128	I didn't notice that I posted the same image link twice! The image taken with the Z1U's standard lens at maximum zoom is: http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/STD.jpg and the image taken with the Century 1.6X tele is here: http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/Tele.jpg Sorry 'bout that! Carroll Lam

February 22nd, 2006, 09:03 AM	#34
William Gardner Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 216	FYI, I just posted a free VirtualDub filter for correcting chromatic aberration (CA) that you all might find useful for correcting the type of CA that Boyd saw in his factory shots. Check out the following http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=61274 Cheers, Bill

February 22nd, 2006, 10:15 AM	#35
Carroll Lam Contributor Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 128	Thanks, Bill! Carroll Lam

March 25th, 2006, 10:48 AM	#39
Shane Coburn Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 95	On Century's site, why do they only list the .7x and .8x as "HD". Is the glass on the .3x, .6x, 1.6x and others somehow compromised or sub-spec?