DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony VX2100 / PD170 / PDX10 Companion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/)
-   -   Wide Angle Adapter (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/47930-wide-angle-adapter.html)

Mark Thomas January 5th, 2003 01:39 PM

does the Century lense have a much wider angle than the Canon one?

Neil Fisher January 5th, 2003 04:49 PM

Century Optics makes a .55x .65x and .3x (fish eye). Where as the Canon is .7x the same as the Sony .7x but at half the cost. I paid about $350 CND before taxes for the Canon, Sony wanted something like $650 CND before taxes. Both provide the same image quality and the Canon even comes with a lens hood.

The only thing that seperates the different Century optics wide angle lens's is their ability to zoom. With the .65x lens you have full zoom capability, the .55x only has partial, and I don't believe that the fish eye has any zoom. Most of the Century Optics WA's are over $900 CND.

So yeah the Century lense does have a much wider angle than the Canon, but you must be prepared to pay for it.

Mark Thomas January 6th, 2003 01:45 PM

65x Century wide angle converter
 
I am hesistant about ordering this expensive lense. Some users are pleased with it and for others it gives too much distortion making their footage look "amateurish".

Anyone know any really good honest examples up on the web so I can make a better judgment?

Would anyone recommend this lense for filmmaking - dramatic story telling?

Frank Granovski January 7th, 2003 02:43 AM

That's the best wide angle available for the VX, I think. However, it has no filter threads in the front---if that's important. A friend of mine has the Kenko, the top grade model. It's mich cheaper, very solid, no distortion that I can see, and also comes with filter threads.

Tiffens are very good. I don't know if they make one for the VX size, though. I believe Canon and Optex also make good ones.

David Hurdon January 7th, 2003 07:21 AM

65x Century wide angle converter
 
I've searched my bookmarks in vain for the article that persuaded me to buy the Canon WD-58 (0.7 x 58) lens. It was written by a pro shooter whose opinion was that for the money it was the best value. I've used it for some months now with complete satisfaction - but I'm not making my living through the viewfinder [yet :-) ].

Mike Rehmus January 7th, 2003 03:31 PM

I am a bit displeased with my Century 0.65 WA.

I think it is a bit too soft even though it is a zoom-through.

I'm going to test it with a waveform monitor (focus check) when I get my PD150 back from Sony.

Mark Thomas January 7th, 2003 03:59 PM

so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost?

Frank Granovski January 7th, 2003 05:03 PM

I think just as good, but sharper and with filter threads. I've seen a lot of VX2000/Kenko wide angle footage played back on my friend's Sony deck. In fact hours and hours of the stuff. His Kenko wide and tele are very well made. Keep in mind that there are 3 lines of Kenko adaptors, their high-end line is best. And yes, they are a lot cheaper than the Century adaptors. The Century uses German glass. I think this is Century's strong point. But I doubt this makes a difference for VX shot video. I would also check out Tiffen adaptors. They are even better, but I am not sure if they make them for the VX filter size. I don't know anything about the Canon, but I have also heard good things about them.

Oh, and one more thing. I know this poor guy in Hawaii with a PD150 and O'Connor tripod. He bought a Century tele. When he got it, it was defective and had to send it back to B&H. When he got the second one, it was defective too, and sent it back. Lucky with the 3rd time around, it was fine. However, because the Century does not have filter threads (unlike the Kenko and Tiffens), the adaptor's lens got destroyed. He did a lot of surf shooting at his local beach, and the fine sand particles in the air ate away his lens. My friend and his Kenkos are protected with filters: UV or polarizer, depending on the conditions. And with wides, filters can cause darks around the edges, but I found that this is not the case with Kenkos. I don't know about the others about this.

Doug Quance January 7th, 2003 06:46 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by walesfilmclub : so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost? -->>>

I can't vouch for the Kenko, but I have a Century Optics .65 Wide Angle adapter for my PD-150... and I am pleased with it.

It has a bayonet mount (which I consider to be superior to threads... but that's just my opinion) which attaches with a 1/4 turn.

The focus is sharp throughout the entire zoom range. I never take it off the camera!

There is only a slight bit of barrel distortion (which I have found that the average Joe will not see) at full wide angle... but at .65, I suppose that is to be expected.

Like anything else, each piece of equipment is unique... and I could have just as easily been one of those people who bought one that is too "soft"... but, luckily, I was not.

Mine ran me $365, if I remember right. Well worth it, as I'm happy with the results. ($100 would be too much if I wasn't.)

I attach a 4x4 filter box to mine, which I always have at least the UV filter in. Call me crazy, but I used to live in Hawaii... and no matter where you are, the wind could blow something into your expensive lens and screw it up. I'd rather be safe, than sorry.

If you cruise this bbs, you will find many people (who, by the way, are far more experienced than me) that will disagree. That's okay. In the final analysis, it's YOUR money... and YOUR product... so the decision will be YOURS.

I live by this credo:

"Nothing is more expensive than the product that doesn't work."

Good luck with your decision... no matter what it is!

Paul Tauger January 7th, 2003 09:12 PM

I've tried the Kenko, but found it pretty poor -- lots of chromatic distortion and very soft focus at the edges. I wound up with an Optex .65x converter (from ZGC for $299). It's also a bayonet mount, and has front threads. Best of all, it doesn't vignette, even with standard filters screwed in front.

It's much better than the Kenko -- some slight chromatic distortion at the edges, but much sharper at the edges. I leave it attached all the time.

You can see examples of shots taken with the Kenko here:

http://members.cox.net/tauger.paul/Video%20Page/Kenko%20Comparison.htm

Frank Granovski January 7th, 2003 09:28 PM

Thanks. Which Kenko was that? They make 3 different grades.

Paul Tauger January 7th, 2003 09:30 PM

I don't know about the different grades of Kenko lenses. The one on the website was a KRW-065 Pro, about $159 from B&H.

Frank Granovski January 8th, 2003 06:56 AM

I think that's their top end. Like I said, the VX/Kenko footage looked great. However, on a high-end monitor, it might not look as great as the German glass adaptor. It's just too bad the Century doesn't have filter threads, like when you're shooting at a beach.

Has anyone tried any of Tiffens wide angle adaptors? Their glass/design is supposed to be better. I've only looked and tried the Tiffen in the 37mm and 43mm size.

http://www.tiffen.com

Doug Quance January 8th, 2003 10:40 AM

I'm lost here...

Are bayonet adapters subject to leakage by sand, etc? Is that why some people WANT threaded adapters?

I was under the belief that the threads may become worn... as well as being slower in general to change lenses.

Frank Granovski January 8th, 2003 03:27 PM

I was talking about filter threads on the front of the adaptor, so you can screw on a UV or polarizer etc. This will also protect the front glass of the adaptor.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:10 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network