I bought the new 16xmanual lens, love it however my century wide angle .7 adapter dosent work on this lens anyone heard of a 3rd party fix for this problem? I called century and they were less than no help...so anyone hear anything that could help its making my $600+ investment a waste.....

When I first called Century about this they claimed to have an adaptor in the works.

The last time I called they said they had no idea what I was talking about, and yes, they were pretty rude about it.

Of course their suggestion was to buy a new wide angle to fit the manual lens. That's not going to happen, especially with their bad attitude.

I tried modifying the "threads" on my wide angle, but can't get a snug fit.

For now my solution has been to carry my original auto lens with the wide angle attached to that, but I too would certainly be interested in an adaptor to make it work on my manual lens.

By the way, anyone not happy with the auto lens should take a look at the 16x manual....it's very nice.

Mike Avery

Has anyone had experience with this adapter for use with the stock 16x lens on the XL1s? I can't fork out the $1200 for the Canon 3x Wide Angle lens, but can spend around $400 for the Century Optics adapter.

Thanks,
Ron

I own and like this adapter. It does what it says it does: 0.6 magnification, no image distortion.

One early owner of this piece of glass reported that it fell off his camera and broke. He must not have put it on correctly. It goes straight on the lens and then its two pieces twist in opposite directions to make a tight seal. It will not fall off if attached correctly.

This adapter does mount onto the lens hood mount rather than screwing into the filter threads. What does this mean?

1) You must remove your protective UV filter before putting on the 0.6x adapter.
2) You can never use the lens hood while using the 0.6x adapter.

Beyond these two shortcomings, I've found this a nifty little gadget. Is it worth $400? No. It's worth maybe $50. But $400 is what they charge: so it goes.

The 0.6x adapter also has some advantages over the $1000 3x Canon lens. First--the 3x lens has no image stabilizaion. Some people don't care. (I do.) Second, in harsh environments (e.g. beach), I feel a lot less vulnerable removing the UV filter to swap on the 0.6x adapter than removing the whole lens and exposing the CCD to the elements.

By the way, has anybody figured out why the 0.7x adapter costs more than the 0.6x adapter?

Hi Robert.

Thanks for the great information. It really helps. Do you know how much wider an angle the Canon 3X provides over the Century .6X? Are they about the same?

Ron

Hi,

The standard 16x is 5.5 - 88mm. Multiply the 5.5 by .6 and it give you an effective focal length of 3.3mm. The 3x wide angle is 3.4 - 10.2mm. The 16x with the converter is virtually the same as the 3x at their widest setting. Century also makes a .6x for the WA which in turn makes it 2.04mm or roughly 15mm in 35mm terms.

Jeff

Isn't the 0,6 adapter with the 16x capable of using filters?
Can't you put on a filter between the lens and the adapter, or in front of it?

Also, if you use the 0,6 on the 3x, won't the picture go "fisheye"?


Thanks in advance,

Regards,


Erik T

If you use the 0.6x adapter, you can't use filters. This is because the 0.6x adapter doesn't screw into the filter threads; it mounts onto the lens hood mount. If you have an XL1 or XL1S, give a look-see, and you'll understand why it doesn't work.

If you use the 0.6x on the 3x, it won't go fisheye, it'll just go out of focus.

jtdonald provided some valuable numbers. What he doesn't mention is that the 16x lens + 0.6x adapter provides almost the same zoom focal range as the 0.3x Canon lens.

I believe that the 0.7x adapter cost more because it is full zoom through. The 0.6x is partial zoom through.

Thanks,

So, you can't even use a sunshade? I would need both a sunshade, a polarising filter, and a UV-filter. So in other words, the 3x is the only one for me?


Thanks in advance,


Regards,


Erik T

Howdy from Texas,

If you need a sunshade, filters, etc. then the 3x lens is definitely the right one for you.

Is it true the Canon 3X lens does not have image stabilization? I read this somewhere.

Yes, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it is true that the 3x lacks optical image stabilization.

Has anyone found a reasonable sunshade or matte box that would fit this adaptor?

Jerry

What is the OD of the adapter in mm?

Jeff

95mm

Jerry

The Image 2000 matte box is a good choice http://www.birnsandsawyer.com/index.asp . Its made for the Century adapters (95mm) and not too expensive. I see them on ebay ocassionaly for around $250, but as always, buyer beware.

Jeff

Thank you for your suggestion Jeff.

Jerry

Century Precision Optical has a new series of charts on their site that explain in detail what adapters ( including Century part numbers) fit what lenses and hoods. http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/xl1/chart.htm

Jeff

Very handy... many thanks, Jeff.

I have a .7X wide adapter for my 16X lens for the XL-1. Also just got off the phone with Chris over at ZGC, ordered the fisheye adapter. The people at ZGC rock, I'll have the fisheye adapter by next friday(30th). Can't wait to shoot with it. Now my friend with an XL-1s can use one adapter, and I can use the other on two camera shoots!

Here I am once again trying to find out how to use a piece of equipment that I've ordered. Just got my Century .6x zoom through converter, made for the manual lens. I checked with the lovely (I'm assuming) Chris from ZGC before ordering, and she verified that you can indeed zoom through with the converter on the manual lens, even though descriptions I have seen of the .6x say that you have 8x zoom "with autofocus only."

I put this thing on, and find that at it's widest setting, it's blurry with the iris opened all the way up. I adjusted the back focus, and now it's fine. That's only at the widest setting, however. Once you start to zoom (sorry I didn't take note of the factor) a litte bit, it goes blurry. Now, if it's got 8x zoom, that means it should be in focus through half of the manual lens's zoom range, no? The regular focus ring seems to have no effect when the converter's on, regardless of focal length.

Can anyone help?

The back focus is not adjusted properly. Adjusting the back focus may take a little experimentation with the converter. My guess is that you'll need to set the back focus at the 8X position first. Then zoom to the widest setting. Trial and error will get you there. Also make sure you're focusing on something far enough away when our setting back focus.

Jeff

Once you have your back focus set, don't even think about touching it again.

Jeff, if I set it at the 8x setting. . .won't I be blurry at the widest setting?

I'm not sure. But if it wasn't getting it before, I can't figure how else it might work. You could always call Chris at ZGC and ask. When setting the back focus are you focusing on an object far away? It should be something far away (200 yards at least) not the mail box at the end of the drive.

Jeff

I haven't focused on anything too far away. I can try it. I thought the idea behind the back focus was that it adjusted the focus at the lens's widest setting, and on the XL1s, in my experience, that means everythings in focus anyway, near and far (except when exceeds the minimum focus range for the manual lens).

Here's a link to adjusting back focus.

http://www.videouniversity.com/backfoc.htm

They suggest an object at least 75 feet. My experience is that is not far enough. But it may be OK for 1/3 inch chips and a WA adapter. DOF will cover small errors.

Jeff

Jeff, thanks. Here is what your link said (I'm posting it so what I write afterward will makes sense).

1.Set the iris to manual.
2.Set the zoom to manual.
3. Open the iris to 1.4 or its widest aperature. If the illumination on the test chart is too bright for the open iris, reduce the light or move the chart to a darker area.
4.Turn the zoom barrel to extreme telephoto.
5.Focus on the chart.
6.Set the zoom to wide angle.
7.Loosen the back focus ring retaining knob.
8.Adjust the back focus ring for the sharpest focus.
9.Repeat steps 4 through 8 until focus is consistently sharp.
10.When it is, tighten the back focus ring
retaining knob to secure the ring.

This is exactly how I've been doing it, with the exception of cheating on the distances of my obects upon which I focus. I've never had a problem maintaing consistent focus before.

I talke to Mizell at ZGC about this today, and he gave me a variation on the above formula.

He said instead of going all the way to wide angle, as in step 6, you're supposed to slowly zoom out from telephoto only until the image gets blurry, and then adjust the back focus ring again, and continue to do that until the image is sharp throughout. He said it usually takes 5 or 6 adjustments. Has anyone heard this? I've always done it just once the above-mentioned way, and never had a problem with focus.

On the site it says with the stock 16x lens you can only get a 85 degreee horizontal view, but with the 3x lens you can get 116 degree horizontal view.

So does this mean that I will have to buy the 1000+ dollar 3x lens to get the widest field of vision with the lens?

Seems like some sort of money making scheme Canon and Century teamed up on...

Thanks,
Ryan Krga

Hi Ryan,

Rest assured these companies are not "teaming up" and this is not a money-making scheme. The fact is that quality glass has been and always will be relatively expensive.

I've used the Century fisheye before with both lenses and I'm hoping you understand that either way you'll get serious image distortion (of course many people want that effect). However the 3x plus the fisheye is not a very useful combo in my opinion. A lot of the recordable image area is going to consist of barrel vignetting. The 16x plus fisheye is a reasonable combination but I don't think you'd like the 3x plus fisheye unless you like a big black ring around everything.

Also, keep in mind that the 3x lens at $1100 is a bargain by videography standards... most professional broadcast video lenses start at around two or three thousand dollars, and skyrocket upward from there. The Canon 3x is one of the least expensive lenses to be found. Hope this helps,

I have just purchased a Century Optics .6x adapter; I realize that it does not thread using conventional adapter threads, but do notice threads on the front of the lens. Being the immaculate type, I'd like to know what filter-size the front threads take. Looking at the Century Optics website, I get the impression that I'd need a 95mm adapter. However, the site is unclear if the 95mm is the OD (outside diameter) or ID (inside diameter) of the lens front. Anyone know?

Thanks!

David Harsany Crusoe

Ok, so I talked to some people at the B&H "used equipment" department; apparently, the filter isn't a 95mm filter, but something in the 92-94mm range. Has anybody out there used a NON-Century Optics filter with their .6x wide angle adapter? Am I forced to purchase the 4x4 century optics kit?

I believe you're using a bayonet style adapter - If you can't attach the stock sunshade, it's a bayonet. I think the only way around that is with a mattebox, maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I opted for the 3x lens instead of a bayonet adapter.

You may want to seriously consider some sort of shade with that adapter anyways. Light spill and flares really hurt a good shot :)

Looking for a hood when I use the Century wide angle adapter...where?
Mark

Found the hood I needed on Century's website (VS-FH44)....guess I should looked closer.....

Comparing the two wide angle conversion lens for the 16X, is one higher quality than the other based on experience? Also, I know the Century is only function in Auto mode with parital zoom capability (10X for the Optex). Is that the case for the Optex?

Thanks,

Jeffrey

Both these adaptors were reviewed in DV Magazine - http://www.dv.com. Also, you might find some info about them at: http://www.adamwilt.com

One of our members decided on the Optex over the century, but it was for his VX2000.

Hi there-

I'm wondering if I can fit a Century 72mm achromatic diopter between my Xl1s lens and the port of my underwater housing. If anyone has one of these, I would be very grateful for a measurement (mm) of the thickness of the metal rim. Thank you.

Jeremy

Century precision is very good with details like this. If you email or call them they will do everything they can to assist you.

Jeremy,

What kind of housing are you using?

Why do you want to use diopters?

What port are you using on your housing? (Standard, Macro or Wide Angle?)

What is your subject matter?

The metal rim is not so much a factor as the magnification of your diopter. The more powerful you go, the thicker the lens will be. The containment ring should stay the same. The difference in thickness will be in the glass. This is where you will probably run into a problem as the glass will protrude farther as the magnification intensifies.

You may want to contact the housing manufacturer and ask them what the clearance is from the front of the camera's lens to the rear element of the port, or if equipped with one, the color correction filter that usually swings in between the two.

RB

thanks for the info...I'll get ahold of the Century folks

hello everybody. My first post here, been reading for a while though.

First let me say that the information in this forum is absolutely wonderful and very informative. I'm foremost a record producer/engineer but with the invention of DVD the borders between audio and video production are shrinking more and more and I am getting into the video side of things. It's almost senseless to try to shop an "audio only" demo to a major label. So, I'm about to buy an XL1S in order to be able to shoot music videos and for some educational DVDs. I did have an XL1 before, which I sold right before the XL1S came out. I still have a Century Optics 0.7 wide adapter for the 16X standard lens. My question: will this converter fit on the Canon 16X manual lens?

Thank you for your help.

Welcome Michael!
I do not have this converter so take my reply with a grain of salt. But, yes, if it screws onto the front of the lens then it will the 16x manual lens. Both lenses share a 72mm thread diameter.

Michael:

It wont fit, its just enough off that it wont. However if you are buying the Kit it will fit on the 16XII lens. The 16x Manual it wont however.

I found out the hard way, however thanks to Dean (I think that was who told me) another member on the board Ive found out Century will retrofit that adapter to fit the manual. I beleive he said it was about $100 to have it done.

Hope this helps

M

Michael,
For the benefit of others, what is it about this .7 adapter that does not enable it to fit on the 16x Manual Servo lens? The filter size and threading on the manual and servo lenses are the same size and, I believe, pitch.

Ken:

The 72mm screw on part of the lens is the same, but the century is a bayonet mount (pro dv .7 wa is what I think were talking about the one I have). There is a slight difference on the way it can mount on from the standard lens. It seemed to almost work but theres just a slight difference with the twist on where it dosent quite catch.

I actually called Century when i first tried it and they verified the problem, they didnt offer a retrofit then. Now they do offer a choice when you order one, you can choose between one which will mount on the 16xII/I or the 16Xmanual. (both are the same price I think).

As I said I wasnt aware of the retrofit but this discussion came up about a month ago on the board and Dean Sensui (forgive me if I have it wrong/trying to give credit for some good information) pointed out he managed to get his retrofitted by Century for about $100. I plan on having mine reworked next month when Im in California.

Sorry I cant give you the technical reason, its simply a slight off on the groove twist on mounting for the bayonet between the two lenses.

Michel

Thanks for your help guys

That's what I was afraid of. I assume after it gets modified by Century to fit the 16X manual lens it probably won't fit the 16xII anymore. Looks like I need to invest in another adaptor.

Hello folks,

I'm looking to buy a wide angle adapter for my XL1-s. I wanted to get the .7 Century optics, but the price is alittle high. The .6 seems to have a wider angle and is less expensive. I'm wanting to shoot weddings, events, and maybe some music videos or documentories. Will the .6 be good for me or restrict me? If there are any users out there your comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks Jerome

The Century .7x is a full zoom-through converter which produces a 30% wider field of view. It works throughout the entire zoom range of the 16x lens, and therefore it's a bigger piece of glass. That's why it's more expensive.

The century .6x is a partial-zoom adapter which produces a 40% wider field of view. It works only at the wider end of the 16x lens. Since it's a smaller piece of glass, it's less expensive than the .7x.

If you need full zoom-through capability, then the .7x is the right one for you. If you prefer a slightly wider field of view, would rather spend less and don't mind the limited zoom capability, then the .6x is the one you want.