A 0.75x wide-angle converter for the EX1 without barrel distortion Alex? Full zoom-through do you know? Should sell well, but pitty it isn't just a bit more powerful.

Tom,
I have no other filters attached to the camera and no step-up rings. And the vignetting occurs regardless of the Steadyshot bring turned on or off.

Doug,

Please post images of your vignette or email them to me. We have shipped hundreds of .6x attachments with no complaints including use on major feature films. If you wish, we can look at your lens for you but images would be faster to assess the problem to begin.

Ryan Avery
Schnieder Optics

Hi, Ryan!
Don't you know when the Schnieder Optics will ship semi-fisheye 0.55 and fisheye 0.3? I can't wait to purchase them! :)
Thanks!

A 0.75x wide-angle converter for the EX1 without barrel distortion Alex? Full zoom-through do you know? Should sell well, but pitty it isn't just a bit more powerful.

Raymond, Tom, I'm told it is distortion free 0.75x wide angle with full zoom through. detachable hood. It weighs 840grams. The Sony weighs 630g. I didn't buy it because its a little more than I can afford at the moment. I have asked the shop to send me stills/screen grabs to pass on to the forum. I'm told that Zunow is a well respected small lens manufacturer here. I only know that one other wide angle lens they make for the z1 which can also be used with the HVX is a big seller in Japan.
They build all lenses in Akita, Nothern Japan.
They were at NAB this year but I cant believe that when you google them in English my post from yesterday is third in the list. Unknown outside Japan! Strange.
Will let you know if I hear any more.

Certainly known here in the UK. I took my Z1 to the Video Forum 18 months ago and attached it to the front, but didn't like the barrel distortion then. Hopefully it's improved.

Doug,

Please post images of your vignette or email them to me. We have shipped hundreds of .6x attachments with no complaints including use on major feature films. If you wish, we can look at your lens for you but images would be faster to assess the problem to begin.

Ryan Avery
Schnieder Optics

Ryan,
Here is a still from the camera with the .6x lens attached. The camera is at full wide (5.6mm). Thanks.

Ryan,
Here is a still from the camera with the .6x lens attached. The camera is at full wide (5.6mm). Thanks.

Sometimes we experience vignetting in underscan but doesn't show in the final output to tape or webcast. Your issue seems a whole lot like CCD placement issues that we often expereince only from Sony (no knock on Sony intended, just facts).

Please bear with us as we formulate a solution to the unique challenges presented by this particular camera. We have never seen this much inconsistency from one model to the next in CCD placement. We will verify these issues and have an official solution in the coming weeks.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Just got the 0.75 wide angle adapter from Schneider. Nice piece of glass, fits perfectly with the Vocas Mattebox but......There is a major distortion issue with it and the edges are really soft. For me it is totally unusable. I contacted the service department over a week ago. Got a reply saying they would look into it, but since then nothing......Sent a couple of emails...nothing. This is really frustrating especially since I returned my Sony adapter for this one.

Hey Paul,

Any chance you have some examples from your tele? Would love to see full zoom without and with the 1.6.

From my calcs, it should be equivalent to about a 700mm 35mm still image at full zoom with edge crop beginning somewhere around 370mm 35mm equiv. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks in advance!

David if the weather clear this weekend I will be doing some shooting with the telephoto and will post some stills with and without. You are correct at 50% the image is full frame.

I'll see if I can't send you some of our sunny California weather. Looking forward to your tests. Cheers.

Ah yes that would be nice. Spring has sprung in Rhode Island but it is still New England.

just got a century 0.6x wide angle, and it vignettes like crazy. I'll post some stills later tonight when I have a chance, but in the zoom range where it normally would vignette, it is several times worse than it is without the adapter. It does seem as though this all goes back to sony's QC with sensor placement, I'm just bummed because I was hoping to use it on a job next week.

-Sean

Hey Guys, Has anyone heard anything more about the Zunow Wide Angle Lens yet? Not even a screen grab in Japan yet.

http://www.videoalpha.jp/news/2008/04/000131.php


Im curious to know if its any good, not that Im in a hurry to shell out a $1000 for it.

I had a redeye 0.7,bit of barrel distortion but no other problems apart from the fact it wouldn't quite fit under the lense hood.
So i returned it.
Nice lens though.And only £200.

Paul.

Same here Paul - I returned my RedEye 0.7x as although it claimed to be an aspherical element it wasn't aspherical enough, and the barrel distortion was too much for me. Beautifully coated and very light though.

That was with my VX2k. My friend seemed happy with his on the DVX100A, but that barrel distorted even more (perhaps because the Leica zoom went wider anyway).

tom.

David I have not forgotten you with the 1.6 Century. I will try and give it a go now and see what I can come up with for stills.

No worries Paul. Looking forward to what you come up with! By the way, do you use a mattebox with the tele?

I use a Century Sun Shade that I have had for years. It holds one 4x4 filter in a tray. Works nice and is a great price.

For my work a mattebox is too bulky and just gets in the way.

It is very gray out but if the phone stops ringing I will get a few clips with and with out now.

David thank you very much for getting me in gear to do this test. I have been very busy and had not taken the time to do a proper test with the Century 1.6 telephoto on the EX1.

Well the results are not good. The lens has the same problem I had with the wide angle and it is so bad I have asked for a RA# for the lens.

I did three test at full zoom with and with out the lens.

Stills:

well that's 2 strikes on century. i ordered the fisheye and waiting for delivery. these quality issues for the ex1 lenses is making me nervous about the fisheye.

Wow, I had such high hopes for this piece of glass. I thought the issues with the WA adapters wouldn't or couldn't manifest themselves in a tele but, sadly, I am dead wrong. This is really incredible that Century would have shipped such flawed products.

I am sorry, Paul, that were the guinea pig for us but thanks so much for posting the pics and doing the tests. Better to find out now than when you were out at sea though!

I would like to hear from Century now what is going on with these adapters. I for sure will not be ordering one and will begin to look at other makers.

I just got the century 0.6X and unfortunately it also vignettes just as described previously in this post - not useable. It is even worse as my camera is not a vignetter - and the vignetting with the Century 0.6X occurs perfectly evenly in all 4 corners between 6.5 and 15.

Asking for a return is going to be difficult as I live in Australia and ordered from B&H.

This is really dissapointing as I have other Century lenses that I am very happy with.

Ryan,

I know that you said that Century were working on an engineering fix - will this apply to lenses already shipped such as mine?

.

Graeme - are you sure this vignetting is reason enough to abandon your relationship with this lens? How does it fare in all other respects - in other words is is sharp, flare free, light, affordable, easy to carry, hood and fit, is the barrel distortion acceptable, does it allow enough zoom and so on? And if you return it, where else will you look for a replacement?

My super-wide vignettes the very corners on my Z1's frame at full wide, but if my clients are noticing this then my film has lost them good 'n' proper. But I have one thing on my side - I can zoom up a tad and the unlit pixels disappear. The optical design of the Fuji on the EX1 doesn't work this way.

tom.

Graeme - are you sure this vignetting is reason enough to abandon your relationship with this lens? How does it fare in all other respects - in other words is is sharp, flare free, light, affordable, easy to carry, hood and fit, is the barrel distortion acceptable, does it allow enough zoom and so on? And if you return it, where else will you look for a replacement?

My super-wide vignettes the very corners on my Z1's frame at full wide, but if my clients are noticing this then my film has lost them good 'n' proper. But I have one thing on my side - I can zoom up a tad and the unlit pixels disappear. The optical design of the Fuji on the EX1 doesn't work this way.

tom.

Tom,

Have only just got the lens and tried it on the camera inside at night.

At the widest setting of the Fujinon lens (5.8) the lens "just vignettes at the corners" a little. Like you I have seen this on the Z1, and also like you I zoom in a tad to clear it up - works a treat and the lens is sharp. With this lens as you zoom in the vignette gets far worse - maybe 5% of the frame at 10mm - very ugly - and dissappears at 15mm (which is about equal to the widest setting on the stock lens). Can't really comment on sharpness yet, as I need to shoot outside to check it.

The lens is beautifully made as are all Century lenses, and it is nice and light and easy to use. Just wish that it was useable as a WA on my camera!

OK. Two options. 1) Treat it as a totally non zoom-through wide converter and accept the tiny amount of vignetting. 2) Return it for a refund.

Have you had a look-see what Raynox has on offer?

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdp6000ex/index.htm

tom.

Don I am also waiting on a Fisheye and hope they get on out of three right.

Tom,

Have only just got the lens and tried it on the camera inside at night.

At the widest setting of the Fujinon lens (5.8) the lens "just vignettes at the corners" a little. Like you I have seen this on the Z1, and also like you I zoom in a tad to clear it up - works a treat and the lens is sharp. With this lens as you zoom in the vignette gets far worse - maybe 5% of the frame at 10mm - very ugly - and dissappears at 15mm (which is about equal to the widest setting on the stock lens). Can't really comment on sharpness yet, as I need to shoot outside to check it.

The lens is beautifully made as are all Century lenses, and it is nice and light and easy to use. Just wish that it was useable as a WA on my camera!


Graeme, I own the Sony .8 and aside from the weight, it works quite well. I do need a wider adapter for tight interior shots of rooms. I am planning on getting the Century .6 and would like your opinion. They tell me that it is "almost" fine when used in the extreme wide setting of the camera, but does vignette during the partial zoom. what is your take on this and would you suggest this lens if you were only planning on using it for extreme wide use? I do have several days before my possible shoot.
Thanks, Craig

I just got the century 0.6X and unfortunately it also vignettes just as described previously in this post - not useable. It is even worse as my camera is not a vignetter - and the vignetting with the Century 0.6X occurs perfectly evenly in all 4 corners between 6.5 and 15.

Asking for a return is going to be difficult as I live in Australia and ordered from B&H.

This is really dissapointing as I have other Century lenses that I am very happy with.

Ryan,

I know that you said that Century were working on an engineering fix - will this apply to lenses already shipped such as mine?

.

I am very relieved to hear I am not the only one having this vignetting issue. I am really surprised that it is occurring so badly during the entire distance of 5.6 to 10mm. Hopefully we will hear back from Ryan or someone from Century soon. I find the amount of vignetting not acceptable.

David thank you very much for getting me in gear to do this test. I have been very busy and had not taken the time to do a proper test with the Century 1.6 telephoto on the EX1.

Well the results are not good. The lens has the same problem I had with the wide angle and it is so bad I have asked for a RA# for the lens.

I did three test at full zoom with and with out the lens.

Stills:

Had a look at your stills from the telephoto and the only problem I see is a slight softening of the image.

I've done my own tests with my Century 1.6x that just arrived and I see a very subtle lose in sharpness but isn't this what you'd expect from a teleconverter and all that extra glass??

Let me know if I'm missing something. Adding extra glass is always going to sacrifice some sharpness - it's why in still photography primes are chosen over zooms.

Be good to hear what everyone thinks.
cheers
wes

Graeme, I own the Sony .8 and aside from the weight, it works quite well. I do need a wider adapter for tight interior shots of rooms. I am planning on getting the Century .6 and would like your opinion. They tell me that it is "almost" fine when used in the extreme wide setting of the camera, but does vignette during the partial zoom. what is your take on this and would you suggest this lens if you were only planning on using it for extreme wide use? I do have several days before my possible shoot.
Thanks, Craig

Craig,

Sorry for the delayed reply - I have been away. I can't say that I have tested it extensively, but I think what you say above is about true. My limited shooting at night on the day I received it was very unsettling. It vignetted very badly from about 6.5 to 12mm - very dark and ugly in the corners. This was made worse as my camera does not vignette!

Further testing in the day with the aperture closed down a little does allow use of the lens at the widest setting - just. I would say that from F2.8 on at the widest setting of the lens it is useable - but you cannot zoom even a whisker. The image is not bad at all within these limitations - a bit of barrel distortion at the edges (I think that would upset Tom!) but not more than I expected going on my previous experience with the Z1 version of this lens.

It is as usual for Century, very well made, but I am still not happy with the amount of vignetting. I hope that something can be done to fix this on my lens, but I doubt it.

Paul, looking at framegrabs shot with Century's new wide adapter for EX1, s few things are obvious:

1. All the wide framegrabs showed clearly the effects of edge blurring (sphererical aberration), complex a.k.a. "moustache" distortion where straightlines closer to the edges were barrel shaped closer to the center and bended into a pincusion shape near the edges (look at the row of shingles on the house's wall) . They also showed quite significant chromatic aberration which spread out over almost all the entire frame but more at near the edges (look at most outlines of dake objects over very light objects such as tree branches over the sky).

2. All the aberrations above were very symmetrical to my eyes (affecting all edge areas to a more or less similar degree), indicating a design flaw rather than QC or manufacturing flaws which would have shown some degrees of asymmetry such as the vignetting flaws shown by a number of EX1's own lens. If the design was sound then at the very least there was a serious law with either spacing of the lens elements or the adapter mount, push the the combined adapter/lens focal plane out of tolerances.

Whatever the problems are, the adapter has now been pulled from the market and yours, Paul, can be returned according to what is said in another thread in this forum.

The problems with the tele, though, involved only blurring and a less degree of chromatic abberation. This adapter has not been recalled as far as I know but the overall performance was still unacceptably poor. If I were you, I wouldn't hesitate for one second if it shoud be exchanged or returned. Century has really ruined their reputation by letting these two products out.

Though I do not own an EX1, I have the FX-1, HC-1, TRV 950 all of which mating with a few so-called high grade, far cheaper adapters from Sony with good results.

Sincerely
Wach

Wes the quality of the picture is not just the extra glass. I have had 1.6 tele for my A1's and Z1's and they were perfect. So this is a problem that does not work for me or my client base.

Wacharapong I have sent both back and will not order additional ones until I know the problem is solved and even then I will wait on other companies to come out with similar products. I do still have a Century Fisheye on order and hope they get that one right the first time since it has been 5 months delayed.

Hey guys,

I own Century, Sony and Canon WA lenses for my PD170's. Surprise! The Century is no better than the others....just heavier and lots more money. Now, we keep Canons on all our cameras. The only justification for the Century lens is that it lets me use their slotted lens hood with filters.

JoJo

Good point Dan I am going to look into a Sony WA for my EX1.

Good point Dan I am going to look into a Sony WA for my EX1.

I have used the Sony .8 from the start and so far so good. Would I like it to be a bit wider...yes, but not often.My biggest gripe is the permantently attached sunshade. I will need to remove it for use with a mattebox soon. Sony tech tells me people are cutting it off. I will have to form a plan how to do that. The lens overall is fine...however, no screw on front filter threads.
Best, Craig

In all these discussions about wide-angle adapters and vignetting, I don't recall seeing anybody talk about the menu option called "Wide Conversion" which should be turned on when using WA converters. Does anybody know exactly what this menu setting causes the lens to do? Does it prevent the lens from zooming out too wide thereby allowing you to see the corners of the shade....or what? Just curious.

Dave if you go back to my early post in the topic you will see that i did use the menu option for WA. It made no difference.

Sorry Paul, I missed that. Do you know what its' function is?

Don't have an EX1, but I'm pretty sure it's a change made to the Steadyshot control, just like on the Z1. The shorter the focal length the less obvious the camera shake, so the Steadyshot elements can have their vibration limits reduced.

Tom that makes sense to me.

I suspect that setting may also affect the cameras CA correction. If that's so then it could have implications for any WA lens not made by Sony. Hope I'm wrong as 0.8 doesn't do it for me at all.

I've gone through two of the three (or so) available DVD training disks on the EX1 but, so far, nobody has addressed the purpose of this setting. Based on things I've seen in the past, I believe it must affect the positioning of the lens or limit its' movement so that it can't exceed some predetermined setting.....but that's purely speculation on my part.

Wes the quality of the picture is not just the extra glass. I have had 1.6 tele for my A1's and Z1's and they were perfect. So this is a problem that does not work for me or my client base.

Hi Paul,

The 1.6x TC just proved to be too soft for your needs?

Randy it was too soft and most of the time out of focus for the outer 1/3.

Randy it was too soft and most of the time out of focus for the outer 1/3.

Thanks Paul,

I received my 1.6 TC Century from Zacuto last week and have done two sets of tests with it. I also am dissapointed. I have to decide if I will keep it for when I am in a pinch, or just send it back.

I have owned teleconverters for still photograpghy (up to 2X) as well for video, and this one is the least impressive. Very soft, even by TC standards where some softening is expected.

I would really love to hear from Century here to see if there is work being done to refine the design or if this is the final product.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but since this one is getting so much action... Would you all post of your good experiences and recommendations of a wide angle lens (including Sony's) for the EX1? From what I have found the biggest complaint about Sony's is the sun shade... but any positive feedback on this or other WA lenses would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
-sutton

The message is pretty clear Sutton. Buy Sony's pretty feeble 0.8x with its attached hood or abandon the idea completely. The Fujinon doesn't take kindly to add-ons, and the Bolex Aspheron (0.52x) that I've used for many years on other cameras is unuseable on the EX1.

Thanks Paul,

I received my 1.6 TC Century from Zacuto last week and have done two sets of tests with it. I also am dissapointed. I have to decide if I will keep it for when I am in a pinch, or just send it back.

I have owned teleconverters for still photograpghy (up to 2X) as well for video, and this one is the least impressive. Very soft, even by TC standards where some softening is expected.

I would really love to hear from Century here to see if there is work being done to refine the design or if this is the final product.

Randy,

This is the first I have heard of any issue with the EX1 and our 1.6x tele-converter. We have had this on documentaries and major feature films; all with positive feedback.

I would like to see some sample footage if possible.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Randy,


I would like to see some sample footage if possible.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Ryan,
If you look further down this thread you will find still samples from Paul Cronin's tests with the tele. Completely unusable.