i need a wide angle for EX , but can't make up my mind on which one,
Im thinking sony Sony | VCL-EX0877 0.8x Wide Angle Lens Adapter | VCL-EX0877 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=workaround.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=526428&is=REG#specifications) or Century Optics Century Precision Optics | 0HD-06WA-EX1 0.6x Wide | 0HD-06WA-EX1 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=workaround.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=544583&is=REG) century is wider, lighter and cheaper, is there any reason to go sony, or maybe some other WA lenses out there?
Many thanks!

I have the Century wide adapter, and have been extremely happy with it. It does not have a shade, but it does have 102mm thread for filters which I don't believe you would have on the Sony. I do not have any experience with the Sony, so I can't comment on it.

I have the CAVision .7x wide and I think it's as good as the Century and might be a better deal, I evaluated both. Now have the Century .55x fisheye and the CAVision .7x, which has less distortion than the Century fisheye at the edges and is a bit sharper.

I've been using the Sony WA for a few months. It is fairly sharp, a good, heavy piece of glass. but does have barrel distortion - On full wide the far horizon appears bowed. Some shots appear a little too unrealistic to use.

Actually thinking of selling it and updating. Is the Century Optics full zoom through?

I've been using the Sony WA for a few months. It is fairly sharp, a good, heavy piece of glass. but does have barrel distortion - On full wide the far horizon appears bowed. Some shots appear a little too unrealistic to use.

Actually thinking of selling it and updating. Is the Century Optics full zoom through?

Kevin, if you put the horizon on the exact centerline of the frame, does the bowing level out (as opposed to tipping the camera up or down)?

Kevin, if you put the horizon on the exact centerline of the frame, does the bowing level out (as opposed to tipping the camera up or down)?

At centerline the horizon still bows from the barrel distortion. This only occurs at full wide - but, hey thats what the wide angle is for. Pretty sad for just .8x wide. I guess that is why the are only $450.

In answer to my own question: A wide angle converter allows you to fully zoom through and keep focus. A wide angle adapter only holds focus through 1/4 of the zoom range. That is why most of the converters are @ $1000.

I've got the Sony - it's very helpful for many things. There IS a bit of distortion, more than I prefer. However, it is a zoom-through which make all the difference to me. I rely on the ability to be able to zoom to frame my shots - only use it at full wide occassionally. I'd lose that option with the Century.

I just bought an EX3 and tested the Century. I haven't bought it but still have a chance besok before flying back to the jungle. Here (singapore) the Century's seling for 1700 sing or 1100 US. I was thinking of giving it a miss in hopes of grabbing a proper ENG lens, maybe one of the XDCAM HD 1/2 inch models. That however will take a bit of cash, thus a bit of time... Tough call. But to address the question, on full wide I panned across a wall that had sennheiser written on it and as i reached the edge of the frame in the lens, the letters just started to stretch. It wasn't terrible, awful, but I saw it...

Whooh chaps - barrel distortion bends all straight lines that *do not* pass through the centre of the image. So Kevin - I sure don't know what it is you're seeing.

Buba - the Sony 0.8x is a very mild converter - in an effort to limit the barrel distortion. The 0.6x Century is for lovers of barrel distortion, there's no doubt about that. It's the price you pay to go wider, cheaper and lighter than the Sony.

And Kevin - I have a single element 0.52x wide-angle adapter and I can zoom far more than the ¼ you describe. My Sony zoom is scaled from 00 to 99 and with the converter in place I can go 00 to 65 before it loses focus. Not bad for a 'non zoom-through'.

tom.

That's what I thought,
thanks Tom,
thanks everybody,
I love this place!

Hi there,

I followed these threads but still cannot decide what wide angle converter/dapter to buy.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/145164-pmw-ex1-setup-dark-venues-w-schneider-optics-0-6-wide-angle-adapter.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/141253-ok-leave-wide-conversion.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/140978-lens-converters-ex1-ex3.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/138133-new-ex1-3-wide-angle.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/121840-schneider-century-optics-75-wide-angle-converter-ex1-recalled.html

I film almost only fireworks displays from distances of 150-400m in most times. I still need more wide angle than the EX1 has to offer with its internal lense.

For me it is impossible to do autofocus or to find focus at daylight or after the start of the shows.
So, I have to find focus at night before the shows. I do this by zooming in totally to the front pieces (first main line of effects). The EX1 without converter is wonderful for finding the focus with peaking on even in almost darkness on some sharp edges of the effect-boxes. After finding focus of these front effects (in full manual focus mode) I zoom back totally to the widest view. This way the picture is sharp from the front line effects to the large caliber shells which are ~50-100m behind them, even at f1.9 open iris.

To achieve the same perfect focussing I would assume that I need a fully zoomable converter. Am I right?
Because of that I would first look for the original Sony WA-adapter (but zoom through) for the EX1. Moreover it has a sunlight shade hood which is perfect against falling particles from fireworks or against some rain drops.

BUT, the Sony adapter is 0.8x only, what is very little. More important it does not have the possibility to put an UV-filter in front of the converter. Am I right?
When I used the VX2100 the last years I burned 4 (!) Canon WA-converters because of the missing glass in front. There are always some "acids" or sparks falling down from large fireworks displays which destroy the front filter.

So, what could be my solution? What converter, say maximum 800-1000 Euro (better less ;)), is fully zoomable, has at least 0.8x (better 0.6-0.7) and allows to put a filter in front? Since I do not have straight lines in my footage barrel distortion should be not too big, but is not my main problem.

Thanks a lot for any hint,
yours
Markus

What converter fully zoomable, has at least 0.8x (better 0.6-0.7) and allows to put a filter in front? Since I do not have straight lines in my footage barrel distortion should be not too big, but is not my main problem.

Ah, at last we find someone who won't mind some barrel distortion and who is in need of a filter to protect their front element. You say you 'burned' 4 converter lenses - you mean they were destroyed by the fireworks? Should you be standing further away?

OK, the front filter thread and the full zoom-through capability pretty much limits the lenses that will fit the EX1. As you say, the 0.8x is pretty mild, but that's done to maintain quality. So you can't use Century's 0.6x and the 0.75x (with a 102 mm filter thread) is somewhat dear at $1235.

Cavision's 0.7x has no filter thread
Cavision 0.7x Wide Angle Converter for Sony EX1 (http://www.cavision.com/optics/broadcast/BWC07X86BEX1.htm)

and same with 16x9's 0.75
16x9 Inc. :: EX 0.75X Aspheric Wide Converter (http://16x9inc.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=451)

And Raynox aren't geared up for the EX1 at all as far as I can see.

The design of the Fuji lens on the EX1 has made wide-angle converter lenses difficult to make, so I think you're going to have to revise your desired specification list Markus.

tom.

Thank you very much, Tom! It does not make it easier for me, but it proves, that it was good to ask.

So at the moment I still stick with the Sony, since although it does not have the filter thread it's zoom-through, does not blur the picture too much, has a lense shade hood - and is somehow payable (not like the +1000 for the Cavision).

*argghh*, maybe I glue some kind of glass to the front of the Sony... Or I try to buy some used matte box and put some glass in front of that.

BTW, one can only imagine how "dangerous" large scale fireworks displays are even in almost 500m distance when you have a show with a 300m front, large calibers upto 16'' or even more, thousands of thousands of shots... and a slight wind blowing towards you and no chance to change position (before). Most dangerous is this fine dust and droplets, almost not to feel on skin, but afterwards you have them on the lense - and some of them won't be removable, even if you rubb them with a hard brush or aggressive chemicals.

And yes, there are some times where I am within the fireworks, eg. at a street procession in Valencia/Spain with all the dancing devils shaking titanium sparkling fountains. Any of these sparks will burn into glass...

Mmmhhhh, ok. Thanks again and any more hint is much appreciated.

I went with Century wide adapter and like it; there is some barrel, but it's not too much and I actually like it, flying shots looks geat!

Regarding barrel distortion, it can be controlled with After Effects. Here's a before and after of a shot done with the Sony 0.8 WA lens.

Post production removal of barrel distortion is of course possible but Dean - I'd like to see three frame grabs: 1) the camera's max wide-angle, 2) the barreled 0.8x and 3) the corrected shot.

My guess is 3) won't look a lot different to 1), which somewhat defeats the object. Same with a 0.5x I had. By time you'd zoomed in far enough to remove the worst of the barrel distortion it hardly seemed worth fitting it in the first place.

tom.

The reason to go Sony is to limit the barrel distortion and to have full zoom through. The reason to go Century is to pay less and have more coverage, lighter weight, less bulk.

Tom...

The stock lens without the WA adapter still shows some barrel distortion. So if you're looking for straight lines and use AE to fix things, there's still some loss of the image. Having the 0.8x still helps.

I don't do much correction for most of the things I shoot. But this was for a commercial and the curved lines were too obvious.

The only other way to get a very wide shot with straight lines is to get a lens that's designed from the ground up to do just that. But the lenses I've seen that's capable of providing that kind of image usually cost about $25,000 to $30,000.

The only other way to get a very wide shot with straight lines is to get a lens that's designed from the ground up to do just that. But the lenses I've seen that's capable of providing that kind of image usually cost about $25,000 to $30,000.

And the problem with the EX1 is that its fixed zoom lens won't let you fit such a lens, however many of them you have lying about. It's probably why EX3 owners say the price difference is worth while.

All my Sony zoom lenses have barrel-distorted down the wide end too. My Z1 is embarrassingly bad I'm sorry to say, and on paid-for shoots I wince when straight lines coincide with frame borders. Of course I'm somewhat paranoid about this as readers will be well aware, but then clients should be more engrosed with your story-line and have no time for technical matters.

Rather than use AE to sort the barrel distortion on my Z1 I simply fit my aspherical wide-angle adapter. This completely cures the Z1, meaning (in effect) that the lens adds pincushion distortion as a correction. Of course adding a single element aspheric ups the CA noticeably, but in my view, CA is far less noticeable than bendy-curvy horizons, door frames, church pillars and telegraph poles.

My lens won't work on the EX1's Fujinon, before you ask.

tom.

And the problem with the EX1 is that its fixed zoom lens won't let you fit such a lens, however many of them you have lying about. It's probably why EX3 owners say the price difference is worth while.

When I bought the EX1 there was no way I was going to spend more money to get an EX3 ... because it didn't exist yet. :-)

Of course all the effort goes into making all the lines straight, then a client might start to complain about the strong converging lines of perspective.

So, for the normal mortals at the moment there are these 5 choices only:

Sony VCL-EX0877: Zoom through, mild converter 0.8x, little barrel distortion, lense hood, NO filter thread in front, ~$400-500
Century Precision Optics 0HD-06WA-EX1: NO Zoom through, adapter 0.6x, noticable barrel distortion, filter thread in front ~ $400
CAVision 0.7x adapter or 0.75x converter, probably good image quality, NO filter thread, price ++$1000-1200
sell car and buy more expensive lenses and/or cams
wait till judgment day for a 0.6x payable converter with filter thread and good image quality


At the end it looks like as if the Sony would be still my choice. 0.8 only, but more than nothing, good image quality, but no filter thread, that is essential for me.
Mmmhhh. Do not punish me, but is it possible to put a, say 106mm filter just in front of the Sony and tape it somehow? I would do this just when I fear smoke and droplets blowing towards me. Of course any professional will just shake head, but is this a (dirty) way at all or not possible because of optical reasons?

Thanks again for all your help,
Markus

is it possible to put a, say 106mm filter just in front of the Sony and tape it somehow? I would do this just when I fear smoke and droplets blowing towards me. Of course any professional will just shake head, but is this a (dirty) way at all or not possible because of optical reasons?

Marcus - the main reason wide-angle converters and adapters don't have filter threads is because adding a filter almost guarantees that you'll increase the flare levels and tiny imperfections of dust etc will show up horribly in against the light shots. Omitting the filter thread means you've deleted two extra air-to-glass surfaces, and with it the three glass surfaces that must be kept absolutely spotless.

Remember adding a 0.6x means your focal length is a minute 4 mm or so, Space your fingertips 4 mm apart and marvel. And again - if the converter has 'filter threads' they've been incorrectly described - they're in fact hood threads.

Go ahead - get yourself some squares of Cokin as tape them in position as front element protection. After all, the rolling shutter CMOS effects that I've seen show the EX1 is NOT the camera to use for firework displays, and especially not if you plan to slow the footage (or overcrank) at all. So having a clear Cokin in place will be the least of your worries my friend.

tom.

After all, the rolling shutter CMOS effects that I've seen show the EX1 is NOT the camera to use for firework displays, and especially not if you plan to slow the footage (or overcrank) at all. .

Tom...

Have you tried to shoot fireworks with the EX1?

This guy did: YouTube - Walt Disney EPCOT Fireworks - IllumiNations Reflections of Earth 2008 in HD 1080p with Sony PMW-EX1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLkRx2H03IM&fmt=22)

Have you tried to shoot fireworks with the EX1?

No, only weddings. I'm going on the experience of an EX1 owning friend of mine, who says, quote: ' I also captured one fireworks event. I have determined that the rolling shutter factor pretty much disqualifies the camera for intense fireworks however.'

Note the adjective 'intense'. The YouTube film you tagged was more light, less explosions.

tom.

More fireworks: Fireworks on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/940357)

To continue this offtopic part (maybe a moderator can split it to new thread eg. "EX1 for fireworks displays", I think it is worth it):

I've shot 3 hours of displays with the EX1 already, but on one event only. So no way to change some settings (besides resolution) and check again at another display. Since I film fireworks for more than five years now (for my website and for DVDs, ago with Sony TRV900, then Canon XM2, then Sony VX2100) and I am a licensed pyrotechnician, who knows how effects should look like, I would comment the EX1 for fireworks as follows:

CONTRA:

- hard audio limiter even in manual audio mode is KO criteria for audio recording. I have to check if one can limit the effect with other settings (see different thread)

- rollowing shutter is clearly visible when you have flashes in front of large smoke clouds. This can be the flashes from the audience taking photos at very close, small displays, or the flashes of salute shells and some bursting charges in the sky. You clearly see the horizontal breaks of the flashes from one frame to the next. But, for the bursts in the sky, if you are in ~300m distances, this is not that disturbing.

- in fast upwards moving effects, like comets from roman candles, one can notice vertical deformation of the effects

- visible noise in night sky even at -3db

- low light capabilities tend to blend/overexpose the picure at very bright effects (especially in smoke), even when closing the iris manually very fast


PRO

- incredible sharp at 1080/50i (25p ist to few frames for my taste -> stuttering effects), ok in 720/50p. I prefer 1080i (tried both), even for downsizing to 720p

- wonderful low light capabilities. It is more bright at low light golden and brocade effects at -3db then the "Queen of the night" VX2100/PD170 at 0 or even +3db.

- good wide angle with standard lense (but to small for me)

- incredible dynamic range. One can almost keep iris open all the time and just regulate very bright sequences manually. No smear, little spoiling of effects - that's CMOS large, large, large advantage over CCD.


All what I described was controlled on 24'' TFT and 50'' Kuro plasma.
In the end there is -at the moment- no alternative, I would say. The FX1000 is "ok", but it uses tapes for HDV only. Panasonic 171 did not fit my needs for low light, noise and sharpness...

Regards
Markus

So, for the normal mortals at the moment there are these 5 choices only:

Sony VCL-EX0877: Zoom through, mild converter 0.8x, little barrel distortion, lense hood, NO filter thread in front, ~$400-500
Century Precision Optics 0HD-06WA-EX1: NO Zoom through, adapter 0.6x, noticable barrel distortion, filter thread in front ~ $400
CAVision 0.7x adapter or 0.75x converter, probably good image quality, NO filter thread, price ++$1000-1200
sell car and buy more expensive lenses and/or cams
wait till judgment day for a 0.6x payable converter with filter thread and good image quality



Marcus, I actually own the CAVision 0.7x adapter, and for me it is pretty good quality, much better than the fisheye Century, which I also own. The price is good, street price around $300, rather than the $1000 you mention. It doesn't accept a front filter though, but you could use it with a Matte box.

Thank you, Keith!

A quick search just found this BWC07X86BEX1 Cavision Broadcast Series 0.73x Wide Angle Converter Lens with Clamp on Mount for Sony PMW-EX1 (http://www.adorama.com/CIBWC07X86BE.html)
$ 1109

Do we speak from the same adapter?
Cavision 0.7x Wide Angle Converter for Sony EX1 (http://www.cavision.com/optics/broadcast/BWC07X86BEX1.htm)
This one is full zoom through...

If we talk about same adapter and if the street price in Europe is payable, then there would be two choices:

* The Sony 0.8x converter, zoom through
* The CAvision 0.73x adapter, zoom through (optional big lense hood)

Which one should I prefer? Is the image quality comparable and one can just decide by angle width and price?

Thanks again!

Thank you, Keith!

A quick search just found this BWC07X86BEX1 Cavision Broadcast Series 0.73x Wide Angle Converter Lens with Clamp on Mount for Sony PMW-EX1 (http://www.adorama.com/CIBWC07X86BE.html)
$ 1109

Do we speak from the same adapter?
Cavision 0.7x Wide Angle Converter for Sony EX1 (http://www.cavision.com/optics/broadcast/BWC07X86BEX1.htm)
This one is full zoom through...

If we talk about same adapter and if the street price in Europe is payable, then there would be two choices:

* The Sony 0.8x converter, zoom through
* The CAvision 0.73x adapter, zoom through (optional big lense hood)

Which one should I prefer? Is the image quality comparable and one can just decide by angle width and price?

Thanks again!

Hi Markus

The CAvision adapter I'm talking about isn't the zoom through, it's the adapter rather than the converter, so perhaps it's not what you want, which is to be able to have it on all the time and zoom throughout the range. The CA vision adapter I have, you can zoom maybe 1/2 of the range and you have to have it in AF/MF Macro mode (auto preferred). For me it was the preferred lens because of the price and that I don't need or want to have the heavy glass on all the time, just when I need a little wider shot.

Note that by Cavision's own admission, quote: '*Please note: this adapter causes a small amount of vignetting at corners of frame at full wide (outside 90% safety zone)'.

This happened with me when I had a Cavision 0.7x for my VX2k years ago. If you zoom up to eliminate this vignetting you've suddenly got a 0.8x rather than the 0.7x you paid for.

Why is this important? Because all films shown on computers (and I include YouTube and so on here) show the entire frame. Having blacked out corners of your wide shots doesn't look too good. Many modern LCD and plasma TVs have no overscan when they show DVDs, mine included.

tom.

Note that by Cavision's own admission, quote: '*Please note: this adapter causes a small amount of vignetting at corners of frame at full wide (outside 90% safety zone)'.

This happened with me when I had a Cavision 0.7x for my VX2k years ago. If you zoom up to eliminate this vignetting you've suddenly got a 0.8x rather than the 0.7x you paid for.

Why is this important? Because all films shown on computers (and I include YouTube and so on here) show the entire frame. Having blacked out corners of your wide shots doesn't look too good. Many modern LCD and plasma TVs have no overscan when they show DVDs, mine included.

tom.

For the CAVision adapter that I own (non-zoom through) I don't experience the vignetting at full wide on the EX1. Not sure about the full zoom through version.

Waking this thread again because I need some advice. If Ryan from Schneider can jump in, it will be a big help, too. I've seen announcements from Schneider/Century about their "new" line of lens adapters for the EX3 and EX1 but I'm having a hard time figuring out what is "new". Is this a redesign of the original add-on lenses? Specifically, I'm going to be needing a Wide adapter for some model home walkthru's and I'm leaning toward the Sony. However, it's barely adding enough "wide" to make it worthwhile and I need to know if the new lenses will fit my needs better. Ryan?

Seeing as how this thread has been revived and I haven't seen it mentioned before I picked up a 16x9 0.75 WA adaptor and lens hood at NAB. Price was very competitive.

Works as advertised. There is more barrel distortion as expected. It is a heavy! There's no thread on the front so a matte box is the only way to add filters.

We also had a lengthy discussion with Fujinon regarding buying a wide zoom for our EX3's. We were looking at their 1/2" "broadcast" lens at several time the cost of the EX3. It was pointed out that barrel distortion is difficult to avoid due to the 1/2" chips. 2/3" chips make it less of a problem. I'm no optics guru so make of that what you will.

It was pointed out that barrel distortion is difficult to avoid due to the 1/2" chips. 2/3" chips make it less of a problem.

Now for some reason I find myself grateful that EX cameras don't have 1/3" sensors.

- Don

It was pointed out that barrel distortion is difficult to avoid due to the 1/2" chips. 2/3" chips make it less of a problem. I'm no optics guru so make of that what you will.

Bob, the chip size (effectively the gate of the movie camera) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of barrel distortion (or pincushion, CA, or any other lens failing).

Lenses distort due to their design - and this generally comes about when cost, size and weight constraints are placed on the lens designer. Ergo - people who invest in 2/3" chipped camcorders tend to buy bigger, more expensive lenses - lenses that have inherently better corrections.

tom.

As Tom mentioned, it's the lens design that determines barrel distortion.

There are some great wide-angle "rectilinear" lens designs but they're dearly priced.

A 14mm Nikkor for a 35mm camera can cost more than $2,000. A zoom lens for ENG cameras can easily surpass $25,000.

I think the lens under discussion is the XS13X3.3BRM, not a cheap piece of glass but it seems to be about the best of the 1/2" lenses.
I must admit I wasn't paying all that much attention to what was being said about the difficulty of making a wide zoom for 1/2" cameras and in the general noise of the NAB floor it's not too easy to hear so well. The way I heard the comment it did strike me as odd. Perhaps a 1/2" lens is simply more expensive to make than a 2/3" to the same specs and given the obvious difficulty of selling expensive glass to go onto cheaper cameras no one takes up the challenge.
That there's two in this country looking for owners and we're being offered one a cost lends weight to that logic. Good news is we look like getting a loan of one to try out. It'd need to perform significantly better than the stock lens with a WA adaptor to justify the cost or it'll be going back.

I own the Sony VCL-0877 and like it, more or less.
With iris at f1.9 open I have a noticable unsharpness/blurring on the right side of the picture. It is around till 1/4th from the right and from the bottom upto at least 1/2 of the picture hight.

This happend with my EX1 and happens with my EX1R - so it is caused by the WW itself. All other corners are maybe not perfect but much less visible unsharp.

Is this "normal" for the Sony VCL-0877 or is it worse as it should be?
I am going to buy another one to check....

Thanks
Markus

Not normal at all Markus, and it rather points to a miss-centred element in the line-up. Has the lens been dropped at any time? I'm betting your next 0877 will be a lot better.

I've bought it used and at normal daylight its not that visible, so one can miss it.
OK, another 500 Euro... :(

Thanks for your input!

Waking this thread again because I need some advice. If Ryan from Schneider can jump in, it will be a big help, too. I've seen announcements from Schneider/Century about their "new" line of lens adapters for the EX3 and EX1 but I'm having a hard time figuring out what is "new". Is this a redesign of the original add-on lenses? Specifically, I'm going to be needing a Wide adapter for some model home walkthru's and I'm leaning toward the Sony. However, it's barely adding enough "wide" to make it worthwhile and I need to know if the new lenses will fit my needs better. Ryan?

We have redesigned the EX series attachments as Sony has made their own unannounced changes to the lenses over time. These are changes that we have had to make as the native camera lens or issues with the camera have come to the surface that could not be seen in initial design. These are not recalls beyond the first recall but simple modifications to improve performance for select applications. The simple fact is that the EX series cameras lenses both have significant barrel distortion and latteral chromatic abberation that cannot be corrected optically. Some people have tried to offer apochromatic correction but this is incorrect for the EX series lens design and causes an upward flip in the image corners and other issues that were present in our very first version that nobody should own by this point due to recalls. That being said we feel that we have done the best with the limitations of this lens and given the maximum quality for an add-on attachment.

We offer the finest quality attachment available for the Sony EX series cameras. Our .75x is now in the MKII version with a wider rear element to prevent vignetting beyond tv safe and is the best version yet. Through June 30th 2010, this lens' list price is only $949. This means you can pick this lens up for less than ever at dvinfo sponsors. Probably around $800 or less.

The .6x can now be picked up for less than $300 but demonstrates the natural barrel distortion of the EX series cameras and not the best for interiors where vertical lines are evident and barrel distortion is more significant. The .75x is a better choice for interior shots.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

I just posted a batch of photos showing comparisons between the various Century wide adapters. (I started a new thread, so here's the link: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/477833-century-wide-adapters-comparison.html)
I hope this will help answer some questions and give some perspective on the differences between these adapters. I have used Century products for nearly 20 years now, and would use nothing else when it comes to filters and adapters.

I recently bought a Red Eye 0.65x adaptor and then use the New Blue FX II plugins for FCP (also available for other NLE's) since it has an absolutely superb lens distortion correction filter. Unlike other plugins I tried the New Blue FX one doesn't lose much off the width of the picture, and it's fast at rendering too.

I'm trying to find a good CA correction filter too. I found one by a company called River Rock Studios, but it was last updated in 2004 and doesn't play nicely with the New Blue FX filter. A shame because it totally eliminated all CA from the adaptor.

The other plugin I have tried is by Core Melt. This does a good job of getting rid of CA, but nowhere near as good as the River Rock one and also has the nasty side effect that it desaturates the picture. So my quest goes on. DFT used to make one in the set of plugins called 55mm, but they don't sell them any more.

posted to the wrong thread

I'd love to see this wide angle adapter added to the mix for comparison.

16x9 Inc. 169-HDWC8X-77 EXII 0.8x Wide Angle 169-HDWC8X-77 B&H

I have it on my EX3 and could not be happier. Plus it's got a lens hood you can buy to fit!

Sorry, wrong thread. Please delete this post...
My new question is now here (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/499990-wide-angle-lens-adaptor-ex1.html).