Hello,

I own an FX7 and I am torn between these three lenses. Can anyone add their two cents for me. This way I can get a better idea on which way to go?!...

Raynox HD-7062PRO 62mm 0.7x High Quality Wide Angle Converter Lens
MFR #HD7062 • B&H #RAHD7062 @$150

Raynox HDP-6000EX 0.79X High Definition Wide-Angle Conversion Lens
MFR #HDP6000EX • B&H #RAHDP6000EX @$480

Century Precision Optics 0.8x Wide Angle Converter Lens (Zoom Through, 72mm Rear)
MFR #0VS-08CV-72 • B&H #CEVS08CV72 @$480


By the way if this helps at all. I would be using this lens mostly for interviews. Hope that helps you to help me.

Thanks for the time and effort in advance.

Michael

Anybody have any ideas?

A wide-angle converter for interviews? Are you working in very confined spaces Michael? Adding any sort of glass to the front of the zoom will degrade the quality slightly - more flare, more distortion, less sharpness.

Which makes me think the 0.8x lenses are a lot of money for not a very powerful converter. They're kept mild to keep down the distortions primarily, but it doesn't make your footage 'frighteningly wide' as you track room to room, say. The FX7 starts out at 37.4 mm equiv, so a 0.8x only gives you a 30 mm wide-angle. Yawn.

The Raynox 0.7x you quote has a 62 mm attachment thread, and will most probably cause vignetting on the FX when you use a 72>62 step-down ring.

Have you considered Sony's 0.8x for this camera?

tom.

A wide-angle converter for interviews? Are you working in very confined spaces Michael? Adding any sort of glass to the front of the zoom will degrade the quality slightly - more flare, more distortion, less sharpness.

Which makes me think the 0.8x lenses are a lot of money for not a very powerful converter. They're kept mild to keep down the distortions primarily, but it doesn't make your footage 'frighteningly wide' as you track room to room, say. The FX7 starts out at 37.4 mm equiv, so a 0.8x only gives you a 30 mm wide-angle. Yawn.

The Raynox 0.7x you quote has a 62 mm attachment thread, and will most probably cause vignetting on the FX when you use a 72>62 step-down ring.

Have you considered Sony's 0.8x for this camera?

tom.

No have not looked at Sony for this one. I just got their newest one for the SR11, so I will go have a look right now. ***EDIT*** Yes, I did look at that lens. There is not much info on it though. I am not married to any of these lenses I just want to go a bit wider and not sacrifice too much pic quality.

The room is about 3m x 3m so tight space.

The Raynox 0.7x you quote has a 62 mm attachment thread, and will most probably cause vignetting on the FX when you use a 72>62 step-down ring.The FX7/V1 *is* 62mm front thread, so no step ring is necessary. The FX1 and 1000 and their pro equivalents are 72mm.

Sorry - brain not in gear - I was thinking FX1/1000.

The FX7/V1 *is* 62mm front thread, so no step ring is necessary. The FX1 and 1000 and their pro equivalents are 72mm.

The Century lens requires the step down ring or step up ring depending on how you look at it. Have you seen or used the Sony o.8?

Tom and I were both referring to the Raynox 62mm.

Tom and I were both referring to the Raynox 62mm.

Got it! Any advice on which way to go Adam?

I've never had a need to use a wide angle, ever, so I'm not an expert. But Century is supposed to be the gold standard of add-on lenses in this class. The more expensive of the Raynoxes are supposed to be pretty good, much better than their cheap ones. I guess you get what you pay for here.

I've never had a need to use a wide angle, ever, so I'm not an expert. But Century is supposed to be the gold standard of add-on lenses in this class. The more expensive of the Raynoxes are supposed to be pretty good, much better than their cheap ones. I guess you get what you pay for here.

The Century 2X converter made for the V1 - it uses the lens hood bayonet fitting rather than the 62mm filter thread for its mount - is first rate, as are the other Century lenses I have used in the past.

Century have always had an excellent reputation, and they are now part of the renowned Schneider Group. They are expensive, but with lenses, you get what you pay for!

The Century 2X converter made for the V1 - it uses the lens hood bayonet fitting rather than the 62mm filter thread for its mount - is first rate, as are the other Century lenses I have used in the past.

Century have always had an excellent reputation, and they are now part of the renowned Schneider Group. They are expensive, but with lenses, you get what you pay for!

OK, but, with the Century lens I will have to use the step up ring. Is that a problem? I know you guys made mention of it. I know you were talking about another cam though. If the Century is the way to go then I'm gonna order it. The only other lens on the table is the Sony that was brought up earlier.

I swear I'm almost there fellas...LOL

Michael,

I've got a room (albeit with a bed in it) that's about 3m by 3m. I could get you some with and without screengrabs with my V1 and Sony 0.8x lens.

Would that be any help?

Michael,

I've got a room (albeit with a bed in it) that's about 3m by 3m. I could get you some with and without screengrabs with my V1 and Sony 0.8x lens.

Would that be any help?


Mike, That would be great. That is exactly what I am dealing with. I thought after I picked the camera the hard part was over. BUT no, now I have to try and buy the right garbage for it. Thanks a bunch for the offer. Can't wait to see it.

It's a bit late tonight I'm afraid (Friday night in Ireland!) but I'll do that first thing Saturday morning when it's light.

I presume you'll be using a tripod? Clearly you can get more into shot if you are handheld jammed into the corner of the room. I will try the tripod against one wall and some handheld.

Sorry if the wait is too long!

It's a bit late tonight I'm afraid (Friday night in Ireland!) but I'll do that first thing Saturday morning when it's light.

I presume you'll be using a tripod? Clearly you can get more into shot if you are handheld jammed into the corner of the room. I will try the tripod against one wall and some handheld.

Sorry if the wait is too long!

No problem, I'll be looking forward to it. Thank you very much for the effort.

Michael

I would think it's a toss-up between the Sony 0.8x and the Centrury 0.8x - and there must be a Century either with the FX bayonet or a 62 mm attachment thread. There should be no need to use step-up rings.

OK, so here's a not so scientific test. I'd like to thank Oscar, my model, for helping out. Note that the V1 I use is identical to the FX7 in the optical department.

I've attached a few pics:
- w-lens-wa1 has just the stock V1 lens
- w-lens-wa2 has the 0.8x lens on
- w-lens-wa3 is another angle (in the corner of the room) with the 0.8x lens on
- w-lens-wa4 is the same shot as WA3 with just the stock V1 lens.
- The last pic shows how close the camera and tripod were to the wall. It could move a few cm closer, but it would be a bit awkward.

The room is 2.8m by 2.8m.

There's a fair bit of barrel distortion with the Sony WA lens. I'm sure fact that it is zoom-through is good for interviews, as you get a lot of scope with that 20x lens to re-frame without having to fumble round with the lenses. You can also see that, as predicted, it doesn't go very wide!

I'm kind of glad I don't shoot interviews, especially not in a small room and especially not with the Sony wide angle!

I can't judge against any of the other lenses you mention. It may be possible that the Century has less barrel distortion - they may have samples on their website.

I use the Sony 0.8x to get just a little bit wider for panoramas etc. You have to be pretty careful to avoid vertical objects (lamp posts, walls etc.) at the edge of the your shot if the distortion is not to your taste.

Don't want to pour too much cold water on this, but at over £400 (inc VAT and delivery) for such a mild increase in view and big increase in barrel distortion seems somewhat excessive in my view.

Search - Proactive (http://www.proav.co.uk/search/index.aspx)

My Bolex lens (0.52x) is far more powerful and exhibits no barrel distortion whatsoever.

tom.

I do agree Tom.

Unfortunately, at the time, I assumed that a Sony lens would be best for the Sony camera, and now I'm sort of stuck with it. I'll admit it doesn't get used terribly much. I don't think I'd get much for selling it 2nd hand.

At least my snapshots demonstrate the (relative lack of) power of a 0.8x lens, so it wasn't entirely futile!

Mike - you're one helluvan optimist, so keep smiling.

Mike,
Thank you very much! The barrel distortion is a bit to much for me. I thought it looked OK until I saw your closet door. That's what killed it for me.

The Century needs a step up ring. The Raynox has 62mm threads. They are the same price so that is a mute point. (The better lens that is 6000 something number).

You are correct it doesn't get much wider either. Oh yeah Century does have a video for theirs on the Schneider Optics website.

So we can take the Sony .8 out of the running and I need to look at the link above to see if that one may be an option.

Thanks again MIke this was very helpfull!

Tom - what a public service, £380 just to demo to people that it's no good. It's not a smile, it's clenched teeth!

(I wonder if I could actually sell it now - this hasn't been the best advert for it!)

Don't want to pour too much cold water on this, but at over £400 (inc VAT and delivery) for such a mild increase in view and big increase in barrel distortion seems somewhat excessive in my view.

Search - Proactive (http://www.proav.co.uk/search/index.aspx)

My Bolex lens (0.52x) is far more powerful and exhibits no barrel distortion whatsoever.

tom.

Hey Tom,
I went to the link above and put (Bolex lens (0.52x)) in their search box and nothing comes up. Then I went to the W/A section under 62mm and nothing. They only seem to carry Red Eye, Sony andd Century. Any more info on your lens? I'm gonna go google it now.

Thanks

When I tested Century's 0.65x against Cavision's 0.5x and Raynox's 0.6x the Century was the overall winner, but it barrel distorted more than the Raynox. That's fine until you come to film inside any sort of building, when it just looks cheap.

Michael - I bought my Bolex Aspheron direct from the factory in Switzerland as there's no English importer. Don't google for it - simply search for my posts on it in DVi.

tom.

When I tested Century's 0.65x against Cavision's 0.5x and Raynox's 0.6x the Century was the overall winner, but it barrel distorted more than the Raynox. That's fine until you come to film inside any sort of building, when it just looks cheap.

Michael - I bought my Bolex Aspheron direct from the factory in Switzerland as there's no English importer. Don't google for it - simply search for my posts on it in DVi.

tom.

Hey Tom,

I looked at the Century website and saw their test with the .8. Looks good on the outside. But, you have me scared now. I need it for inside. Here is their test page .8X HD W/A CONVERTER 72MM - Schneider Optics (http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1075&IID=2974)

The high end Raynox HDP-6000EX High Definition
Wideangle conversion Lens 0.79x looks good actually. However, I do see that the edges look soft (not as clear) Hope I used that term correctly. Here is their link scxroll down to the HDP-6000EX
SONY HDR-FX7, HDR-FX7E, HVR-V1J, HVR-V1E, HDR-V1U, HVR-V1N HDV Camcorders Comparison shots with Raynox accessory lenses (http://raynox.co.jp/comparison/video/comp_hdrfx7.htm#hdp6600ex)

I really appreciate all the imput fellas. I know you have better things to do on Saturday......

Maybe it's just me, but $615 for such a mild increase (makes the 37.5 mm wide-angle into a 30 mm equivalent) seem an expensive modification for not much return. Look, the Panasonic 151 is 28 mm right out of the box. Why not buy a 0.5x (DCR5000) and zoom up to the 0.8x position - that way when you want to go wider (and are prepared to accept more obvious distortions), you can.

I'm glad to see Century are putting little videos up showing the with and without footage, but why we have to watch a hand laboriously screwing the lens on beats me. They can still learn a lot from the excellent Raynox site.

If you 'need the lens for inside' Michael, there's simply no substitute for trying before buying. Some barrel distortion may be fine, but it can look pretty silly on Roman pillars and cathedral interiors.

Don't get too hung up on the edge definition. If your audience is scrutinising the corners of your frames you haven't exactly hooked them with your story-line, now have you?

If you don't mind a partial zoom-through, then these people make adapter lenses that are powerful yet don't barrel distort.

www.wittner-kinotechnik.de: Katalog (http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/08_aufna/b_optike.php)

tom.

Maybe it's just me, but $615 for such a mild increase (makes the 37.5 mm wide-angle into a 30 mm equivalent) seem an expensive modification for not much return. B&H has them for $480 but I see what you are saying.

I'm glad to see Century are putting little videos up showing the with and without footage, but why we have to watch a hand laboriously screwing the lens on beats me.
LMAO I thought the same thing....LOL


Don't get too hung up on the edge definition. If your audience is scrutinising the corners of your frames you haven't exactly hooked them with your story-line, now have you?
Excellent point Tom.

OK Tom, now it's time to put you on the spot so we can put this to bed. Between the Raynox 6000 and the Century .8 which would you think will do the better job? I simply have no experience in this arena so I can not even try and make an educated guess. At this point I am thinking about getting both and seeing which one I like and returning the other. But if I don't need to do that I wont.

Looking at the outside video they both look pretty good to me. The problem is, I look once and say I like the Raynox better, then look again and think maybe the Century is better.

Maybe this will come down to a build quality thing. Such as which one uses better components such as glass and what not.

The Raynox has 3 Groups/4 Elements don't know if that means anything though and I couldn't find this info for the Century.

So that we don't have to beat this horse any more. Let me know what you think between the two and I'll bite the bullet one way or the other.

Thanks again for all the info...

Between the Raynox 6000 and the Century .8 which would you think will do the better job?

I've owned both a Raynox and a Century wide-angle converter. The Century was better made, heavier, sharper, more expensive and had better coating. I can't answer your question because I haven't got both those lenses here to test, but both companies are serious contenders in this game and neither will disappoint. Unless you hate barrel distortion.

I will say though that I wouldn't buy a 0.8x, but that's just me. It's far too mild (read: dull) and I want a wide-angle to be frightening as you track through the forest or behind Danny as he navigates the corridors of the Overlook Hotel.

Three groups 4 elements shows an expensive construction, especially when you consider some manufacturers make zoom-throughs of the same power with but two elements.

Ball back your side of the net.

tom.

I'll order on Monday and let you know in a few days. Hows that?!...
Till then have a great weekend...

Beware of using step up/down rings! On two occasions I have found that focus was compromised. In one case - a 58 mm Century converter used with a 62 mm thread camera - only the central area of the field was sharp; in the other case no focus was possible. Admittedly these were both teleconverters. The extra DOF with WA converters probably means this is not a problem