I know there is another thread about this, but there are too many unrelated comments. Century Optics is one choice. How many other adapters are available? User feedback please.

Thanks

just get century optics, i love my fish from them and am about to purchase a wide angle as well, bayonet mount is awesome!

I use the Canon. The quality is good and the lens is a zoom through.

Canon for me too but that's probably what caused my hernia.

The lens on the XHA1s is not removable. do you think I meant the XLH1s?

The lens on the XHA1s is not removable. do you think I meant the XLH1s?

No, the XH-A1 with the WD-H72 wide angle lens adapter.

This is all getting a bit surreal for me. I ignored Jason's bayonet just like I ignored his fish. Please don't make me laugh - it hurts. Someone please do a quick summary on the usual WA adaptors and whether they are zoom through or not.

I have the 16X9 0.7x wide angle converter that works with my H1 and A1. It works fine but it is soft on the edges.
16x9 Inc. | 169-HD7X-72 0.7x Wide Angle Converter | 169-HD7X-72 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/581313-REG/16x9_Inc__169_HD7X_72_169_HD7X_72_0_7x_Wide_Angle.html)

Anyone try the 16x9-HD7X-72 from 16x9, Inc.? That's the mfg. name. It weighs 19.2 ooz.

Adorama lists the WD-H72 at 2.3 pounds. Talk about a hernia! Is that correct? Are there any other choices besides the Canon and Century Optics and the the one above?

Yes, we tried the Century optics, orginally bought for a Sony Z1U, on the Canon. The Canon converter is matched to the XHa1 and was sharper on the edges. It is a quality piece of glass, although (as our colleagues point out) it is heavy. IMHO a bargain, however, for the price and quality. I put it on my XHA1 and never took it off..../Battle Vaughan

Yep Canon for me too, produces get sharp images

I use the WD-H72 exclusively. This lens is great, and just like Battle mentioned, I never take mine off of the camera. It is completely zoom-through and really doesn't take away any of my "reach" on the long end of the lens.

I shoot mostly automotive stuff, and the WD-H72 allows me to get ridiculously close to my subject matter (for extreme angles) and still be in crisp focus. I've accidentally bumped the edge of the lens (not the hood, the lens) into things I can be so close. Very nice.

A few examples (shot on XH-A1 w/ WD-H72):
2009 International Motorcycle Show - Cleveland, OH
2009 International Cycle Show - Cleveland, OH By Will Mahoney On ExposureRoom (http://exposureroom.com/members/WillMahoney.aspx/assets/7f2d07868ba9442d8ddacf20c2076121/)

2009 Cleveland International Auto Show:
2009 Cleveland Auto Show By Will Mahoney On ExposureRoom (http://exposureroom.com/members/WillMahoney.aspx/assets/954f115a513c49a88b7cca81f8a88658/)

Also, yes, this bad boy is heavy. I'm not kidding when I say that it feels like this lens doubled the weight of the camera. But no distortion, completely zoom-through, and the weight might assist in stabilizing the camera (which was not the case for the opening shot of the above cycle video... :( It took me forever to stabilize it in post, by hand.)

Cheers.

I have to agree with Will, the WD-H72 is great and I don't take it off my camera. I've been really pleased with the results it has given me. It is a bit heavy though.

Another vote for the WD-H72. It sure is heavy, but the worst thing is, it makes the cam really Front heavy.
The good thing is, in combination with the A1's 20x zoom it will go from wide to decent close in a second or so. Ideal for weddings or every other fast live event.

Only drawback of using it is that is a little harder to get a shallow depth of field at the long end of the lens.

Which matte box are people using with it?

I use the WD-H72 exclusively.But no distortion.

Ah - not so Will. No denying the H72's good points but the very noticeable barrel distortion as you enter the building in that frenetic manner would not be acceptable to me. Any architectural photography requires the use on an aspheric lens if you want to go wider and you want straight lines to remain straight.

tom.

Tom,
I hear you and understand what you are talking about. I mostly shoot automotive install stuff and auto shows, not buildings.

Yes, I have noticed that on the extreme-wide end of the lens the tops of buildings (or anything "flat") will have a very noticable arch to it. So, yes, I guess that would be distortion.

But instead of distortion, since the lens is so badass, can we call it Sexy Distortion? As in, "yeah, you get some distortion, but it's really sexy." :)

UPDATE:
And "frenetic"...I guess that that word is appropriate. I WAS shooting handheld, walking across 150 yards of snow and ice, on an 8 deg. Ohio winter evening. :)

Will

So, yes, I guess that would be distortion. But instead of distortion, since the lens is so badass, can we call it Sexy Distortion? As in, "yeah, you get some distortion, but it's really sexy." :)

Nice try Will, but I'm not alongside you on this one. Barrel distortion is so common that I'd put it the other way around - the sexy beast is the rectilinear, the only one Krubrick would use in the Overland Hotel.

My Z1 barrel distorts most noticeably down the wide end and now that all my clients are viewing on LCDs or plasmas (that unlike CRTs are devoid of display distortions) the Z1's faults are all too noticeable.

But with my aspheric wide-angle in place I remove Sony's distortion at a stroke, though I do drop from a 12x zoom to a 7.8x zoom as it's not a full zoom-through. You pay your money and take your choice, and the fisheye effect does indeed have its place in movies. But it sure looks silly inside cathedrals and palaces.

tom.

Barrel distortion is so common ...


My wife says I'm beginning to suffer a bit from barrel distortion myself - and that's without the WA lens.

You say it in jest I suspect Colin but your post has very real implications. Folk think that a barrel distorting lens 'curves buildings, telegraph poles, table tops etc'.

Of course it does all of these things, but it also barrel distorts the bride's figure, nothing's immune from its actions. When I follow (with super-wide in place) the girl as she swoops onto the dance floor I know she's not eaten for days to fit into that dress. She won't be thanking me for thickening her waist. Er - we're speaking photographically here folks.

tom.

Very good point, Tom. While I'm sure almost all of us would be wary of using WA lenses close to faces, barrel distortion is more insidious, and I've certainly seen the situation you describe.
My bete noir is incorrect display aspect ratios. To me it's so obvious, like playing an instrument out of tune, but so many people don't seem to notice at all. The number of stretched presenters appearing in hotel tvs is just unbelieveable. Drives me nuts!

safe to say the WD-H72 is the way to go. I however got the 16x9inc. at an AMAZING price so I went that route : )

JS