Honestly, what do you people think, which one is better (worth its price, wider conversion but better picture quality etc…) for the Sony FX1/Z1 camcorder;
Sonys Wide Conversion Lens VCL-HG0872 or Century's 7X HD Wide Angle Converter?

Regards to all

The Century VS-07CV-HDS just came out today. I know, because I have the first unit in the country (s/n 102798 as of 3pm 03-31-05). Dave Contreras called and sent my truck right over to Van Nuys and got it. It is a very COOOL lens, substantial and massy (heavy). Comes with a mail-in offer for a free Shade/filter holder. List is $850.00. The Sony (available for a few months now) is a very nice 72mm screw-in type and is lighter but less linear (bends a bit at certian focal lengths). Runs about 1/2 of the Century. We'll keep testing but I'm Century inclined. Remember, Cavision has had a 72mm thread-on for years. Is it HD-ready? Don't know - don't carry.

How about VS-06WA-HDS ?(http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/hdr-fx1/6x_wa/6x_wa.htm) , it's lighter and cheaper but with limited zoom

Hi Robert,

You said you will keep testing even though you are Century inclined. Does testing mean comparing your Century lens with the other lens (like the Sony´s)? Where did you get from?

You also said that the Sony lens is less linear, do you think or do you know it for sure? Do you think it would be possible to see an pictorial example of this distortion (bending at certain focal lengths)? I have it difficult to imagine it, so I would be very grateful if I could see at least some kind of (at least similar) the distortion you are talking about. Thank you in advance!

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Shuster : The Century VS-07CV-HDS just came out today. I know, because I have the first unit in the country (s/n 102798 as of 3pm 03-31-05). Dave Contreras called and sent my truck right over to Van Nuys and got it. It is a very COOOL lens, substantial and massy (heavy). Comes with a mail-in offer for a free Shade/filter holder. List is $850.00. The Sony (available for a few months now) is a very nice 72mm screw-in type and is lighter but less linear (bends a bit at certian focal lengths). Runs about 1/2 of the Century. We'll keep testing but I'm Century inclined. Remember, Cavision has had a 72mm thread-on for years. Is it HD-ready? Don't know - don't carry. -->>>


How much does using that lens change the minimum focus distance? Can you get very close with the lens to your subject? I need to find a solution to allow me to get closer to peoplese faces with my Z1 lens. I guess I could try a close up lens but I don't want to decrease my depth of field.

I just bought the .6 Century Wide Angle Adapter. Brain is telling me that there's most likely a difference between an "adapter" and a "coverter". Aside from the price, what _is_ the difference? tx

Jared,

I am very interested in the performance of the 0.6x Century. WHen you get it can you let us know if there is any significant barrel distortion - I expect that there will be some, but I was hoping that it would not be too extreme. I like the low weight of the 0.6X Century as opposed to the 0.7X.

Thanks.

I just received the Century Optics .6 from B&H. I had seriously considered the Sony wide angle, but I thought it would make the camera top heavy, it was a screw on, and only gave .8 wide.

I may send this lens back. It's wonderfully wide, but it also has strong barrel distortion to the point of mild fish-eye. If you're shooting anything that includes straight lines (like walls, posts, etc), they will appear curved. For shooting people close-up, I imagine it helps give that "wide" look (almost like people in a submarine), but I'd be concerned about shooting anything else.

I just may end up ordering the Sony in the end -- and it comes with a hood to cut down the flare. I have a shoot on Monday, I'll report back to this thread then.

<<<-- Originally posted by Cole Delphi : I just received the Century Optics .6 from B&H. I had seriously considered the Sony wide angle, but I thought it would make the camera top heavy, it was a screw on, and only gave .8 wide.

I may send this lens back. It's wonderfully wide, but it also has strong barrel distortion to the point of mild fish-eye. If you're shooting anything that includes straight lines (like walls, posts, etc), they will appear curved. For shooting people close-up, I imagine it helps give that "wide" look (almost like people in a submarine), but I'd be concerned about shooting anything else.

I just may end up ordering the Sony in the end -- and it comes with a hood to cut down the flare. I have a shoot on Monday, I'll report back to this thread then. -->>>


Cool, I am looking for a mid-fisheye lens.

How close can you focus with the wide lens on? Can you get within a few inches of your subject?

You can get as close as about an inch and a half and stay in focus. You can zoom as much as 2/3rd's (this is not a full-zoom wide angle).

hadn't realized that people liked a bit of fish-eye on wide angle lenses!




-->>> Cool, I am looking for a mid-fisheye lens.

How close can you focus with the wide lens on? Can you get within a few inches of your subject? -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Cole Delphi : You can get as close as about an inch and a half and stay in focus. You can zoom as much as 2/3rd's (this is not a full-zoom wide angle).

hadn't realized that people liked a bit of fish-eye on wide angle lenses!




-->>> Cool, I am looking for a mid-fisheye lens.

How close can you focus with the wide lens on? Can you get within a few inches of your subject? -->>> -->>>




I would imagine that the distortion is more pronounced since the FX1 is widescreen.

I agree with Cole's post, there is a bit of barrel distortion evident. Doesn't matter too much to me though as I'm doing mostly natural scenics with it.

Just finished shooting a few run and gun interviews with the Century Optics .6. It worked very well and I was very pleased with the wider angle and the amount of light it let in.

I exchanged a couple of e-mail with Century Optics, and I now understand the the Z1/FX1 lens is already distorted, so a wide angle makes it worse (and I now see it when I take the adapter off). it's probably not as noticeable with a Sony .8, but it is with the .6. However I've had good experience with CA glass and believe it limits the distortion as much as possible. And as long as you're not shooting straight angles and architectural lines, it works well (especially for interviews).

So I'm keeping it. The Sony sounds good, but doesn't give me much more wide angle with .8. though i wish the CA came with a hood as the Sony does.