I am a bit displeased with my Century 0.65 WA.

I think it is a bit too soft even though it is a zoom-through.

I'm going to test it with a waveform monitor (focus check) when I get my PD150 back from Sony.

so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost?

I think just as good, but sharper and with filter threads. I've seen a lot of VX2000/Kenko wide angle footage played back on my friend's Sony deck. In fact hours and hours of the stuff. His Kenko wide and tele are very well made. Keep in mind that there are 3 lines of Kenko adaptors, their high-end line is best. And yes, they are a lot cheaper than the Century adaptors. The Century uses German glass. I think this is Century's strong point. But I doubt this makes a difference for VX shot video. I would also check out Tiffen adaptors. They are even better, but I am not sure if they make them for the VX filter size. I don't know anything about the Canon, but I have also heard good things about them.

Oh, and one more thing. I know this poor guy in Hawaii with a PD150 and O'Connor tripod. He bought a Century tele. When he got it, it was defective and had to send it back to B&H. When he got the second one, it was defective too, and sent it back. Lucky with the 3rd time around, it was fine. However, because the Century does not have filter threads (unlike the Kenko and Tiffens), the adaptor's lens got destroyed. He did a lot of surf shooting at his local beach, and the fine sand particles in the air ate away his lens. My friend and his Kenkos are protected with filters: UV or polarizer, depending on the conditions. And with wides, filters can cause darks around the edges, but I found that this is not the case with Kenkos. I don't know about the others about this.

<<<-- Originally posted by walesfilmclub : so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost? -->>>

I can't vouch for the Kenko, but I have a Century Optics .65 Wide Angle adapter for my PD-150... and I am pleased with it.

It has a bayonet mount (which I consider to be superior to threads... but that's just my opinion) which attaches with a 1/4 turn.

The focus is sharp throughout the entire zoom range. I never take it off the camera!

There is only a slight bit of barrel distortion (which I have found that the average Joe will not see) at full wide angle... but at .65, I suppose that is to be expected.

Like anything else, each piece of equipment is unique... and I could have just as easily been one of those people who bought one that is too "soft"... but, luckily, I was not.

Mine ran me $365, if I remember right. Well worth it, as I'm happy with the results. ($100 would be too much if I wasn't.)

I attach a 4x4 filter box to mine, which I always have at least the UV filter in. Call me crazy, but I used to live in Hawaii... and no matter where you are, the wind could blow something into your expensive lens and screw it up. I'd rather be safe, than sorry.

If you cruise this bbs, you will find many people (who, by the way, are far more experienced than me) that will disagree. That's okay. In the final analysis, it's YOUR money... and YOUR product... so the decision will be YOURS.

I live by this credo:

"Nothing is more expensive than the product that doesn't work."

Good luck with your decision... no matter what it is!

I've tried the Kenko, but found it pretty poor -- lots of chromatic distortion and very soft focus at the edges. I wound up with an Optex .65x converter (from ZGC for $299). It's also a bayonet mount, and has front threads. Best of all, it doesn't vignette, even with standard filters screwed in front.

It's much better than the Kenko -- some slight chromatic distortion at the edges, but much sharper at the edges. I leave it attached all the time.

You can see examples of shots taken with the Kenko here:

http://members.cox.net/tauger.paul/Video%20Page/Kenko%20Comparison.htm

Thanks. Which Kenko was that? They make 3 different grades.

I don't know about the different grades of Kenko lenses. The one on the website was a KRW-065 Pro, about $159 from B&H.

I think that's their top end. Like I said, the VX/Kenko footage looked great. However, on a high-end monitor, it might not look as great as the German glass adaptor. It's just too bad the Century doesn't have filter threads, like when you're shooting at a beach.

Has anyone tried any of Tiffens wide angle adaptors? Their glass/design is supposed to be better. I've only looked and tried the Tiffen in the 37mm and 43mm size.

http://www.tiffen.com

I'm lost here...

Are bayonet adapters subject to leakage by sand, etc? Is that why some people WANT threaded adapters?

I was under the belief that the threads may become worn... as well as being slower in general to change lenses.

I was talking about filter threads on the front of the adaptor, so you can screw on a UV or polarizer etc. This will also protect the front glass of the adaptor.

just a question a little off topic... but i recently purchased a century optics 65 WA adapter and became a little conserned after reading a few posts up about defected lenses.
what defects were these?

are there any tests i can run on my WA adapter to see if its ok?

i have a shoot scheduled in two days. first time out with my pd150 and new accessories. i want to bring unexpted problems to a minimum, expecially if it has to to with camera equipment.

thanks.

I am inclined to go with the Kenko now if it is "just as good" and half the price.

no, no, I just cancelled the Kenko one after some bad reviews.

What about the Raynox 66x? is that better? Maybe I should order all three and send the others back.

in what way can a wide angle adapter be defected?

<<<-- Originally posted by Adi Head : i just bought a century optics 0.65x and a B+W UV filter for my pd150.
i guess this may be a silly question, but after trying i can't help but come to the conclusion that in order to fit on the WA adaptor, i have to first remove the UV filter which is usually screwed on to protect the camera lense. is this true? i didn't want to try too hard to place the WA adaptor on top of the filter, for fear of scratching the filter. -->>>

I just received the Raynox 65x lense which I am happy with. See nothing wrong with it. I screwed it right on over my uv filter and the pressure cracked the filter. So I will make sure to take all filters off of the camera before mounting a lense.

I have Century Wide Angel Conversion lens, the same one as Mike's. I go shoot video and I get a lot of vending effect where the thing on the top edge of the video looks big, and things in the middle is small. So if I shoot a person, and framed such that head is near the top of the frame, then the subject's head is SO MUCH larger than body, it looks like a marsian.

Is there a way to avoid this, but still be able to stand closer to the subject.

I use the WD-58 not the Century but from reading pasts posts here the Century did not seem to distort the image any and as far as i know its a full zoom thru lens (.65).
If its a screw on mount be sure that it is threaded properly and i would screw it directly on the lens and not stacked on top say a UV filter etc.

Thank you,

Yes, it's screwed right on the lens with bayonet mount. I checks just before I start shoot everytime. Is it because I am standing from the arm length away from the talent trying to get wast up body shot? If so, is there any lens that does let me tape it without distoriton.

Anne,
perspective distortion with a WA or fisheye lens can be hard to get around. With a WA lens the closer you get to you subject the more distortion and more out of perspective the subject will look. Try this; with the lens on and the cam on a tripod, get in really close to an object. Focus on the near point of the object and then look at the perspective, then move back a foot or two and focus in on it again. You'll probably see less perspective distortion but you're shot will have changed so try a little zoom for framing. Generally with a WA lens have to back off just a little so as not to have the distortion.
Hope this helps,
Don

This may be an impertenant question but if you are shooting with a WA lens why are you so close to the object or person that you are taping? Wide angle and particularly fisheys lens are used to create 'artistic' distortion close up. If you are close why not just take the lens off? Or am I missing something?

I use WA so that even when I am standing up against the stage, I will stil be able to frame wide enough to get a shot that has knee up to the head of the subject. Isn't that what WA supposed to do though?

If you are close enough with a wide enough angle lens you will get distortion. The distortion can be fine if that is what you are going for. Otherwise take off the adapter and go for the close up or move back from the subject.

<<<-- Originally posted by RagadyAnne : I use WA so that even when I am standing up against the stage, I will stil be able to frame wide enough to get a shot that has knee up to the head of the subject. Isn't that what WA supposed to do though? -->>>

"Standing at the edge of the stage"??? Does this mean you are standing in the audience below stage level looking up at your subject? If so, yes, any wide angle lens will distort from this angle. You see it very often in rock concerts on television.

If you are standing eye to eye with your subject at arms length, and getting distortion, try zooming in a bit. It should help eliminate some of the distortion. Also be aware to hold your camera as level as possible to help eliminate the "parallax" effect with the wide lens.

Does the footage I did last night looks distorted? I shot 2 song without WA. The following footage is how the thing looks. I followed advice, first forcused on how I want frame, the stepped back 2 feet then reframed it. the result looks like this:

http://207.44.160.90/~admin8/testmedia/testfile.wmv

Thanks for advice.

Which lens do you think is better the Canon wide angel or the Sony
wide angel? Is there a third choice?

I know nothing about the Canon except that it doesn't have filter threads. The Sony is made by Kenko, and is basically the same as the Kenko Pro, except that the Sony doesn't have filter threads, whereas the Kenko Pro does. Plus, for the lack of the treads, Sony charges extra for this. Go figure. Century also makes adaptors for the VX2000, but no filter threads.

Despite owning the Canon WA-58 my experience isn't sufficient to qualify me as the answer source, but my reading over many months echos what I've come to believe, that the Canon is a great piece of glass for the money. I understand it now comes in a kit form complete with lens hood.

Joe:
I've used the Sony once, and I own the WA-58 Canon. I can say the Canon is an exceptional WA adapter - smooth zoom through with no distortion and/or aberrations at either end of the zoom range (no vignetting, no fall-off, no nothing). David is correct, it now comes with a lens hood thrown in as part of the kit. The lack of filter threads can be a nuisance, but hey, you can't have it all! :-)
Hope this helps...
Ram

I bought a Sony WA adapter for my VX1000 and a Canon WA adapter for my PD150.

I like the Canon better. The Sony vinettes far more easily. I find I can stack two filters behind the Canon without problems. The Canon is an excellent value for the money.

I wouldn't think the design would allow for filters between it and the camera lens. At best there must be some type of distortion even if not readilly detectible.

I see your point. Nevertheless, I have succesfully used a polarizer between the adapter and camera. The footage looked good. There may have been distortion but I couldn't see it.

Of all the wide-angle converters I've tested on the VX2k, the only one I'd tell you to avoid is the Cavision 0.5x. This gives quite unacceptable image blurring at the edges whatever aperture is used and on top of that it vignettes the frame in all four corners.

The Century 0.65x with its breech-lock bayonet is a beauty (as it should be at the price) though it distorts too much for such an expensive optic in my view. The Tecpro 0.5x I'm testing at the moment is quite remarkable. It's every bit as sharp at all apertures and focal lengths as the Century, but is just over a quarter the price. It's not as nicely coated so needs careful hooding, but it comes in PD150 colour - so guess where it's aimed?

It has a very concave front element and the lens unscrews to leave behing a verty powerful (and rather distorting) +8ish diopter close-up lens. Worth a look I'd say. Distorts straight lines yes - but then it's a very powerful 0.5x widie.

tom.

Haven't used the Canon, but I have the Sony and am pleased. I did some shots of a test chart with and without the adaptor and couldn't notice any difference in focus or distortion. Have never noticed a zoom or vignetting problem either, although I can't claim to have scientifically analyzed it. But the other comments about lack of threads, etc are true.

My 2 cents.I know Ihave far less shooting experience then most here but i own the Canon for my VX2k with the lens hood and i would have to agree with the other Canon owners.A great lens for the money. i have noticed no difference in image with or without the lens as far as focus etc is concerned.i do know the lens hood makes a huge difference as far as lens flare goes as it should so I would recommend that plus it may help some it protecting the lens.
Optex also makes a high quality .65 bayonet mount available from www.zgc.com.

I have the Canon WD-58. Great lens for the money. Just got the new Canon Lens Shade. Works excellent and looks PRO!!

I just got the Sony for $201.00. Works great, a bit large but thats not a problem. Anyone know if there is a lense shade for this monster?

Regarding a lens shade, here's a re-print of something I posted awhile ago...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor man's wide angle lens shade

I've been using a Sony .7x wide adaptor on my VX-2000 for awhile and have generally been happy, but have wanted some sort of lens shade to use with. Not ready to pony up hundreds of $$$ on a matte box (yet :-), I came across a simple, durable, inexpensive solution that might interest others.

At my local Ace Hardware I bought a rubber pipe reducing coupling. This is a heavy black rubber fitting that uses hose clamps to join two different sized PVC or iron drain pipes. The 3" to 4" adaptor was just about the right diameter for the Sony .7x lens. I cut some excess rubber off the 3" end with a utility knife and made some small slits so it would fit over the lens more easily, then used the supplied hose clamp to attach it to the lens. After mounting on the lens I observed the amount of vignetting, then trimmed the excess rubber from the 4" end.

The result was something that looked much more like a piece of photographic equipment than a sewer pipe connection, and it works perfectly. Total cost was about $5.00 and it took maybe 15 minutes. Take a look in the plumbing section at your local hardware - the model I bought is the 3" to 4" adaptor #PCX 56-43.

Boyd certainly gets the design award for his "plumber's helper," but if Edward has a bit of mad money, he might contact Cavision for a professional lens shade for his Sony. Well made product for around $100.00. This will also provide protection for the lens, and makes a very professional appearance for your PD150. www.cavision.com.
Another less expensive add on is the Flarebuster. This is a "french flag" device that was designed for still camera use, but is even more helpful on a video camera. They include the flag, but its the mount you are after, then you will probably want to make your own flag out of black foamcore from any art store. The Flarebuster costs about $25.00 and is the real deal. You will find other uses for the Flarebuster, such as using it as a handy prompter. Clip on notes on a 3x5 card and twist it to face the talent. www.flarebuster.com.

Couple of other notes. The Sony does not have filter threads, but where do you find 4" screw in filters? Any additional glass added to the front of this large front element will be problematic. Unless you add a very serious matte box.

The Sony is very sharp and barrel distortion is minimal. The problem is that large front element, along with the price. But it is quality glass. I would like to know where Frank G. got his information that it is manufactured by Kenko.

The Canon is a good deal for the price, but it does go a bit soft at the longer focal lengths.

Whichever one you choose, a wide angle lens should be one of the first optional purchases for the VX2K and the PD150.

Wayne, I was just looking on the cavision website. Exactly which model sunshade works with the Sony lens? There don't appear to be any prices on the site either.

Yeah, Boyd, here is the link to the sunshade. http://www.cavision.com/LensHood/LH100w.htm
I believe they also have a model that has a filter slot, if you are interested. I would suggest you call John Anthony at Cavision direct at 604-681-6621 and ask him for a price quote in U.S. dollars with shipping, so you won't be surprised. Ask him if it includes the soft cover. Not a big deal.

Can anyone suggest an affordable but effective hood for the 82mm diameter Kenko wide angle lens? And on the same topic is it OK to use a UV filter in front of it for extra protection or will it degraded the picture quality? Thanks all. Fernando

I thought I had commented on this post already. Maybe I didn't hit submit.

The Lee Wide Angle lens shade comes with none, one or two 4x4" filter slots and costs $220 to $230 US
You will also need a Lee 82 mm Adapter ring which is around $68-$70 US. The unit is kinda smurfy, kinda like a matt box.

http://leefiltersusa.com/PDFs/Camera/CamPdfIndex.html

I'm curious to know who else owns this lens, and what they are using it for? It seems to be a less popular lens, but I prefer it many times over 0.65x. I still get about 3/4 of the zoom range, and it only distorts at the widest point. I just finished a small film shot with the VX2000 and the Century 0.55x lens. Once we are done color correcting it, I'll post some shots of this great lens. Pick it up for $229 at www.tristatecamera.com

Hello everyone,
I'm about to purchase my PD 150 and a few lenses and was wondering if it's possible to put a filter on those Century Optics lenses instead of going with the large Century Optics Sunshade with the large square filters. Its seem a bit bulky to me. Any ideas? If so how much and where? Thanks for your time on this,
Todd

The Century 0.65x bayonet-on wide-angle has no filter threads - probably to stop you fitting filters and vignetting the full (uncropped) frame. The Cavision hoods work well with this lens though.

tom.

Todd, the Kenko Pro adaptor comes with filter threads. Before buying any adaptor, take your cam down to a shop, and shoot some test footage with both adaptors. Also what Tom says is correct. Most if not all wide angles with a filter screwed on will most likely cause vignetting.

I put about a half hour worth of info on your cross post over at dv.com. The links will keep you busy most of the evening.

ZGC has this lense listed for $299 and sunshade for $95. Anyone know if this can be bought for less anywhere?

Make sure you know which version of the lens the price refers to Charles. Optex do a 0.65x with a 58mm attachment thread as well as the far nicer breech-lock bayonet. Both have the same optics, but one is a lot dearer than the other.

tom.

Its refers to it as a bayonet mount. Is this the correct one.
Thanks for the reply.
cf