Was in the city on Sunday, so I stopped by B&H and picked up the Century VS-06WA-HDS wide angle and VS-16TC-HDS telephoto adaptor lenses for my Z1! Have been busy so I haven't really had much chance to play with them yet.

However here are a few initial thoughts. The .06x has a lot of barrell distortion, which I was aware of beforehand and I don't think will be too much of a problem for my uses which are mostly outdoor landscapes and nature. I considered their .7x full zoom through, but it was more than I wanted to spend and I really wanted to go a little wider. They also have a .8x (Sony also sells a .8x) but that really didn't seem wide enough. I like the bayonet mounts on the Century lenses - really easy to take on and off. I did some quick shots at sunset the other day and liked the wide effect. Zoomed all the way wide it's equivalent to 19.5mm lens in 35mm terms. Haven't really experimented, but looks like you can probably zoom at least halfway with this lens.

Now the 1.6x is one big, heavy, impressive looking hunk of glass. It's pretty expensive, but I wanted high quality for this lens which I'll use to shoot performances. Would have prefered a 2x but there aren't a lot of options there. One which I considered was the Raynox DCR2020 2.2x which B&H sells for $190. You would need an adaptor ring since it's a little smaller than the Z1's threads. I was just worried about all this, so I bit the bullet and got the Century instead. The quick test I did looked very nice. Zoomed in all the way it gives you the 35mm equivalent of 624mm. That will be just about perfect for the type of shots I like when shooting performances about 100 feet from the stage. The Z1 is really lacking for this sort of distant event work using the built-in lens; it needs an adaptor. You can zoom out about 50% before the 1.6x lens starts to vignette.

But I also found something else cool which doesn't seem to be on Century's website. They have a promotion for their "HDV Sunshade" which fits the .6x, .7x and 1.6x lenses by clamping to the outside rim (the lenses don't have front threads). It's really more like a mattebox and has one 4" filter slot. This seems like a really good deal on sale now for $125. You have to order this directly from Century; just placed my order today and will let you know my impressions when it arrives at the end of the week. Like I said, I don't see this on their site anywhere but here's a link from B&H (note they aren't offering the promotional price though):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=376587&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

The Century offer was supposed to expire Dec 31 but they told me it had been extended (not sure how long). They also have promotional pricing on a tray and clear filter kit. For more info on the lenses see the following:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/hdr-fx1/hdr-fx1.htm
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=361297&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=361301&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Nice Boyd. I really like Century. I've got a couple of their adapters.

Just to add for matteboxuser:
Vocas MKII Wideangele with railsupport fits on century´s 0.6 and 1.6
Formatt 400 does NOT fit neither 0.6 nor 1.6

alex

glad to hear the 1.6x is nice...most century glass is! but oh, the price!!

The lens shade just arrived, and it looks great. At first I thought it was aluminum, but looking more carefully the hood itself appears to be molded plastic attached to a metal box and mounting ring. Has a nice solid feel like you would expect from century. It clamps onto the front of the 1.6x lens, but since the .6x lens is so shallow it clamps onto the bayonet locking ring there. You would need to make or buy some sort of adaptor if you wanted to use it without a Century lens however.

I didn't get the filter tray yet, but with the .6x lens I guess you'd need to insert them from the bottom since the mike is in the way. But on the 1.6x lens it easily clears the mike.

So all things considered, I think this is a nice $125 alternative to an expensive mattebox, but my main interest was providing a sunshade to prevent flare with the wide angle lens. Here are a few quick photos:

With the .6x lens:
http://greenmist.com/hdv/mattebox/6x01.JPG
http://greenmist.com/hdv/mattebox/6x02.JPG

With the 1.6x lens:
http://greenmist.com/hdv/mattebox/16x01.JPG
http://greenmist.com/hdv/mattebox/16x02.JPG
http://greenmist.com/hdv/mattebox/16x03.JPG

Looks great. Do you have any more comments on the image? I was surprised how liitle degradation there was on some recent footage shot behind the glass from within a moving automobile, quality optical elements placed in front of the cam lens would hopefully have only minimal adverse effect.

That is MAD nice!

Not to distract your thread but do you ever use for z1 for a 24p conversion? If yes what type is it(720p24, 1080p24, dvcpro50 24p)? And how do you think it looks?

I'm really interested in the z1 and that's all that's stopping me.

Tom: I don't think shooting through a windshield is really comparable to using a high quality converter lens :-) Obviously, anything you put in front of your lens is going to take something away, but good quality optics will still give nice results, and they're the only choice we have since the lens is part of the camera. I've been playing around with the lenses and will try to capture some footage this weekend and put a couple stills online.

Evan: Thanks. I haven't done any 24p conversion myself but I do have DVfilm maker which I used with my SD cameras, and I hear it does a nice job. But please start a new thread if you want to discuss those issues so we can stay on topic.

Hi Boyd
Thank you for the information and great photos. I am also in matte box search mode, so your info is much appreciated.
dkane

Here are examples of the same scene shot with the Century .6x and 1.6x lenses. The images on this page were resized in photoshop to 960x540. Click on any of them to see the uncompressed original TIFF frame grab (from FCP). I was using a picture profile with sharpness set to 8, black stretch on and cinematone type 1.

http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/century/

BTW, here's the location this was shot from:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=39.5193°N,+74.3191°W&btnG=Search&ll=39.519304,-74.319119&spn=0.018539,0.040555&t=h

The abandoned factory is on an island about a mile away.

Your abandoned factory is an interesting place. But, oh, the chromatic aberration on the Century teleconverter! Seen on the LHS of your picture. I've been using an old Canon C-8 1.4 teleconverter ($50 on ebay) and the aberration I get is no worse. I can even see similar problems using the Sony wide angle converter, except that the aberation now appears on the RHS of the picture. Look carefully in shots with high contrast on the RHS. I blame the standard lens, you can see aberration when it's fully zoomed in (LHS), but you really have to look for it. Shows up with high contrast subjects.

I got the smaller Century .65 wide angle lens for my HVR-A1 a few months ago. I couldn't believe how horrible the picture looked. I don't know if it was a faulty lens, it's a bad match for the camera, or if that lens just sucks, but whatever it is, the lens is just not useable. I got the Sony lens and the picture looks fine. It's a shame because the Century lens was smaller, wider (.65 vs .7) and it was threaded for a filter. I would haved loved to be able to use it.

Your abandoned factory is an interesting place. But, oh, the chromatic aberration on the Century teleconverter!

Are you referring to the greenish outline on the left-most telephone pole? I can see the same outline on the right-most structure, in the .tif, if I look carefully. I just want to be sure about what you refer to as color aberration.

Thanks,
Matt

Yes, the green/red fringing on the LH pole. I can also see it on the right of the picture too but not as bad. In effect it means that the edges of the picture aren't quite as sharp as the centre

Boyd,

A little post CA correction does wonders

http://s42.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=091JR97Z3DOJJ06VY18OH845GL

it would have been almost perfect save for the colour scorch marks left by the sharpening halos

less sharpening = better CA correction

I also noticed that radial CA correction seemed to work very well on this image.

Does anybody know if there is software that performs CA correction on video? I've seen some packages that do this on still images. It wouldn't be hard to do the same for video, but I haven't found anything that does it...

Bill

Forgive me for digressing from the topic at hand. Also forgive me for being a dyslexic, unlearned, dumb ass. I have a couple questions.

1. What does the 'x' in 0.6x, 1.6x, etc.. on telephoto lenses represent?

2. Am I correct in my understanding that the longer the focal length of my lens, the narrower my depth of field becomes?

Joe: the x represents the multiplication symbol. So, the Z1's published lens spec (in 35mm still camera equivalence) is 390mm at full zoom. Adding the 1.6x teleconvertor gives us a 35mm equivalent of 390 x 1.6 = 624mm. In other words, the teleconvertor multiplies the camera's built-in lens 1.6 times. Yes, your understanding of narrow depth of field is correct.

William: interesting point. I'm not aware of any software but maybe someone else is.

Boyd, thanks for breaking that down for me. All this is starting to make sense now.

Is there a 1.6x teleconverter you'd recommend that is between the $300-$500 range for the Z1 or should I just cut down on my drinking for a week and get the Century?

The century is the only one I've used, but the following thread might be of interest: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51686

Boyd,

Thankyou for the info re the lens hood. I did a quick check round over this side of the pond about the offer you got. Nobody had heard of it. A quick e-mail to century in the States put me in touch with the Uk imports, who match the deal. I am now the the owner of the said hood having collected from them at the Video Forum show being held here in London at the moment.

regards

Mick.

Very cool Mick. See, it pays to be a DVinfo member :-)

Are you using the hood with one of the Century lenses? Or have you found a way to put it on the stock lens? I guess you could do that if you got one of their bayonet mounts without a lens, but that might be expensive.

Very cool Mick. See, it pays to be a DVinfo member :-)

Are you using the hood with one of the Century lenses? Or have you found a way to put it on the stock lens? I guess you could do that if you got one of their bayonet mounts without a lens, but that might be expensive.


I'm useing it with with the 1.6. Could have done with it a couple of weeks ago when filming cheetahs in the Masai Mara when it suddenly rained, it would have helped to keep the rain off as it was falling almost straight down. Still we located them the following day and got some good footage.

Your abandoned factory is an interesting place. But, oh, the chromatic aberration on the Century teleconverter! Seen on the LHS of your picture. I've been using an old Canon C-8 1.4 teleconverter ($50 on ebay) and the aberration I get is no worse. I can even see similar problems using the Sony wide angle converter, except that the aberation now appears on the RHS of the picture. Look carefully in shots with high contrast on the RHS. I blame the standard lens, you can see aberration when it's fully zoomed in (LHS), but you really have to look for it. Shows up with high contrast subjects.

i also use the canon c-8 1.4x and i use the 1.6x as well... very nice... for 1/10th of the price... thats the way to go...!!!


joel

oh yeah i use them together aswell.... 1.4x+1.6x=3.0x!!!!!!!!!!! times 12x (STOCK ZOOM) = 36x!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! think i am crazy? i post some pics so you can compare the century...

joel

Hi Boyd

An addendum to my earlier e-mail to you (feel free to post it): A polarizing 4 x 4 filter only sort of works in the lens shade for the Century W/A lens. You really need a fully rotating holder that you get on a matte box to get the full force and effect of the polarizer. But, the filters and the holders are beautiful, but expensive, about $150 a pop for the holder and or the filters.

Jack Hubbard

Hi Joel,

Are you using the Canon C-8s with Z1/FX1 with John Jay's recipe (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51686)? I've been considering this but want to hear some positive feedback as well as stills before making my final decision. If you would email me (joe [-at-] lumbroso.com) some stills, I could host them for this forum. Thanks.

oh yeah i use them together aswell.... 1.4x+1.6x=3.0x!!!!!!!!!!!
joel

Minor correction, 1.4x "+" 1.6x = 2.24x (you multiply them, not add them).

Otherwise, B&H could sell you 5 nice 1.0x "teleconverters" to get
1.0x+1.0x+1.0x+1.0x+1.0x = 5x.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=55941&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

:)

Cheers,
Bill

But, oh, the chromatic aberration on the Century teleconverter!

I would not condemn the Century 1.6X. Here's a couple of frame grabs that I did at maximum zoom without and with the 1.6X installed.

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/STD.jpg

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/STD.jpg

My close examination of the images says there's just about as much chromatic aberration with out the telephoto converter installed as there is with it. It's magnified by the teleconverter but I don't believe the converter adds much.

My observation is that the Century converter is not the CA culprit with the Z1U.

Carroll Lam

Carroll, I have to agree with you. If you look at my frame grab taken with the builtin lens at full zoom you'll also see CA. I think the Century 1.6x has simply magnified it, like you say.

You'd think Carl Zeiss could do better. 8-)

Carroll Lam

Hey Joe;

First time I've had a recipe named after me, ha ha

following is a short clip with both C-8 attached giving ~120mm or 2.24x

http://s49.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=33L99666T3FM82572AG05MYGFQ

spot the magpie;




PS; this was taken last year when I was checking out all the BS about HDV not being able to tackle moving water and leaves moving in trees - as you can see there is a lot of movement and no worries.

I didn't notice that I posted the same image link twice!

The image taken with the Z1U's standard lens at maximum zoom is:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/STD.jpg

and the image taken with the Century 1.6X tele is here:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/images/Tele.jpg

Sorry 'bout that!

Carroll Lam

John Jay's "recipe" for cascading multiple adapters prompted me to perform the following tests with the Century 2X lens purchased for my PD150 and the Century 1.6X purchased for the Z1U.

The following image is a screenshot taken with the standard Z1U lens at max zoom:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-none.jpg

I then added a 72mm->58mm step down ring to the Century 1.6X teleconverter and mounted that on the Z1U and extracted this screenshot from the resulting video:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-16X.jpg

Then I replaced the 1.6X teleconverter with the 2X and extracted this screenshot from the video:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-2X.jpg

Finally, I mounted the rear of the 1.6X tele to the front of the 2X tele - they match perfectly. (How I kept the two converters together is left as an exercise for the student. 8-) ) Here's the screenshot obtained from the combined assembly:

http://www.clamcamvideo.com/Tele-32X.jpg

Observations:

1. Center-of-field image quality of all the combinations seems to be quite good, at least qualitatively. Or, IOW, all the tele combinations compare favorably to the standard lens. Overall image contrast seems to hold up.

2. There is a modicom of vignetting on the left and right sides of the 3.2X combination but it is soft and not distracting. There also seems to be a little with the 2X converter also.

3. There is only a small amount of zoom (from maximum) that can be done without much more vignetting for both the single 2X converter and the 2X+1.6X (3.2X) combination.

Summary

I would have no qualms about using the two-converter combo if I really needed the "reach" they provide.

My thanks to John for tipping us off to this technique!

Carroll Lam

FYI, I just posted a free VirtualDub filter for correcting chromatic aberration (CA) that you all might find useful for correcting the type of CA that Boyd saw in his factory shots. Check out the following

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=61274

Cheers,
Bill

Thanks, Bill!

Carroll Lam

Some folks stack three! :):)

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/FZ-30/Converters/Lenses/Z30-Support-1s.jpg

Some folks stack three!

Hey. I'm jealous. 8-)

I am jealous of that neat adjustable lens support arm. I wonder if that's commercially available somewhere or was a custom make?

Carroll Lam

I think its a Bogen/Manfrotto gizmo - check their catalogue

On Century's site, why do they only list the .7x and .8x as "HD". Is the glass on the .3x, .6x, 1.6x and others somehow compromised or sub-spec?