Wide Angle Adaptor for XH A1?

Andy Gordon · July 17th, 2007, 07:33 PM

There used to be a red eye sample on this thread post 30:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=red+eye+wide

but the link doesn't work. I was thinking about getting the red eye until I saw the sample. Looked pretty average to me, lots of distortion and soft edges. If you can afford it the Aspheron is the one you want. Fairly light weight, but needs a custom step ring (attached image).

http://www.bolex.ch/NEW/?p=3

Do a search for Tom Hardwick's posts, he's tried just about every wide there is.

L. Kirk Kauder · July 19th, 2007, 07:14 AM

Thanks, Andy. I did check out those threads... and there is a lot of discussion about different adapters, but I find almost no mention of the Century WA adapter. Sure would like to see some sample pics.

Looking at the pics you posted... does the bayonet-mount fit on the XHA1 without an adapter? Is there something on the front of the lens that I haven't noticed that would allow the bayonet-mount to grab hold? (I'm at work now so I can't check.) Or is the bayonet-mount threaded on one side? (Or maybe... just maybe... it works with the lens shade bayonet mounts?)
Thanks!

Don Palomaki · July 19th, 2007, 09:48 AM

There are at least two generations of the Century 0.6x, the one that came out for the XL1 many years ago, which does not quite fit on the XH A1 (but can be made to fit with a bit of manipulation), and a new version that apparently fits all the X series camcorders.

Not clear that other changes were made, but there are some. The weight and physical dimensions are a bit different. I suspect that the original for the XL1 may not work as well optically on the new HDV camcorders, thus the mount change, but I have not seen any side-by-side comparisons.

Andy Gordon · July 19th, 2007, 06:30 PM

No for the Aspheron you will need to get a custom adapter made, you can connect to either the thread or the lens hood bayonet, the picture I posted shows a bayonet adapter that I don't have. I've ordered one that attaches to the thread mount, attaching to the bayonet would hold the lens a little closer so less likely to vignette in the corners.

I found some samples of a century here, not sure if it's the same as the one for the A1 but I would assume it will be, lots of distortion:
http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/ce...e06/index.html

It really depends how wide you want it and if you are happy with barrel distortion. I hate barrel distortion so that basically leaves the Aspheron. I don't think there's any other wide angle that is as wide and doesn't distort.

L. Kirk Kauder · July 19th, 2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Gordon

I found some samples of a century here, not sure if it's the same as the one for the A1 but I would assume it will be, lots of distortion:
http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/ce...e06/index.html

Finally! Although those pics are about three years old... they still show the look I was going for. I think I may have made my decision.
Thanks for helping!

Jack Walker · July 19th, 2007, 07:45 PM

I bought the Century .6x. It is pretty light and the image looks good. It attaches using the bayonet mount.

It blocks the fast autofocus.

You can use the autofocus with about 1/2 the zoom range.

Since the xh-a1 is already fairly wide for normal shooting, I got this for using in tight places, for getting full shot from close range and to use with the Merlin in certain situations.

As shown in the examples, the just how obvious the barrel distortion is depends on the shot. In any case, for a shot this wide, it looks quite reasonable and I don't think is any different than an "experience TV viewer" would expect to see.

I do wish that Century included a case with its lenses, but this one doesn't include one... just a cardboard box.

L. Kirk Kauder · July 20th, 2007, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

I bought the Century .6x. It is pretty light and the image looks good. It attaches using the bayonet mount.

Thanks, Jack. I'm going for it!
I'll check back after I get it and let y'all know what I think.

Kris Bird · July 20th, 2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L. Kirk Kauder

Finally! Although those pics are about three years old... they still show the look I was going for. I think I may have made my decision.
Thanks for helping!

um, they look awful?

ps, I us the canon wide, love it

L. Kirk Kauder · July 20th, 2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Bird

um, they look awful?

ps, I us the canon wide, love it

Not sure where you got the "look awful" from. It wasn't from me. When I said the pictures were three years old I meant that the adapter sold today should be even better and adapted to 16X9/HD.
The Century adapter is perfect for my intentions. Light weight, quick on & off... should work well with my Glidecam 2000 Pro and give just the right effect/affect I was looking for.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecomm...=1385&IID=6219

Dave Pecunies · July 20th, 2007, 04:30 PM

I just bought the Canon and if you think you might do any handheld shots your wrist may take a beating with this monster. It is a nice lens but a little heavy. I think I am going to return it for the Century 0.8.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Converter.html

Eric Weiss · July 20th, 2007, 05:22 PM

I own a Century WA. If you're not shooting a Beastie Boys video or something avant-garde...it's an ideal paperweight.

The Canon is a monster. It’s a badass monster that was designed specifically to produce the best and widest possible image for the camera in question…which they make…in addition to the highest quality lenses in the world. How can there even be a debate?

Anything that you put in front of a canon lens that ISN'T a canon lens will not produce the best possible image. That's not a prediction, that’s a fact of life.

Marty Hudzik · July 20th, 2007, 06:54 PM

If someone can prove this wrong I'd be glad to know.

Fact:

I had a brand new 0.6x WA adapter from Century Optics that is sold as being HD compatible.

I had a 4 year old version of the same lens that was designed for the XL1...not HD.

Placed both of them on my H1 and could tell no difference. Both softened the image some and under the right/wrong cirmcumstances significantly softened the edges. If there was any difference it was not apparent at all.

I called CO and asked and was told that it is optically the same glass. The mount has been re-tooled for the newer HD cameras.

Take it for what it is worth.

I sent back the new CO .6x and got a refund ( only had it for a week) and I bought a used one off of ebay for $100.

Also, since it is a bayonet mount you cannot use the Canon lens hood so you will need something to use to block peripheral light....the .6x flares to high heaven if you don't.

The 0.8x Century looked so much better....but was not as wide.

Salah Baker · July 20th, 2007, 07:20 PM

get the Canon glass, the WD-H72 is worth it

Marty Hudzik · July 20th, 2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salah Baker

get the Canon glass, the WD-H72 is worth it

They are all worth it. The fact that the Canon is in the same price range is shocking though!

Jay Fisk · August 12th, 2007, 02:51 PM

The Canon WD would be a bargain at $1000. It's that good.

July 17th, 2007, 07:33 PM	#241
Andy Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Perth WA Posts: 103	There used to be a red eye sample on this thread post 30: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=red+eye+wide but the link doesn't work. I was thinking about getting the red eye until I saw the sample. Looked pretty average to me, lots of distortion and soft edges. If you can afford it the Aspheron is the one you want. Fairly light weight, but needs a custom step ring (attached image). http://www.bolex.ch/NEW/?p=3 Do a search for Tom Hardwick's posts, he's tried just about every wide there is. Attached Thumbnails Attached Images

July 19th, 2007, 07:14 AM	#242
L. Kirk Kauder Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Sugar Land, TX USA Posts: 40	Thanks, Andy. I did check out those threads... and there is a lot of discussion about different adapters, but I find almost no mention of the Century WA adapter. Sure would like to see some sample pics. Looking at the pics you posted... does the bayonet-mount fit on the XHA1 without an adapter? Is there something on the front of the lens that I haven't noticed that would allow the bayonet-mount to grab hold? (I'm at work now so I can't check.) Or is the bayonet-mount threaded on one side? (Or maybe... just maybe... it works with the lens shade bayonet mounts?) Thanks! __________________ Kirk VideoBlanket.com Last edited by L. Kirk Kauder; July 19th, 2007 at 10:54 AM.

July 19th, 2007, 09:48 AM	#243
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,489	There are at least two generations of the Century 0.6x, the one that came out for the XL1 many years ago, which does not quite fit on the XH A1 (but can be made to fit with a bit of manipulation), and a new version that apparently fits all the X series camcorders. Not clear that other changes were made, but there are some. The weight and physical dimensions are a bit different. I suspect that the original for the XL1 may not work as well optically on the new HDV camcorders, thus the mount change, but I have not seen any side-by-side comparisons. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

July 19th, 2007, 06:30 PM	#244
Andy Gordon Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Perth WA Posts: 103	No for the Aspheron you will need to get a custom adapter made, you can connect to either the thread or the lens hood bayonet, the picture I posted shows a bayonet adapter that I don't have. I've ordered one that attaches to the thread mount, attaching to the bayonet would hold the lens a little closer so less likely to vignette in the corners. I found some samples of a century here, not sure if it's the same as the one for the A1 but I would assume it will be, lots of distortion: http://www.bealecorner.com/dvx100/ce...e06/index.html It really depends how wide you want it and if you are happy with barrel distortion. I hate barrel distortion so that basically leaves the Aspheron. I don't think there's any other wide angle that is as wide and doesn't distort.

July 19th, 2007, 07:45 PM	#246
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	I bought the Century .6x. It is pretty light and the image looks good. It attaches using the bayonet mount. It blocks the fast autofocus. You can use the autofocus with about 1/2 the zoom range. Since the xh-a1 is already fairly wide for normal shooting, I got this for using in tight places, for getting full shot from close range and to use with the Merlin in certain situations. As shown in the examples, the just how obvious the barrel distortion is depends on the shot. In any case, for a shot this wide, it looks quite reasonable and I don't think is any different than an "experience TV viewer" would expect to see. I do wish that Century included a case with its lenses, but this one doesn't include one... just a cardboard box.

July 20th, 2007, 04:30 PM	#250
Dave Pecunies Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Albany Township, ME Posts: 95	I just bought the Canon and if you think you might do any handheld shots your wrist may take a beating with this monster. It is a nice lens but a little heavy. I think I am going to return it for the Century 0.8. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Converter.html

July 20th, 2007, 05:22 PM	#251
Eric Weiss Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philly,PA Posts: 360	I own a Century WA. If you're not shooting a Beastie Boys video or something avant-garde...it's an ideal paperweight. The Canon is a monster. It’s a badass monster that was designed specifically to produce the best and widest possible image for the camera in question…which they make…in addition to the highest quality lenses in the world. How can there even be a debate? Anything that you put in front of a canon lens that ISN'T a canon lens will not produce the best possible image. That's not a prediction, that’s a fact of life.

July 20th, 2007, 06:54 PM	#252
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	If someone can prove this wrong I'd be glad to know. Fact: I had a brand new 0.6x WA adapter from Century Optics that is sold as being HD compatible. I had a 4 year old version of the same lens that was designed for the XL1...not HD. Placed both of them on my H1 and could tell no difference. Both softened the image some and under the right/wrong cirmcumstances significantly softened the edges. If there was any difference it was not apparent at all. I called CO and asked and was told that it is optically the same glass. The mount has been re-tooled for the newer HD cameras. Take it for what it is worth. I sent back the new CO .6x and got a refund ( only had it for a week) and I bought a used one off of ebay for $100. Also, since it is a bayonet mount you cannot use the Canon lens hood so you will need something to use to block peripheral light....the .6x flares to high heaven if you don't. The 0.8x Century looked so much better....but was not as wide.

July 20th, 2007, 07:20 PM	#253
Salah Baker Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Patterson La. Posts: 207	get the Canon glass, the WD-H72 is worth it

August 12th, 2007, 02:51 PM	#255
Jay Fisk Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: CSL BCS MX Posts: 67	The Canon WD would be a bargain at $1000. It's that good.