Centuy versus Red Eye at DVinfo.net

David Slingerland · January 1st, 2004, 02:13 AM

Collinscraft in Canada makes wide angle adapters for all sorts of camera's. How does the wide angle adapter Red Eye rate against Century? I have a 6x wide angle from Century and for my taste it is not good enough. I wanted to use it with the canon xl1.
I dont know what you call it in english but the fact that at the edges it makes everything go round is not acceptable for me for normal shooting. The fact that I can not screw on any filters is another annoyance.

Charles Papert · January 1st, 2004, 01:50 PM

David:

That phenomenon (known as barrel distortion) is likely to be present in every wide angle adaptor with that degree (.6x) of magnification. You really need to use a lens that has been designed from the bottom up to incorporate the wider focal range, like the Canon 3x, to avoid this issue. The Century is considered by many (including myself) to be the benchmark for wide angle adaptors from an optical perspective. I haven't seen the Red Eye myself, but I see that it is a non-zoom through adaptor, as opposed to your .6x Century which allows for zooming.

David Slingerland · January 1st, 2004, 05:32 PM

Thanks Charles for the info. But what do you mean by 'The Century is considered by many (including myself) to be the benchmark for wide angle adaptors from an optical perspective'. And barrel distortion is never going to be good is it?
6x is not a zoom through, it will zoom several x but not the full focal length. When I bought it I hoped it would be a cheap alternative to the canon XL1 wide angle lens.

Charles Papert · January 1st, 2004, 05:53 PM

Sorry, yes, I forgot that it's the .7x that is zoom through and the .6x is partial.

Barrel distortion is a drag, but I know of no aftermarket adaptor that can be added to a lens that is free of it. To achieve truly linear results at wide angles requires a lens built from the ground up to accomodate such a task.

So the question is, which is the most transparent adaptor available optically (resolution, coatings etc.) and creates the LEAST distortion. My research led me to the Century (I own the .7x for my 14x Canon manual lens).

David Slingerland · January 2nd, 2004, 10:29 AM

hmmmm... and I bought two 6x for both of them wish I would have bought the 7x....

January 1st, 2004, 02:13 AM	#1
David Slingerland Major Player Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Soest ,Holland Posts: 307	Centuy versus Red Eye Collinscraft in Canada makes wide angle adapters for all sorts of camera's. How does the wide angle adapter Red Eye rate against Century? I have a 6x wide angle from Century and for my taste it is not good enough. I wanted to use it with the canon xl1. I dont know what you call it in english but the fact that at the edges it makes everything go round is not acceptable for me for normal shooting. The fact that I can not screw on any filters is another annoyance. __________________ D.Slingerland director/cameraman http://www.slingerlandproductions.nl

January 1st, 2004, 01:50 PM	#2
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	David: That phenomenon (known as barrel distortion) is likely to be present in every wide angle adaptor with that degree (.6x) of magnification. You really need to use a lens that has been designed from the bottom up to incorporate the wider focal range, like the Canon 3x, to avoid this issue. The Century is considered by many (including myself) to be the benchmark for wide angle adaptors from an optical perspective. I haven't seen the Red Eye myself, but I see that it is a non-zoom through adaptor, as opposed to your .6x Century which allows for zooming. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 1st, 2004, 05:32 PM	#3
David Slingerland Major Player Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Soest ,Holland Posts: 307	Thanks Charles for the info. But what do you mean by 'The Century is considered by many (including myself) to be the benchmark for wide angle adaptors from an optical perspective'. And barrel distortion is never going to be good is it? 6x is not a zoom through, it will zoom several x but not the full focal length. When I bought it I hoped it would be a cheap alternative to the canon XL1 wide angle lens. __________________ D.Slingerland director/cameraman http://www.slingerlandproductions.nl

January 1st, 2004, 05:53 PM	#4
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Sorry, yes, I forgot that it's the .7x that is zoom through and the .6x is partial. Barrel distortion is a drag, but I know of no aftermarket adaptor that can be added to a lens that is free of it. To achieve truly linear results at wide angles requires a lens built from the ground up to accomodate such a task. So the question is, which is the most transparent adaptor available optically (resolution, coatings etc.) and creates the LEAST distortion. My research led me to the Century (I own the .7x for my 14x Canon manual lens). __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 2nd, 2004, 10:29 AM	#5
David Slingerland Major Player Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Soest ,Holland Posts: 307	hmmmm... and I bought two 6x for both of them wish I would have bought the 7x.... __________________ D.Slingerland director/cameraman http://www.slingerlandproductions.nl