I guess they are comparable, with a little bit more barrel distorsion on the Reynox (a trade-off for wider angle).

My only quibble with Sony's 0.8x is that it's just too feeble. The FX7 starts out with less wide angle than the FX1, the HVX200, the Canon A1 and so on, so really does cry out for something more powerful than a 0.8x.

The Sony lens is a good one though, and I had no complaints from a picture quality POV - though it does barrel distort slightly. What did bother me was the size and weight of the thing - especially with that huge hood with its barn doors.

The size/weight is probably ok if you fit the lens and leave it there (as Sony did on their trade stand at London's Video Forum), but it's a huge lump in your kit bag for a very mild wide-angle increase.

tom.

I took Tom's advice and used a brick wall for testing.

Raynox or Redeye, Ron? I'm guessing Raynox, but leaving us to guess doesn't help much.

Uh, I guess you didn't notice the file names.

"Standard.jpg" is just the camcorder lens.

"raynox.jpg" is with the raynox lens attached.

Did another brick test.

Raynox vs standard lens. But with the standard lens on, I positioned the camcorder further back to match the area covered.

I think this is a better test to compare resolution and I am now even more impressed with my $150 Raynox.

I agree - you certainly have hit on a good combination there and when viewed big the Raynox looks sharp right into the corners. Do you know what aperture this was taken at? The 6600PRO I had seemed to have a single layer coating (a light blue) with nowhere near the 'depth' of the multicoating on competitor's lenses, so I was careful to hood it as best I could. But for a lens at this price with so little distortion that still left you with 60% of your zoom useable it is indeed a bargain.

My slight quibble is that I was never quite sure where this 60% point was, and because of it I never zoomed more than a few mill away from max wide. With my single element aspheric on the other hand the change from sharp to wildly blurry is distinct and very obvious indeed, so I'm much happier to use any focal length in that 60% range, knowing it's sharp.

tom.

Aperture was F6.2. Why do you ask ?

Do you know of an easy way to get these aspheric lenses in the US ? I've seen the links you provided. One was in German, and the others did not look like they had online ordering.

Century Optics .65x Wide Angle Convert Is Available!
 

this is my first post, greetings, I belive century 0HD-65CV-SH6 .65X is available from schneideroptics.com , has anybody got one and tested it for barrel distortion?

many thanks

saman

I'm with you, Saman.

Has anyone tried the Century 0HD-65CV-SH6 0.65x?

Yes, the Century 0.65x is a zoom through, so does barrel distort. Not by much, but then if your camcorder's zoom barrel distorts down the wide end (and most do) then the Century will add to that.

Yes, I did:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....0&postcount=32

Thanks, Piotr.

That's sad, really. I was hoping for more out of that $500 lens.

The Sony just seems so weak in the wide angle department. :-(

from what I\'ve seen so far, the Raynox is a real value at under $200... ordered mine today.

--Ralph

Ralph, please post some grabs, and your impressions on the Raynox!