Century Optics 0HD-65CV-SH6 reviews?

[Craig Irving]

Can anyone offer any feedback on the Century Optics .65X Wide Angle adapter for the V1U/FX7? Has anyone seen any official reviews from other sites?

[Piotr Wozniacki]

I second this question - got disappointed with the Sony wa converter. I was hoping that due to the mild coefficient, it'd not introduce too much of a barrel distorsion; unfortunately it's quite substantial. The 0.8x is not worth such a price in image distorsion. I can't wait for the comparison with the 0.65x Century/Schneider!

[Tip McPartland]

Band Pro, the industry's favorite Sony store in the LA area sold me my V1 and also steered me toward the 16x9 7.0 WA converter. It is large, heavy and expensive but it seems to work very well, and they said it was the best available.

It has four elements and supposedly the best coatings. It doesn't give significant barrel distortion and seems quite bright and clear.

Tip

[Tip McPartland]

The hot 16x9 converter is actually the .75 which has the four elements to combat geometric distortion and chromatic aberration.

The .7 only has three elements.

Here's the link to the four element .75

http://16x9inc.com/products/16x9/169...2-son-z1u.html

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Tip McPartland

Band Pro, the industry's favorite Sony store in the LA area sold me my V1 and also steered me toward the 16x9 7.0 WA converter. It is large, heavy and expensive but it seems to work very well, and they said it was the best available.

It has four elements and supposedly the best coatings. It doesn't give significant barrel distortion and seems quite bright and clear.

Tip

Tip have you actually now got that 16x9 lens?

interested in your practical experience with it if in fact you have purchased it.

thanks

[Piotr Wozniacki]

OK, so before a screen grab is available with the 0.65x Century, I'm sharing a 10-sec clip of a scene (some of you guys will remember - yes, it's my garage), with and without the Sony "K" wa adaptor. Here's the link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/38906697/V1_wa.m2t, or
http://rapidshare.com/files/38929728/V1_wa.m2t (shorter)

It's only 0.8x, but I'm satisfied. Apart from somewhat increased barrel distorsion, I haven't noticed any picture deterioration, and the lens hood is sooo nice!

[Craig Irving]

Do the Century Optics or Raynox WA lenses come with hoods of any type? Or just a lens cap?

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Craig Irving

Do the Century Optics or Raynox WA lenses come with hoods of any type? Or just a lens cap?

That's the point, Craig - just a lens cup! I'd gladly pay quite a bit more for the 0.65x Century, should it come with a hood similar to the Sony K wa!

[Tip McPartland]

Stu,

I do hvae it, and it seems to work very well. I bought it for a shoot requiring some very tight interiors and some inside-the-car stuff. The converter gave me no issues that I noticed, it was just like shooting without it only -- wider and heavier.

I didn't notice any barrel distortion to speak of with it. It seems to hold focus through the zoom. It is large, heavy and expensive, even the lens hood costs over $200 extra.

But the time I put that on and attach my Sony LED light, the V1 probably weighs as much as my XDCAM!

Tip

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Tip,

While I can't imagine a .65x wa converter not giving any barrel distorsion, I totally agree on your second point - the V1 with any wa conwverter plus the HVL-LBP really becomes heavy! So much so that - when using both my Sony "K" wa and the lamp - I'm putting the DR60 drive into my shirt pocket, and the lamp's battery - into my trousers' pocket, so that I don't add any unnecessarry weight to the camera, and my arm(s)...

[Tip McPartland]

Piotr,

You're probably right about the .65, but this one is only .75 and is very sophisticated with its four elements versus everything else three at most.

Anyway, it has very little barrel distortion, no doubt it has some. Next time I shoot with the camera I'll roll some footage with the converter on and post a frame grab at full wide with wall or ceiling edges or something usable for reference.

Tip

[Paul Frederick]

I am returning my Century 6.5 WA. I've had it a few days and feel the distortion, meaning blurry edges and CA up the wazoo was just unacceptable to me. I have many other WA's from Century and this one is just not very good IMHO. It looked fine in the middle ranges of the zoom, but full wide (which is what we buy these for!) was very blurry at the edges, plus the Chromatic Abberation was really bad. I didn't shoot any charts, didn't need to.

Man, I had high hopes for it, but am definatley disappointed.

[Craig Irving]

Thanks for the report. Looks like I'll definitely go with the VCLHG0862K then and if I need extra coverage sometimes, I'll get the cheap Raynox with it.

I agree the lens hood is definitely a plus.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Craig Irving

Thanks for the report. Looks like I'll definitely go with the VCLHG0862K then and if I need extra coverage sometimes, I'll get the cheap Raynox with it.

That's exactly my plan too.

[Zsolt Gordos]

Guys,

let me tell you here again, the 6600 model of Raynox turned out to be pretty acceptable for me (considering also the price tag).
It is a 0.6 wa, nice sharp picture full wide. Don't try to zoom in, it is not designed for that. But wide has to be wide, right?