Conversion Lens at DVinfo.net

Maxim Rostov · March 31st, 2005, 06:32 AM

Honestly, what do you people think, which one is better (worth its price, wider conversion but better picture quality etc…) for the Sony FX1/Z1 camcorder;
Sonys Wide Conversion Lens VCL-HG0872 or Century's 7X HD Wide Angle Converter?

Regards to all

Robert Shuster · March 31st, 2005, 06:39 PM

The Century VS-07CV-HDS just came out today. I know, because I have the first unit in the country (s/n 102798 as of 3pm 03-31-05). Dave Contreras called and sent my truck right over to Van Nuys and got it. It is a very COOOL lens, substantial and massy (heavy). Comes with a mail-in offer for a free Shade/filter holder. List is $850.00. The Sony (available for a few months now) is a very nice 72mm screw-in type and is lighter but less linear (bends a bit at certian focal lengths). Runs about 1/2 of the Century. We'll keep testing but I'm Century inclined. Remember, Cavision has had a 72mm thread-on for years. Is it HD-ready? Don't know - don't carry.

Jeffrey Liou · March 31st, 2005, 10:49 PM

How about VS-06WA-HDS ?(http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/hdr-fx1/6x_wa/6x_wa.htm) , it's lighter and cheaper but with limited zoom

Maxim Rostov · March 31st, 2005, 10:55 PM

Hi Robert,

You said you will keep testing even though you are Century inclined. Does testing mean comparing your Century lens with the other lens (like the Sony´s)? Where did you get from?

You also said that the Sony lens is less linear, do you think or do you know it for sure? Do you think it would be possible to see an pictorial example of this distortion (bending at certain focal lengths)? I have it difficult to imagine it, so I would be very grateful if I could see at least some kind of (at least similar) the distortion you are talking about. Thank you in advance!

Greg Jacobson · April 1st, 2005, 02:06 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Shuster : The Century VS-07CV-HDS just came out today. I know, because I have the first unit in the country (s/n 102798 as of 3pm 03-31-05). Dave Contreras called and sent my truck right over to Van Nuys and got it. It is a very COOOL lens, substantial and massy (heavy). Comes with a mail-in offer for a free Shade/filter holder. List is $850.00. The Sony (available for a few months now) is a very nice 72mm screw-in type and is lighter but less linear (bends a bit at certian focal lengths). Runs about 1/2 of the Century. We'll keep testing but I'm Century inclined. Remember, Cavision has had a 72mm thread-on for years. Is it HD-ready? Don't know - don't carry. -->>>

How much does using that lens change the minimum focus distance? Can you get very close with the lens to your subject? I need to find a solution to allow me to get closer to peoplese faces with my Z1 lens. I guess I could try a close up lens but I don't want to decrease my depth of field.

Jared VanLeuven · April 1st, 2005, 02:09 PM

I just bought the .6 Century Wide Angle Adapter. Brain is telling me that there's most likely a difference between an "adapter" and a "coverter". Aside from the price, what _is_ the difference? tx

Graeme Fullick · April 1st, 2005, 06:54 PM

Jared,

I am very interested in the performance of the 0.6x Century. WHen you get it can you let us know if there is any significant barrel distortion - I expect that there will be some, but I was hoping that it would not be too extreme. I like the low weight of the 0.6X Century as opposed to the 0.7X.

Thanks.

Cole Delphi · April 2nd, 2005, 11:56 AM

I just received the Century Optics .6 from B&H. I had seriously considered the Sony wide angle, but I thought it would make the camera top heavy, it was a screw on, and only gave .8 wide.

I may send this lens back. It's wonderfully wide, but it also has strong barrel distortion to the point of mild fish-eye. If you're shooting anything that includes straight lines (like walls, posts, etc), they will appear curved. For shooting people close-up, I imagine it helps give that "wide" look (almost like people in a submarine), but I'd be concerned about shooting anything else.

I just may end up ordering the Sony in the end -- and it comes with a hood to cut down the flare. I have a shoot on Monday, I'll report back to this thread then.

Greg Jacobson · April 2nd, 2005, 02:00 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Cole Delphi : I just received the Century Optics .6 from B&H. I had seriously considered the Sony wide angle, but I thought it would make the camera top heavy, it was a screw on, and only gave .8 wide.

I may send this lens back. It's wonderfully wide, but it also has strong barrel distortion to the point of mild fish-eye. If you're shooting anything that includes straight lines (like walls, posts, etc), they will appear curved. For shooting people close-up, I imagine it helps give that "wide" look (almost like people in a submarine), but I'd be concerned about shooting anything else.

I just may end up ordering the Sony in the end -- and it comes with a hood to cut down the flare. I have a shoot on Monday, I'll report back to this thread then. -->>>

Cool, I am looking for a mid-fisheye lens.

How close can you focus with the wide lens on? Can you get within a few inches of your subject?

Cole Delphi · April 2nd, 2005, 03:02 PM

You can get as close as about an inch and a half and stay in focus. You can zoom as much as 2/3rd's (this is not a full-zoom wide angle).

hadn't realized that people liked a bit of fish-eye on wide angle lenses!

-->>> Cool, I am looking for a mid-fisheye lens.

How close can you focus with the wide lens on? Can you get within a few inches of your subject? -->>>

Greg Jacobson · April 2nd, 2005, 03:17 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Cole Delphi : You can get as close as about an inch and a half and stay in focus. You can zoom as much as 2/3rd's (this is not a full-zoom wide angle).

hadn't realized that people liked a bit of fish-eye on wide angle lenses!

-->>> Cool, I am looking for a mid-fisheye lens.

How close can you focus with the wide lens on? Can you get within a few inches of your subject? -->>> -->>>

I would imagine that the distortion is more pronounced since the FX1 is widescreen.

Jared VanLeuven · April 3rd, 2005, 04:46 PM

I agree with Cole's post, there is a bit of barrel distortion evident. Doesn't matter too much to me though as I'm doing mostly natural scenics with it.

Cole Delphi · April 5th, 2005, 04:21 PM

Just finished shooting a few run and gun interviews with the Century Optics .6. It worked very well and I was very pleased with the wider angle and the amount of light it let in.

I exchanged a couple of e-mail with Century Optics, and I now understand the the Z1/FX1 lens is already distorted, so a wide angle makes it worse (and I now see it when I take the adapter off). it's probably not as noticeable with a Sony .8, but it is with the .6. However I've had good experience with CA glass and believe it limits the distortion as much as possible. And as long as you're not shooting straight angles and architectural lines, it works well (especially for interviews).

So I'm keeping it. The Sony sounds good, but doesn't give me much more wide angle with .8. though i wish the CA came with a hood as the Sony does.

March 31st, 2005, 06:32 AM	#1
Maxim Rostov New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 5	Conversion Lens Honestly, what do you people think, which one is better (worth its price, wider conversion but better picture quality etc…) for the Sony FX1/Z1 camcorder; Sonys Wide Conversion Lens VCL-HG0872 or Century's 7X HD Wide Angle Converter? Regards to all

March 31st, 2005, 06:39 PM	#2
Robert Shuster Hollywood Studio Rentals Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Burbank, CA Posts: 24	Too soon to tell The Century VS-07CV-HDS just came out today. I know, because I have the first unit in the country (s/n 102798 as of 3pm 03-31-05). Dave Contreras called and sent my truck right over to Van Nuys and got it. It is a very COOOL lens, substantial and massy (heavy). Comes with a mail-in offer for a free Shade/filter holder. List is $850.00. The Sony (available for a few months now) is a very nice 72mm screw-in type and is lighter but less linear (bends a bit at certian focal lengths). Runs about 1/2 of the Century. We'll keep testing but I'm Century inclined. Remember, Cavision has had a 72mm thread-on for years. Is it HD-ready? Don't know - don't carry. __________________ Cheers and Best Wishes

April 1st, 2005, 02:06 AM	#5
Greg Jacobson Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: New York Posts: 141	Re: Too soon to tell <<<-- Originally posted by Robert Shuster : The Century VS-07CV-HDS just came out today. I know, because I have the first unit in the country (s/n 102798 as of 3pm 03-31-05). Dave Contreras called and sent my truck right over to Van Nuys and got it. It is a very COOOL lens, substantial and massy (heavy). Comes with a mail-in offer for a free Shade/filter holder. List is $850.00. The Sony (available for a few months now) is a very nice 72mm screw-in type and is lighter but less linear (bends a bit at certian focal lengths). Runs about 1/2 of the Century. We'll keep testing but I'm Century inclined. Remember, Cavision has had a 72mm thread-on for years. Is it HD-ready? Don't know - don't carry. -->>> How much does using that lens change the minimum focus distance? Can you get very close with the lens to your subject? I need to find a solution to allow me to get closer to peoplese faces with my Z1 lens. I guess I could try a close up lens but I don't want to decrease my depth of field.

April 1st, 2005, 06:54 PM	#7
Graeme Fullick Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Newcastle, Australia Posts: 337	Jared, I am very interested in the performance of the 0.6x Century. WHen you get it can you let us know if there is any significant barrel distortion - I expect that there will be some, but I was hoping that it would not be too extreme. I like the low weight of the 0.6X Century as opposed to the 0.7X. Thanks. __________________ Graeme

March 31st, 2005, 10:49 PM	#3
Jeffrey Liou New Boot Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Taipei, Taiwan Posts: 19	How about VS-06WA-HDS ?(http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/hdr-fx1/6x_wa/6x_wa.htm) , it's lighter and cheaper but with limited zoom

March 31st, 2005, 10:55 PM	#4
Maxim Rostov New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 5	Hi Robert, You said you will keep testing even though you are Century inclined. Does testing mean comparing your Century lens with the other lens (like the Sony´s)? Where did you get from? You also said that the Sony lens is less linear, do you think or do you know it for sure? Do you think it would be possible to see an pictorial example of this distortion (bending at certain focal lengths)? I have it difficult to imagine it, so I would be very grateful if I could see at least some kind of (at least similar) the distortion you are talking about. Thank you in advance!

April 1st, 2005, 02:09 PM	#6
Jared VanLeuven New Boot Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 21	I just bought the .6 Century Wide Angle Adapter. Brain is telling me that there's most likely a difference between an "adapter" and a "coverter". Aside from the price, what _is_ the difference? tx

April 2nd, 2005, 11:56 AM	#8
Cole Delphi New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 7	I just received the Century Optics .6 from B&H. I had seriously considered the Sony wide angle, but I thought it would make the camera top heavy, it was a screw on, and only gave .8 wide. I may send this lens back. It's wonderfully wide, but it also has strong barrel distortion to the point of mild fish-eye. If you're shooting anything that includes straight lines (like walls, posts, etc), they will appear curved. For shooting people close-up, I imagine it helps give that "wide" look (almost like people in a submarine), but I'd be concerned about shooting anything else. I just may end up ordering the Sony in the end -- and it comes with a hood to cut down the flare. I have a shoot on Monday, I'll report back to this thread then.

April 2nd, 2005, 02:00 PM	#9
Greg Jacobson Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: New York Posts: 141	<<<-- Originally posted by Cole Delphi : I just received the Century Optics .6 from B&H. I had seriously considered the Sony wide angle, but I thought it would make the camera top heavy, it was a screw on, and only gave .8 wide. I may send this lens back. It's wonderfully wide, but it also has strong barrel distortion to the point of mild fish-eye. If you're shooting anything that includes straight lines (like walls, posts, etc), they will appear curved. For shooting people close-up, I imagine it helps give that "wide" look (almost like people in a submarine), but I'd be concerned about shooting anything else. I just may end up ordering the Sony in the end -- and it comes with a hood to cut down the flare. I have a shoot on Monday, I'll report back to this thread then. -->>> Cool, I am looking for a mid-fisheye lens. How close can you focus with the wide lens on? Can you get within a few inches of your subject?

April 2nd, 2005, 03:02 PM	#10
Cole Delphi New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 7	You can get as close as about an inch and a half and stay in focus. You can zoom as much as 2/3rd's (this is not a full-zoom wide angle). hadn't realized that people liked a bit of fish-eye on wide angle lenses! -->>> Cool, I am looking for a mid-fisheye lens. How close can you focus with the wide lens on? Can you get within a few inches of your subject? -->>>

April 2nd, 2005, 03:17 PM	#11
Greg Jacobson Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: New York Posts: 141	<<<-- Originally posted by Cole Delphi : You can get as close as about an inch and a half and stay in focus. You can zoom as much as 2/3rd's (this is not a full-zoom wide angle). hadn't realized that people liked a bit of fish-eye on wide angle lenses! -->>> Cool, I am looking for a mid-fisheye lens. How close can you focus with the wide lens on? Can you get within a few inches of your subject? -->>> -->>> I would imagine that the distortion is more pronounced since the FX1 is widescreen.

April 3rd, 2005, 04:46 PM	#12
Jared VanLeuven New Boot Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 21	I agree with Cole's post, there is a bit of barrel distortion evident. Doesn't matter too much to me though as I'm doing mostly natural scenics with it.

April 5th, 2005, 04:21 PM	#13
Cole Delphi New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 7	Just finished shooting a few run and gun interviews with the Century Optics .6. It worked very well and I was very pleased with the wider angle and the amount of light it let in. I exchanged a couple of e-mail with Century Optics, and I now understand the the Z1/FX1 lens is already distorted, so a wide angle makes it worse (and I now see it when I take the adapter off). it's probably not as noticeable with a Sony .8, but it is with the .6. However I've had good experience with CA glass and believe it limits the distortion as much as possible. And as long as you're not shooting straight angles and architectural lines, it works well (especially for interviews). So I'm keeping it. The Sony sounds good, but doesn't give me much more wide angle with .8. though i wish the CA came with a hood as the Sony does.