Wide Angle Adapter

[Michael McConnell]

******NEWBIE QUESTION ALERT****

HEY, I HAVE A (BRAND X)WIDE ANGLE LENS THAT I BOUGHT FROM ADORAMAS IN N.Y.C....I SHOOT A LOT OF PERFORMANCES IN NIGHTCLUBS AND I NOTICE I GET A FUZZINESS THAT SURROUNDS THE CORNERS OF THE LENS. WHAT CAUSES THIS? IS IT BECAUSE I BOUGHT A B-LEVEL LENS...OH YA WHITE ALWAYS GIVES ME A PROBLEM TOO, IT LOOKS LIKE THE PERSON IS GLOWING DAMN NEAR..I PLAY WITH EXPOSURE BUT, IT STILL GIVES OFF THAT LOOK.

[Michael McConnell]

OH YA IM USING A VX-2000 BY THE WAY

[Marcello Mongardi]

As some of you know, i am going to Africa to shoot a shot documentary about my granddfather. There will be interviews, etc., but there will also be Africa to shoot! I need need need a wide angle for my VX-2000! By now i have understood the concept of "it depends what your budget is". So is there a short list of lenses at different budgelevels that work for different people? Is there, for instance, a $200 lens that I should avoid and another $200 lens that is great? I would appreciate any help.

Oh, and what wide angle (.7,.65,.5, etc.) do you all use?
Thanks,

Marcello

[Mike Rehmus]

I have the Century Optics .65 adapter. I like the mounting technique, I'd not like it in Africa without filter threads for a protective filter.

I don't like the slight softness it gives the footage. So much so that I sent it back for a checkup. They checked it for free, saying it 'meets their specs', and billed me $6 for return postage.

I also don't like buying a $400 piece of glass and getting it in a cardboard box with no case. No optional case either. I complained and they said they would have to raise the price if they supplied a case.

My take on Century Optics is they are not a customer-friendly company. At least their customer support folks leave the impression that they don't care what their customers need or want even while providing an adequate level of support. Hard to describe but it is their attitude, not their action.

I note that I also purchased a WA adapter from them for my PC110 which is much crisper. It came with a nice plastic box and a soft pouch. I suspect they didn't build this adapter.

(I don't mind the $6 but the bill came out of NY from their parent company and had to cost them $50- $100 to issue and process.)

[Mike Rehmus]

Michael,

A brand name and model number would help here.

The fuzzy glow you are experiencing is not vignetting, that is darkening of the edges of the frame. The fuzzyness may be caused by a number of factors, the names of which don't really matter.

I've not experienced the problem with my Century Optics adapter nor have I heard of the problem with a Sony or Canon adapter.

That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist with those brands, just that it's not reported.

Only by testing with another brand of WA adapter can you determine that the problem rests with the copy you have and not the genre. Have you asked Adorama about the problem?

Differences exist between examples of the same model. You could have received a bad one. You might try another unit.

[Tom Hardwick]

The white-out sounds to me as if your camcorders exposing for the whole frame whereas the subject is lit in a dark background. On the VX2k there's a "spotlight" switch under the lens barrel, and this works well if you don't want to use the manual exposure wheel.

The fuzziness you speak of could well be just unsharpness in the corners. My 0.5x Cavision was like that, and I returned it for a full refund. My Century 0.65x (like Mike has) is very much better.

tom.

[Nori Wentworth]

Michael,

If you only notice the "fuzziness" when you are entirely zoomed out, then you are probably seeing the outer-most inside of the actual wide angle adapter lens. If you see it all the time, the lens is junk, and I would return it for a better one.

-Nori

[Tom Hardwick]

Now that's the first post I've ever read where Century has taken a beating. Interesting.
I did a multi wide-angle test shoot-out for a British video magazine and top of the tree was the Century 0.65x. It has that wonderful breech-lock bayonet (but then so do Kenko, Optex and Tecpro), it had the best multi coating, came in a leatherette pouch and was very sharp indeed.

Frames pulled into Photoshop for evaluation were as close to the VX2k's unaided zoom as I could see. All the other lenses in the test were not as good, but then all other lenses were a lot less expensive.

The Raynox 0.66x distorted straight lines a lot less but for zero distortion the Schneider Kreutznach was Nr 1.

What widie do I use? I have a fisheye (gobs of vignetting), a 0.3x a 0,4x, a 0.5x and a 0.7x. They all have their uses, they all have their failings but they all extend the power of the Sony lens immensley. I wouldn't be without any of them.

tom.

[Mike Rehmus]

I thought is was my PD150 but Sony replaced that and the softness is there with the new unit too.

I think it is a bum unit but Century say otherwise. Somewhere along the way they lost handing out the vinyl pouch that my other 2 Century WA adapters came with.

Now why don't they make a WA adapter like the one for my DSR-300. That's an impressive chunk of glass. The front element can be removed to provide less WA if desired. Must weight half as much as a PD150 by itself.

[Michael McConnell]

ya, I'm going back to adoramas on monday and drilling the staff about this problem--I shot a fashion show and the piece was extremely fuzzy, thanks for all the advice. (thats what happens when you try to save a buck)


p.s.

my work will be displayed on NONSTOPNIGHTS.com this weekend.
(my first shoot ever was the playboy party in n.y.c., man that was pressure! (but of course enjoyable)

[Tom Hardwick]

you're sure the Century is at fault Mike? Try this test. Firm triopd, camera beautifully perpendicular to a brick wall that has door frame. window, flowerpots - whatever. Lots of detail.

Shoot to memory stick using a high shutter speed and something like f4, no NDs in place and using max wide on the PD150's zoom.

Now attach the Century 0.65x and zoom up so that the focal length is exactly 6mm and the view through the finder look as as before. Another shot to memorystick at the same settings.

Pull these frame into Photoshop (whatever). Have a careful look at the two pictures up there together on your PC screen. Look for detail around the edges of the frame, compare vignetting in the corners, check the centre definition.

Doing this test with my Century showed only the very tiniest degredation, and most people are hard pressed to see the difference. Repeat at other apertures if you like. This A/B test really shows the losses if they're there.

tom.

[Joe Gioielli]

I bought a set of lens' from an internet auction site. It was a WA and a telephoto for 120 bucks. I knew that it would not be great but I thought how bad can it be?

Yikes! The WA lens is a piece of you know what. Lots of distortion and if you zoom all the way out to get the widest picture you get blurry grey corners. No good.

On the upside, it comes apart and can be used as a macro lens. Wait, is that an upside?

Anyway, I bought a WA from Canon.

Good luck and be kind to Africa.

Joe

[Bryan Beasleigh]

Tom
What lenses did you review and where can we download it?

[Tom Hardwick]

Cant download it as it hasn't been uploaded. But I could send you the text if you like. Too many pictures to send though.

[Mike Rehmus]

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : you're sure the Century is at fault Mike?

Tom,

I understand the 'fairness' of the test you suggest.

However, perception is the law in video and my perception is that the camera/Century WA adapter is just plain fuzzy when used. It is obvious to me when looking at footage even without a reference shot (with which to compare it) without the adapter.

It looks like my footage when I focus the 150 using the LCD screen in relatively poor light. I always miss just a little bit.

I will go back and try the adapter with the camera in autofocus and see if it is me screwing up the focus or I have another PD150 with a back-focus problem.

Thanks for the input.