Wide Angle Adapter

Scot Anderson · November 30th, 2007, 01:27 PM

alright thanks i think ill go with the .55x then. it seems like the right chice for me, i most likely wont be using much zoom when using it so that shouldnt be a problem, and the .3x fisheye is too much fisheye for what i need.

Eric Stemen · November 30th, 2007, 05:26 PM

Give me a couple hours and I'll post footage from my vx2000 with no lens full wide.
Full Wide with the .55x
Then full wide with the .3x

Scot Anderson · November 30th, 2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Stemen

Give me a couple hours and I'll post footage from my vx2000 with no lens full wide.
Full Wide with the .55x
Then full wide with the .3x

that would be great!

Ryan Avery · November 30th, 2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Rehmus

What you will find with the .65 is that it will noticably soften the image and create some barrel distortion.

When I discovered this, I contacted Century and they had me ship it to them. The result was a statement that "it is performing up to specification." I had to pay them for the testing and postage before they'd ship it back to me.

I still feel that for the price, it doesn't perform any better than the much less expensive Canon that I exhchanged with B&H because it too softened the image and had some barrel distortion.

I suggest you save a bunch of money and try the Canon first. It even comes with a case!

Mike,

Sorry for your troubles with the .65x. We have worked very hard to make that lens better and the design isn't cooperating. While most of our attachments are excellent, the .65x does have some issues and the quality of the attachment varies greatly from camera to camera due to a 5% descrepency in CCD placement from camera to camera. We have many customers who are completely satisfied with their .65x and it would appear that it is a combination of not our strongest design and a CCD placement issue.

We hope that you will consider our lenses on all new models as they become available due to varying designs.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Mike Rehmus · November 30th, 2007, 08:18 PM

Frankly I got the feeling that Schneider had taken over and was just being arrogant. That experience made me decide to not purchase any other Century products and to advise others to avoid them.

I can understand design issues, even if I don't like the results. But to be told 'it meets the functional criteria,' when it obviously doesn't meet the application need and then to be charged for the insult was too much.

However, to continue to promote the .65 WA adapter doesn't speak well for your company. It should be withdrawn from the market in my opinion. I do have two other Century WA adapters for other cameras and they do perform well, making the .65 look even worse by comparison.

Ryan Avery · November 30th, 2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Rehmus

Frankly I got the feeling that Schneider had taken over and was just being arrogant. That experience made me decide to not purchase any other Century products and to advise others to avoid them.

I can understand design issues, even if I don't like the results. But to be told 'it meets the functional criteria,' when it obviously doesn't meet the application need and then to be charged for the insult was too much.

However, to continue to promote the .65 WA adapter doesn't speak well for your company. It should be withdrawn from the market in my opinion. I do have two other Century WA adapters for other cameras and they do perform well, making the .65 look even worse by comparison.

Mike,

Thanks for your input and I hope my presence on this site is helping you to understand that we truly do care about our customers and the Schneider purchase has only increased our capabilities.

Fortunately, we have shipped thousands of these units with no complaint. I again apologize for you unfortunate experience.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Eric Stemen · December 3rd, 2007, 12:31 PM

Sorry I never got back and posted a comparison. School work got in the way.
I WILL post a few screen grabs after my next class.

Edit: Here are the photos.

http://s225.photobucket.com/albums/dd268/bmxky/

They should be pretty self explanatory, however if they aren't let me know and I will clarify.

The .3x century does have some scratches(not my fault I bought it on ebay like that....but it was only like $180.)
There is also the .3x century
There is also the regular vx2000 lens on it.

Ryan Avery · December 4th, 2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Stemen

Sorry I never got back and posted a comparison. School work got in the way.
I WILL post a few screen grabs after my next class.

Edit: Here are the photos.

http://s225.photobucket.com/albums/dd268/bmxky/

They should be pretty self explanatory, however if they aren't let me know and I will clarify.

The .3x century does have some scratches(not my fault I bought it on ebay like that....but it was only like $180.)
There is also the .3x century
There is also the regular vx2000 lens on it.

Thanks for the footage Eric!

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Eric Stemen · December 4th, 2007, 01:02 PM

no problem. Thank you and your company for the presence on this message board.

Eric Stemen · December 28th, 2007, 06:29 PM

Hey Ryan, do you know how much it would cost to replace the glass on the .3x adapter?

Ryan Avery · December 31st, 2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Stemen

Hey Ryan, do you know how much it would cost to replace the glass on the .3x adapter?

It depends on what piece of glass you want to replace. The front element on most .3x Ultra Fisheye lenses run about $300 plus labor. You might be able to guess how many skateboarders come through our Office with damaged front elements.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Eric Stemen · December 31st, 2007, 03:30 PM

I assume lots. Mine has a bunch of little nicks in it...I have no idea what the previous owner did to it.

Ryan Avery · December 31st, 2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Stemen

I assume lots. Mine has a bunch of little nicks in it...I have no idea what the previous owner did to it.

Probably ran a skateboard tail into a few times. . .as usual. :)

November 30th, 2007, 08:18 PM	#410
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Frankly I got the feeling that Schneider had taken over and was just being arrogant. That experience made me decide to not purchase any other Century products and to advise others to avoid them. I can understand design issues, even if I don't like the results. But to be told 'it meets the functional criteria,' when it obviously doesn't meet the application need and then to be charged for the insult was too much. However, to continue to promote the .65 WA adapter doesn't speak well for your company. It should be withdrawn from the market in my opinion. I do have two other Century WA adapters for other cameras and they do perform well, making the .65 look even worse by comparison. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

December 3rd, 2007, 12:31 PM	#412
Eric Stemen Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 378	Sorry I never got back and posted a comparison. School work got in the way. I WILL post a few screen grabs after my next class. Edit: Here are the photos. http://s225.photobucket.com/albums/dd268/bmxky/ They should be pretty self explanatory, however if they aren't let me know and I will clarify. The .3x century does have some scratches(not my fault I bought it on ebay like that....but it was only like $180.) There is also the .3x century There is also the regular vx2000 lens on it. Last edited by Eric Stemen; December 3rd, 2007 at 04:23 PM.

November 30th, 2007, 01:27 PM	#406
Scot Anderson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: fort collins, colorado Posts: 29	alright thanks i think ill go with the .55x then. it seems like the right chice for me, i most likely wont be using much zoom when using it so that shouldnt be a problem, and the .3x fisheye is too much fisheye for what i need.

November 30th, 2007, 05:26 PM	#407
Eric Stemen Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 378	Give me a couple hours and I'll post footage from my vx2000 with no lens full wide. Full Wide with the .55x Then full wide with the .3x

December 4th, 2007, 01:02 PM	#414
Eric Stemen Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 378	no problem. Thank you and your company for the presence on this message board.

December 28th, 2007, 06:29 PM	#415
Eric Stemen Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 378	Hey Ryan, do you know how much it would cost to replace the glass on the .3x adapter?

December 31st, 2007, 03:30 PM	#417
Eric Stemen Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 378	I assume lots. Mine has a bunch of little nicks in it...I have no idea what the previous owner did to it.