Wide Angle Adapter

Mark Thomas · January 5th, 2003, 01:39 PM

does the Century lense have a much wider angle than the Canon one?

Neil Fisher · January 5th, 2003, 04:49 PM

Century Optics makes a .55x .65x and .3x (fish eye). Where as the Canon is .7x the same as the Sony .7x but at half the cost. I paid about $350 CND before taxes for the Canon, Sony wanted something like $650 CND before taxes. Both provide the same image quality and the Canon even comes with a lens hood.

The only thing that seperates the different Century optics wide angle lens's is their ability to zoom. With the .65x lens you have full zoom capability, the .55x only has partial, and I don't believe that the fish eye has any zoom. Most of the Century Optics WA's are over $900 CND.

So yeah the Century lense does have a much wider angle than the Canon, but you must be prepared to pay for it.

Mark Thomas · January 6th, 2003, 01:45 PM

I am hesistant about ordering this expensive lense. Some users are pleased with it and for others it gives too much distortion making their footage look "amateurish".

Anyone know any really good honest examples up on the web so I can make a better judgment?

Would anyone recommend this lense for filmmaking - dramatic story telling?

Frank Granovski · January 7th, 2003, 02:43 AM

That's the best wide angle available for the VX, I think. However, it has no filter threads in the front---if that's important. A friend of mine has the Kenko, the top grade model. It's mich cheaper, very solid, no distortion that I can see, and also comes with filter threads.

Tiffens are very good. I don't know if they make one for the VX size, though. I believe Canon and Optex also make good ones.

David Hurdon · January 7th, 2003, 07:21 AM

I've searched my bookmarks in vain for the article that persuaded me to buy the Canon WD-58 (0.7 x 58) lens. It was written by a pro shooter whose opinion was that for the money it was the best value. I've used it for some months now with complete satisfaction - but I'm not making my living through the viewfinder [yet :-) ].

Mike Rehmus · January 7th, 2003, 03:31 PM

I am a bit displeased with my Century 0.65 WA.

I think it is a bit too soft even though it is a zoom-through.

I'm going to test it with a waveform monitor (focus check) when I get my PD150 back from Sony.

Mark Thomas · January 7th, 2003, 03:59 PM

so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost?

Frank Granovski · January 7th, 2003, 05:03 PM

I think just as good, but sharper and with filter threads. I've seen a lot of VX2000/Kenko wide angle footage played back on my friend's Sony deck. In fact hours and hours of the stuff. His Kenko wide and tele are very well made. Keep in mind that there are 3 lines of Kenko adaptors, their high-end line is best. And yes, they are a lot cheaper than the Century adaptors. The Century uses German glass. I think this is Century's strong point. But I doubt this makes a difference for VX shot video. I would also check out Tiffen adaptors. They are even better, but I am not sure if they make them for the VX filter size. I don't know anything about the Canon, but I have also heard good things about them.

Oh, and one more thing. I know this poor guy in Hawaii with a PD150 and O'Connor tripod. He bought a Century tele. When he got it, it was defective and had to send it back to B&H. When he got the second one, it was defective too, and sent it back. Lucky with the 3rd time around, it was fine. However, because the Century does not have filter threads (unlike the Kenko and Tiffens), the adaptor's lens got destroyed. He did a lot of surf shooting at his local beach, and the fine sand particles in the air ate away his lens. My friend and his Kenkos are protected with filters: UV or polarizer, depending on the conditions. And with wides, filters can cause darks around the edges, but I found that this is not the case with Kenkos. I don't know about the others about this.

Doug Quance · January 7th, 2003, 06:46 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by walesfilmclub : so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost? -->>>

I can't vouch for the Kenko, but I have a Century Optics .65 Wide Angle adapter for my PD-150... and I am pleased with it.

It has a bayonet mount (which I consider to be superior to threads... but that's just my opinion) which attaches with a 1/4 turn.

The focus is sharp throughout the entire zoom range. I never take it off the camera!

There is only a slight bit of barrel distortion (which I have found that the average Joe will not see) at full wide angle... but at .65, I suppose that is to be expected.

Like anything else, each piece of equipment is unique... and I could have just as easily been one of those people who bought one that is too "soft"... but, luckily, I was not.

Mine ran me $365, if I remember right. Well worth it, as I'm happy with the results. ($100 would be too much if I wasn't.)

I attach a 4x4 filter box to mine, which I always have at least the UV filter in. Call me crazy, but I used to live in Hawaii... and no matter where you are, the wind could blow something into your expensive lens and screw it up. I'd rather be safe, than sorry.

If you cruise this bbs, you will find many people (who, by the way, are far more experienced than me) that will disagree. That's okay. In the final analysis, it's YOUR money... and YOUR product... so the decision will be YOURS.

I live by this credo:

"Nothing is more expensive than the product that doesn't work."

Good luck with your decision... no matter what it is!

Paul Tauger · January 7th, 2003, 09:12 PM

I've tried the Kenko, but found it pretty poor -- lots of chromatic distortion and very soft focus at the edges. I wound up with an Optex .65x converter (from ZGC for $299). It's also a bayonet mount, and has front threads. Best of all, it doesn't vignette, even with standard filters screwed in front.

It's much better than the Kenko -- some slight chromatic distortion at the edges, but much sharper at the edges. I leave it attached all the time.

You can see examples of shots taken with the Kenko here:

http://members.cox.net/tauger.paul/Video%20Page/Kenko%20Comparison.htm

Frank Granovski · January 7th, 2003, 09:28 PM

Thanks. Which Kenko was that? They make 3 different grades.

Paul Tauger · January 7th, 2003, 09:30 PM

I don't know about the different grades of Kenko lenses. The one on the website was a KRW-065 Pro, about $159 from B&H.

Frank Granovski · January 8th, 2003, 06:56 AM

I think that's their top end. Like I said, the VX/Kenko footage looked great. However, on a high-end monitor, it might not look as great as the German glass adaptor. It's just too bad the Century doesn't have filter threads, like when you're shooting at a beach.

Has anyone tried any of Tiffens wide angle adaptors? Their glass/design is supposed to be better. I've only looked and tried the Tiffen in the 37mm and 43mm size.

http://www.tiffen.com

Doug Quance · January 8th, 2003, 10:40 AM

I'm lost here...

Are bayonet adapters subject to leakage by sand, etc? Is that why some people WANT threaded adapters?

I was under the belief that the threads may become worn... as well as being slower in general to change lenses.

Frank Granovski · January 8th, 2003, 03:27 PM

I was talking about filter threads on the front of the adaptor, so you can screw on a UV or polarizer etc. This will also protect the front glass of the adaptor.

January 6th, 2003, 01:45 PM	#48
Mark Thomas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Abergavenny, Monmouthshire Posts: 34	65x Century wide angle converter I am hesistant about ordering this expensive lense. Some users are pleased with it and for others it gives too much distortion making their footage look "amateurish". Anyone know any really good honest examples up on the web so I can make a better judgment? Would anyone recommend this lense for filmmaking - dramatic story telling?

January 7th, 2003, 07:21 AM	#50
David Hurdon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 484	65x Century wide angle converter I've searched my bookmarks in vain for the article that persuaded me to buy the Canon WD-58 (0.7 x 58) lens. It was written by a pro shooter whose opinion was that for the money it was the best value. I've used it for some months now with complete satisfaction - but I'm not making my living through the viewfinder [yet :-) ]. __________________ Site:http://www.faceliftmarketing.ca Blog:http://www.websitevideo.blogspot.com

January 7th, 2003, 03:31 PM	#51
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	I am a bit displeased with my Century 0.65 WA. I think it is a bit too soft even though it is a zoom-through. I'm going to test it with a waveform monitor (focus check) when I get my PD150 back from Sony. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

January 7th, 2003, 06:46 PM	#54
Doug Quance Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 138	<<<-- Originally posted by walesfilmclub : so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost? -->>> I can't vouch for the Kenko, but I have a Century Optics .65 Wide Angle adapter for my PD-150... and I am pleased with it. It has a bayonet mount (which I consider to be superior to threads... but that's just my opinion) which attaches with a 1/4 turn. The focus is sharp throughout the entire zoom range. I never take it off the camera! There is only a slight bit of barrel distortion (which I have found that the average Joe will not see) at full wide angle... but at .65, I suppose that is to be expected. Like anything else, each piece of equipment is unique... and I could have just as easily been one of those people who bought one that is too "soft"... but, luckily, I was not. Mine ran me $365, if I remember right. Well worth it, as I'm happy with the results. ($100 would be too much if I wasn't.) I attach a 4x4 filter box to mine, which I always have at least the UV filter in. Call me crazy, but I used to live in Hawaii... and no matter where you are, the wind could blow something into your expensive lens and screw it up. I'd rather be safe, than sorry. If you cruise this bbs, you will find many people (who, by the way, are far more experienced than me) that will disagree. That's okay. In the final analysis, it's YOUR money... and YOUR product... so the decision will be YOURS. I live by this credo: "Nothing is more expensive than the product that doesn't work." Good luck with your decision... no matter what it is! __________________ If you're not the lead dog... the scenery never changes

January 8th, 2003, 10:40 AM	#59
Doug Quance Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 138	I'm lost here... Are bayonet adapters subject to leakage by sand, etc? Is that why some people WANT threaded adapters? I was under the belief that the threads may become worn... as well as being slower in general to change lenses. __________________ If you're not the lead dog... the scenery never changes

January 5th, 2003, 01:39 PM	#46
Mark Thomas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Abergavenny, Monmouthshire Posts: 34	does the Century lense have a much wider angle than the Canon one?

January 5th, 2003, 04:49 PM	#47
Neil Fisher Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Saskatoon SK Canada Posts: 136	Century Optics makes a .55x .65x and .3x (fish eye). Where as the Canon is .7x the same as the Sony .7x but at half the cost. I paid about $350 CND before taxes for the Canon, Sony wanted something like $650 CND before taxes. Both provide the same image quality and the Canon even comes with a lens hood. The only thing that seperates the different Century optics wide angle lens's is their ability to zoom. With the .65x lens you have full zoom capability, the .55x only has partial, and I don't believe that the fish eye has any zoom. Most of the Century Optics WA's are over $900 CND. So yeah the Century lense does have a much wider angle than the Canon, but you must be prepared to pay for it.

January 7th, 2003, 02:43 AM	#49
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	That's the best wide angle available for the VX, I think. However, it has no filter threads in the front---if that's important. A friend of mine has the Kenko, the top grade model. It's mich cheaper, very solid, no distortion that I can see, and also comes with filter threads. Tiffens are very good. I don't know if they make one for the VX size, though. I believe Canon and Optex also make good ones.

January 7th, 2003, 03:59 PM	#52
Mark Thomas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Abergavenny, Monmouthshire Posts: 34	so the Kenko one is better than the Century? and at half the cost?

January 7th, 2003, 05:03 PM	#53
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I think just as good, but sharper and with filter threads. I've seen a lot of VX2000/Kenko wide angle footage played back on my friend's Sony deck. In fact hours and hours of the stuff. His Kenko wide and tele are very well made. Keep in mind that there are 3 lines of Kenko adaptors, their high-end line is best. And yes, they are a lot cheaper than the Century adaptors. The Century uses German glass. I think this is Century's strong point. But I doubt this makes a difference for VX shot video. I would also check out Tiffen adaptors. They are even better, but I am not sure if they make them for the VX filter size. I don't know anything about the Canon, but I have also heard good things about them. Oh, and one more thing. I know this poor guy in Hawaii with a PD150 and O'Connor tripod. He bought a Century tele. When he got it, it was defective and had to send it back to B&H. When he got the second one, it was defective too, and sent it back. Lucky with the 3rd time around, it was fine. However, because the Century does not have filter threads (unlike the Kenko and Tiffens), the adaptor's lens got destroyed. He did a lot of surf shooting at his local beach, and the fine sand particles in the air ate away his lens. My friend and his Kenkos are protected with filters: UV or polarizer, depending on the conditions. And with wides, filters can cause darks around the edges, but I found that this is not the case with Kenkos. I don't know about the others about this.

January 7th, 2003, 09:12 PM	#55
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 954	I've tried the Kenko, but found it pretty poor -- lots of chromatic distortion and very soft focus at the edges. I wound up with an Optex .65x converter (from ZGC for $299). It's also a bayonet mount, and has front threads. Best of all, it doesn't vignette, even with standard filters screwed in front. It's much better than the Kenko -- some slight chromatic distortion at the edges, but much sharper at the edges. I leave it attached all the time. You can see examples of shots taken with the Kenko here: http://members.cox.net/tauger.paul/Video%20Page/Kenko%20Comparison.htm

January 7th, 2003, 09:28 PM	#56
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks. Which Kenko was that? They make 3 different grades.

January 7th, 2003, 09:30 PM	#57
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 954	I don't know about the different grades of Kenko lenses. The one on the website was a KRW-065 Pro, about $159 from B&H.

January 8th, 2003, 06:56 AM	#58
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I think that's their top end. Like I said, the VX/Kenko footage looked great. However, on a high-end monitor, it might not look as great as the German glass adaptor. It's just too bad the Century doesn't have filter threads, like when you're shooting at a beach. Has anyone tried any of Tiffens wide angle adaptors? Their glass/design is supposed to be better. I've only looked and tried the Tiffen in the 37mm and 43mm size. http://www.tiffen.com

January 8th, 2003, 03:27 PM	#60
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I was talking about filter threads on the front of the adaptor, so you can screw on a UV or polarizer etc. This will also protect the front glass of the adaptor.