EX1 wide angle and Telephoto lens

[Tom Hardwick]

OK. Two options. 1) Treat it as a totally non zoom-through wide converter and accept the tiny amount of vignetting. 2) Return it for a refund.

Have you had a look-see what Raynox has on offer?

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/vide...00ex/index.htm

tom.

[Paul Cronin]

Don I am also waiting on a Fisheye and hope they get on out of three right.

[Craig Hollenback]

Originally Posted by Graeme Fullick

Tom,

Have only just got the lens and tried it on the camera inside at night.

At the widest setting of the Fujinon lens (5.8) the lens "just vignettes at the corners" a little. Like you I have seen this on the Z1, and also like you I zoom in a tad to clear it up - works a treat and the lens is sharp. With this lens as you zoom in the vignette gets far worse - maybe 5% of the frame at 10mm - very ugly - and dissappears at 15mm (which is about equal to the widest setting on the stock lens). Can't really comment on sharpness yet, as I need to shoot outside to check it.

The lens is beautifully made as are all Century lenses, and it is nice and light and easy to use. Just wish that it was useable as a WA on my camera!

Graeme, I own the Sony .8 and aside from the weight, it works quite well. I do need a wider adapter for tight interior shots of rooms. I am planning on getting the Century .6 and would like your opinion. They tell me that it is "almost" fine when used in the extreme wide setting of the camera, but does vignette during the partial zoom. what is your take on this and would you suggest this lens if you were only planning on using it for extreme wide use? I do have several days before my possible shoot.
Thanks, Craig

[Doug Park]

Originally Posted by Graeme Fullick

I just got the century 0.6X and unfortunately it also vignettes just as described previously in this post - not useable. It is even worse as my camera is not a vignetter - and the vignetting with the Century 0.6X occurs perfectly evenly in all 4 corners between 6.5 and 15.

Asking for a return is going to be difficult as I live in Australia and ordered from B&H.

This is really dissapointing as I have other Century lenses that I am very happy with.

Ryan,

I know that you said that Century were working on an engineering fix - will this apply to lenses already shipped such as mine?

.

I am very relieved to hear I am not the only one having this vignetting issue. I am really surprised that it is occurring so badly during the entire distance of 5.6 to 10mm. Hopefully we will hear back from Ryan or someone from Century soon. I find the amount of vignetting not acceptable.

[Wes Thomas Greene]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

David thank you very much for getting me in gear to do this test. I have been very busy and had not taken the time to do a proper test with the Century 1.6 telephoto on the EX1.

Well the results are not good. The lens has the same problem I had with the wide angle and it is so bad I have asked for a RA# for the lens.

I did three test at full zoom with and with out the lens.

Stills:

Had a look at your stills from the telephoto and the only problem I see is a slight softening of the image.

I've done my own tests with my Century 1.6x that just arrived and I see a very subtle lose in sharpness but isn't this what you'd expect from a teleconverter and all that extra glass??

Let me know if I'm missing something. Adding extra glass is always going to sacrifice some sharpness - it's why in still photography primes are chosen over zooms.

Be good to hear what everyone thinks.
cheers
wes

[Graeme Fullick]

Originally Posted by Craig Hollenback

Graeme, I own the Sony .8 and aside from the weight, it works quite well. I do need a wider adapter for tight interior shots of rooms. I am planning on getting the Century .6 and would like your opinion. They tell me that it is "almost" fine when used in the extreme wide setting of the camera, but does vignette during the partial zoom. what is your take on this and would you suggest this lens if you were only planning on using it for extreme wide use? I do have several days before my possible shoot.
Thanks, Craig

Craig,

Sorry for the delayed reply - I have been away. I can't say that I have tested it extensively, but I think what you say above is about true. My limited shooting at night on the day I received it was very unsettling. It vignetted very badly from about 6.5 to 12mm - very dark and ugly in the corners. This was made worse as my camera does not vignette!

Further testing in the day with the aperture closed down a little does allow use of the lens at the widest setting - just. I would say that from F2.8 on at the widest setting of the lens it is useable - but you cannot zoom even a whisker. The image is not bad at all within these limitations - a bit of barrel distortion at the edges (I think that would upset Tom!) but not more than I expected going on my previous experience with the Z1 version of this lens.

It is as usual for Century, very well made, but I am still not happy with the amount of vignetting. I hope that something can be done to fix this on my lens, but I doubt it.

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

Paul, looking at framegrabs shot with Century's new wide adapter for EX1, s few things are obvious:

1. All the wide framegrabs showed clearly the effects of edge blurring (sphererical aberration), complex a.k.a. "moustache" distortion where straightlines closer to the edges were barrel shaped closer to the center and bended into a pincusion shape near the edges (look at the row of shingles on the house's wall) . They also showed quite significant chromatic aberration which spread out over almost all the entire frame but more at near the edges (look at most outlines of dake objects over very light objects such as tree branches over the sky).

2. All the aberrations above were very symmetrical to my eyes (affecting all edge areas to a more or less similar degree), indicating a design flaw rather than QC or manufacturing flaws which would have shown some degrees of asymmetry such as the vignetting flaws shown by a number of EX1's own lens. If the design was sound then at the very least there was a serious law with either spacing of the lens elements or the adapter mount, push the the combined adapter/lens focal plane out of tolerances.

Whatever the problems are, the adapter has now been pulled from the market and yours, Paul, can be returned according to what is said in another thread in this forum.

The problems with the tele, though, involved only blurring and a less degree of chromatic abberation. This adapter has not been recalled as far as I know but the overall performance was still unacceptably poor. If I were you, I wouldn't hesitate for one second if it shoud be exchanged or returned. Century has really ruined their reputation by letting these two products out.

Though I do not own an EX1, I have the FX-1, HC-1, TRV 950 all of which mating with a few so-called high grade, far cheaper adapters from Sony with good results.

Sincerely
Wach

[Paul Cronin]

Wes the quality of the picture is not just the extra glass. I have had 1.6 tele for my A1's and Z1's and they were perfect. So this is a problem that does not work for me or my client base.

Wacharapong I have sent both back and will not order additional ones until I know the problem is solved and even then I will wait on other companies to come out with similar products. I do still have a Century Fisheye on order and hope they get that one right the first time since it has been 5 months delayed.

[Dan Gunn]

Hey guys,

I own Century, Sony and Canon WA lenses for my PD170's. Surprise! The Century is no better than the others....just heavier and lots more money. Now, we keep Canons on all our cameras. The only justification for the Century lens is that it lets me use their slotted lens hood with filters.

JoJo

[Paul Cronin]

Good point Dan I am going to look into a Sony WA for my EX1.

[Craig Hollenback]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Good point Dan I am going to look into a Sony WA for my EX1.

I have used the Sony .8 from the start and so far so good. Would I like it to be a bit wider...yes, but not often.My biggest gripe is the permantently attached sunshade. I will need to remove it for use with a mattebox soon. Sony tech tells me people are cutting it off. I will have to form a plan how to do that. The lens overall is fine...however, no screw on front filter threads.
Best, Craig

[Dave Morrison]

In all these discussions about wide-angle adapters and vignetting, I don't recall seeing anybody talk about the menu option called "Wide Conversion" which should be turned on when using WA converters. Does anybody know exactly what this menu setting causes the lens to do? Does it prevent the lens from zooming out too wide thereby allowing you to see the corners of the shade....or what? Just curious.

[Paul Cronin]

Dave if you go back to my early post in the topic you will see that i did use the menu option for WA. It made no difference.

[Dave Morrison]

Sorry Paul, I missed that. Do you know what its' function is?

[Tom Hardwick]

Don't have an EX1, but I'm pretty sure it's a change made to the Steadyshot control, just like on the Z1. The shorter the focal length the less obvious the camera shake, so the Steadyshot elements can have their vibration limits reduced.