Century Precision vs Sony VCL-EX0877

[Buba Kastorski]

i need a wide angle for EX , but can't make up my mind on which one,
Im thinking sony Sony | VCL-EX0877 0.8x Wide Angle Lens Adapter | VCL-EX0877 or Century Optics Century Precision Optics | 0HD-06WA-EX1 0.6x Wide | 0HD-06WA-EX1 century is wider, lighter and cheaper, is there any reason to go sony, or maybe some other WA lenses out there?
Many thanks!

[Derek Reich]

I have the Century wide adapter, and have been extremely happy with it. It does not have a shade, but it does have 102mm thread for filters which I don't believe you would have on the Sony. I do not have any experience with the Sony, so I can't comment on it.

[Keith Moreau]

I have the CAVision .7x wide and I think it's as good as the Century and might be a better deal, I evaluated both. Now have the Century .55x fisheye and the CAVision .7x, which has less distortion than the Century fisheye at the edges and is a bit sharper.

[Kevin Cates]

I've been using the Sony WA for a few months. It is fairly sharp, a good, heavy piece of glass. but does have barrel distortion - On full wide the far horizon appears bowed. Some shots appear a little too unrealistic to use.

Actually thinking of selling it and updating. Is the Century Optics full zoom through?

[Dave Morrison]

Originally Posted by Kevin Cates

I've been using the Sony WA for a few months. It is fairly sharp, a good, heavy piece of glass. but does have barrel distortion - On full wide the far horizon appears bowed. Some shots appear a little too unrealistic to use.

Actually thinking of selling it and updating. Is the Century Optics full zoom through?

Kevin, if you put the horizon on the exact centerline of the frame, does the bowing level out (as opposed to tipping the camera up or down)?

[Kevin Cates]

Originally Posted by Dave Morrison

Kevin, if you put the horizon on the exact centerline of the frame, does the bowing level out (as opposed to tipping the camera up or down)?

At centerline the horizon still bows from the barrel distortion. This only occurs at full wide - but, hey thats what the wide angle is for. Pretty sad for just .8x wide. I guess that is why the are only $450.

In answer to my own question: A wide angle converter allows you to fully zoom through and keep focus. A wide angle adapter only holds focus through 1/4 of the zoom range. That is why most of the converters are @ $1000.

[Ted OMalley]

I've got the Sony - it's very helpful for many things. There IS a bit of distortion, more than I prefer. However, it is a zoom-through which make all the difference to me. I rely on the ability to be able to zoom to frame my shots - only use it at full wide occassionally. I'd lose that option with the Century.

[Joe Yaggi]

I just bought an EX3 and tested the Century. I haven't bought it but still have a chance besok before flying back to the jungle. Here (singapore) the Century's seling for 1700 sing or 1100 US. I was thinking of giving it a miss in hopes of grabbing a proper ENG lens, maybe one of the XDCAM HD 1/2 inch models. That however will take a bit of cash, thus a bit of time... Tough call. But to address the question, on full wide I panned across a wall that had sennheiser written on it and as i reached the edge of the frame in the lens, the letters just started to stretch. It wasn't terrible, awful, but I saw it...

[Tom Hardwick]

Whooh chaps - barrel distortion bends all straight lines that *do not* pass through the centre of the image. So Kevin - I sure don't know what it is you're seeing.

Buba - the Sony 0.8x is a very mild converter - in an effort to limit the barrel distortion. The 0.6x Century is for lovers of barrel distortion, there's no doubt about that. It's the price you pay to go wider, cheaper and lighter than the Sony.

And Kevin - I have a single element 0.52x wide-angle adapter and I can zoom far more than the ¼ you describe. My Sony zoom is scaled from 00 to 99 and with the converter in place I can go 00 to 65 before it loses focus. Not bad for a 'non zoom-through'.

tom.

[Buba Kastorski]

That's what I thought,
thanks Tom,
thanks everybody,
I love this place!

[Markus Klatt]

Hi there,

I followed these threads but still cannot decide what wide angle converter/dapter to buy.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdca...e-adapter.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdca...onversion.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdca...s-ex1-ex3.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdca...ide-angle.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdca...-recalled.html

I film almost only fireworks displays from distances of 150-400m in most times. I still need more wide angle than the EX1 has to offer with its internal lense.

For me it is impossible to do autofocus or to find focus at daylight or after the start of the shows.
So, I have to find focus at night before the shows. I do this by zooming in totally to the front pieces (first main line of effects). The EX1 without converter is wonderful for finding the focus with peaking on even in almost darkness on some sharp edges of the effect-boxes. After finding focus of these front effects (in full manual focus mode) I zoom back totally to the widest view. This way the picture is sharp from the front line effects to the large caliber shells which are ~50-100m behind them, even at f1.9 open iris.

To achieve the same perfect focussing I would assume that I need a fully zoomable converter. Am I right?
Because of that I would first look for the original Sony WA-adapter (but zoom through) for the EX1. Moreover it has a sunlight shade hood which is perfect against falling particles from fireworks or against some rain drops.

BUT, the Sony adapter is 0.8x only, what is very little. More important it does not have the possibility to put an UV-filter in front of the converter. Am I right?
When I used the VX2100 the last years I burned 4 (!) Canon WA-converters because of the missing glass in front. There are always some "acids" or sparks falling down from large fireworks displays which destroy the front filter.

So, what could be my solution? What converter, say maximum 800-1000 Euro (better less ;)), is fully zoomable, has at least 0.8x (better 0.6-0.7) and allows to put a filter in front? Since I do not have straight lines in my footage barrel distortion should be not too big, but is not my main problem.

Thanks a lot for any hint,
yours
Markus

[Tom Hardwick]

Originally Posted by Markus Klatt

What converter fully zoomable, has at least 0.8x (better 0.6-0.7) and allows to put a filter in front? Since I do not have straight lines in my footage barrel distortion should be not too big, but is not my main problem.

Ah, at last we find someone who won't mind some barrel distortion and who is in need of a filter to protect their front element. You say you 'burned' 4 converter lenses - you mean they were destroyed by the fireworks? Should you be standing further away?

OK, the front filter thread and the full zoom-through capability pretty much limits the lenses that will fit the EX1. As you say, the 0.8x is pretty mild, but that's done to maintain quality. So you can't use Century's 0.6x and the 0.75x (with a 102 mm filter thread) is somewhat dear at $1235.

Cavision's 0.7x has no filter thread
Cavision 0.7x Wide Angle Converter for Sony EX1

and same with 16x9's 0.75
16x9 Inc. :: EX 0.75X Aspheric Wide Converter

And Raynox aren't geared up for the EX1 at all as far as I can see.

The design of the Fuji lens on the EX1 has made wide-angle converter lenses difficult to make, so I think you're going to have to revise your desired specification list Markus.

tom.

[Markus Klatt]

Thank you very much, Tom! It does not make it easier for me, but it proves, that it was good to ask.

So at the moment I still stick with the Sony, since although it does not have the filter thread it's zoom-through, does not blur the picture too much, has a lense shade hood - and is somehow payable (not like the +1000 for the Cavision).

*argghh*, maybe I glue some kind of glass to the front of the Sony... Or I try to buy some used matte box and put some glass in front of that.

BTW, one can only imagine how "dangerous" large scale fireworks displays are even in almost 500m distance when you have a show with a 300m front, large calibers upto 16'' or even more, thousands of thousands of shots... and a slight wind blowing towards you and no chance to change position (before). Most dangerous is this fine dust and droplets, almost not to feel on skin, but afterwards you have them on the lense - and some of them won't be removable, even if you rubb them with a hard brush or aggressive chemicals.

And yes, there are some times where I am within the fireworks, eg. at a street procession in Valencia/Spain with all the dancing devils shaking titanium sparkling fountains. Any of these sparks will burn into glass...

Mmmhhhh, ok. Thanks again and any more hint is much appreciated.

[Buba Kastorski]

I went with Century wide adapter and like it; there is some barrel, but it's not too much and I actually like it, flying shots looks geat!

[Dean Sensui]

Regarding barrel distortion, it can be controlled with After Effects. Here's a before and after of a shot done with the Sony 0.8 WA lens.