Teleconverters

Boyd Ostroff · April 10th, 2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Stephen McDonald

I think they should not list their lenses as suitable for cameras, with which they vignette at all points of the zoom.

I haven't looked at their website recently, but when I was shopping I don't believe Raynox made any claims that this lens was suitable for the Z1 or other 72mm camcorders. In fact, IIRC they were mostly positioning it as a product for digital still cameras. Has this changed?

Tom Hardwick · April 11th, 2006, 01:06 AM

''Raynox seems to breeze by this issue on its website and I think they should not list their lenses as suitable for cameras, with which they vignette at all points of the zoom.''

This is bad news. So Raynox are selling a 2.2x tele converter with a 62 mm attachment thread as suitable for the 72 mm filter thread of the Z1?!?

J. Stephen McDonald · April 11th, 2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

''Raynox seems to breeze by this issue on its website and I think they should not list their lenses as suitable for cameras, with which they vignette at all points of the zoom.''

This is bad news. So Raynox are selling a 2.2x tele converter with a 62 mm attachment thread as suitable for the 72 mm filter thread of the Z1?!?

On the Raynox website, they show an example of a picture that was shot using their DCR-2020PRO lens, with a Sony FX1. This is the 2.2X telex, with 62mm mounting threads. Am I incorrect that the FX1 has the same 72mm filter threads as the Z1U? Has anyone else used this telex with either the Z1U or the FX1 and experienced the vignetting all through the zoom range, that was described in a previous message?

Wayne Crawford · April 11th, 2006, 07:45 PM

Has anyone had a different experience with this adapter? As I said previously, our quick test could not get rid of the vignetting anywhere in the Z1 zoom.
We're picking up another Z1 this week- which we'll keep. And do another
test. I'll report back on this test also.

Wayne

Alan Craven · April 11th, 2006, 11:54 PM

Yes, the Z1 has the same 72mm filter thread. If the front element of the lens is any where near this diameter, I should have thought that serious vignetting was inevitable if you put what amounts to a 62mm mask in front of the lens - the extra spacing generated by the step down ring will simply make matters worse.

After all, as has been noted above, putting a teleconvertor which is designed specifically for the lens in question on the the front leads to vignetting at all but the longer end of the zoom.

The Sony 1.7x is better from the vignetting point of view than the Century 2x on the VX2100 for which they were designed, but the diameter of the glass is far greater in the Sony.

Boyd Ostroff · April 12th, 2006, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Craven

After all, as has been noted above, putting a teleconvertor which is designed specifically for the lens in question on the the front leads to vinetting at all but the longer end of the zoom.

Actually, I'm able to zoom out about halfway with the Century 1.6x on the Z1 before encountering any vignetting.

Alan Craven · April 12th, 2006, 08:18 AM

Amazing! Is there not even any darkening at the corners of the frame?

It is a pity that Century cannot provide that kind of performance with convertors which are used on the intended camera.

Boyd Ostroff · April 12th, 2006, 08:50 AM

I suppose there might be slight darkening at some point, but I really haven't noticed it in any footage I've edited (FWIW, I shot HDV but captured as SD using in-camera firewire downconversion). I used the Z1's allscan mode and pointed at a bright area to determine the maximum zoom point. Of course you need to remember that this lens costs around $,1000...

Alan Craven · April 12th, 2006, 10:36 AM

Presumably it works because the diameter of the lens elements is large?

The rear element of the Century 2X is 39mm diameter - a lot less than the 58mm thread - while the front element diameter is 75mm.

The comparable figures for the Sony 1.7X are 37mm and 88mm, and this allows you to zoom out a lot further than the Century

Dale Guthormsen · April 30th, 2006, 12:26 AM

Well,

While waiting for my gl2 to return I have been using my xl2 with the canon base lens mount 1.7 teleconverter.

I believe that the canon converter when at the distance is not as clean of an image as the Century 2x when on my gl2.

The standard lens on both is an interesting comparison when zoomed. The xl2 does seem to hve finer lines on the objects in focus than the gl2 when at the distance.

the more I dabble with these the more I realize how important it is to just get closer!!!

I guess the real test is to put a century 2x on the xl2 for a final test.

Dale Guthormsen

Graham Bernard · June 30th, 2006, 12:29 PM

Dale, did you post any Xm2/XL2 Century 2x footage? Just invoiced a client . .I'm feeling frisky!!

Grazie

Dale Guthormsen · July 9th, 2006, 03:05 PM

Grazie,

No I never did post some footage with the century 2x.

I am on holidays for the next two months and I will see if I can post some images.

Of interest is that I have my xl2 with the 1.6 plex and the gl2 with the 2plex from century.

I will see if I can post some comparisons.

I kind of like the century better as it softens less at the further distances.

I have not printed stills for comparison, so it is only a feeling. I will try to do something more constructive with them this week.

Dale

Graham Bernard · July 9th, 2006, 03:52 PM

Thanks Dale.

Dale Guthormsen · July 13th, 2006, 12:46 PM

Graham,

Yesterday I got out and did some comparison footage. I got some footage of an upland plover that shows the level of detail through each lens. I put the footage on the time line and could post a still of the same bird through each camera, the xl with the 1.6 and the gl with the 2x century.

Is there a place on this forum you can post a still??

I coluld make a wmv file of both to email anyone that wanted to see the difference in video.

Dale Guthormsen · July 13th, 2006, 12:48 PM

Graham,

Oh yea,

today I will run a test on a manual canon 300mm lens attached with a non lens converter.

April 11th, 2006, 07:45 PM	#34
Wayne Crawford New Boot Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 20	Raynox 2.2x Has anyone had a different experience with this adapter? As I said previously, our quick test could not get rid of the vignetting anywhere in the Z1 zoom. We're picking up another Z1 this week- which we'll keep. And do another test. I'll report back on this test also. Wayne

April 11th, 2006, 11:54 PM	#35
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	Yes, the Z1 has the same 72mm filter thread. If the front element of the lens is any where near this diameter, I should have thought that serious vignetting was inevitable if you put what amounts to a 62mm mask in front of the lens - the extra spacing generated by the step down ring will simply make matters worse. After all, as has been noted above, putting a teleconvertor which is designed specifically for the lens in question on the the front leads to vignetting at all but the longer end of the zoom. The Sony 1.7x is better from the vignetting point of view than the Century 2x on the VX2100 for which they were designed, but the diameter of the glass is far greater in the Sony. Last edited by Alan Craven; April 12th, 2006 at 08:18 AM.

April 30th, 2006, 12:26 AM	#40
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	2x cent/1.6 canon tc Well, While waiting for my gl2 to return I have been using my xl2 with the canon base lens mount 1.7 teleconverter. I believe that the canon converter when at the distance is not as clean of an image as the Century 2x when on my gl2. The standard lens on both is an interesting comparison when zoomed. The xl2 does seem to hve finer lines on the objects in focus than the gl2 when at the distance. the more I dabble with these the more I realize how important it is to just get closer!!! I guess the real test is to put a century 2x on the xl2 for a final test. Dale Guthormsen __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

July 9th, 2006, 03:05 PM	#42
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Grazie, No I never did post some footage with the century 2x. I am on holidays for the next two months and I will see if I can post some images. Of interest is that I have my xl2 with the 1.6 plex and the gl2 with the 2plex from century. I will see if I can post some comparisons. I kind of like the century better as it softens less at the further distances. I have not printed stills for comparison, so it is only a feeling. I will try to do something more constructive with them this week. Dale __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

July 13th, 2006, 12:46 PM	#44
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Graham, Yesterday I got out and did some comparison footage. I got some footage of an upland plover that shows the level of detail through each lens. I put the footage on the time line and could post a still of the same bird through each camera, the xl with the 1.6 and the gl with the 2x century. Is there a place on this forum you can post a still?? I coluld make a wmv file of both to email anyone that wanted to see the difference in video. __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

April 11th, 2006, 01:06 AM	#32
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	''Raynox seems to breeze by this issue on its website and I think they should not list their lenses as suitable for cameras, with which they vignette at all points of the zoom.'' This is bad news. So Raynox are selling a 2.2x tele converter with a 62 mm attachment thread as suitable for the 72 mm filter thread of the Z1?!?

April 12th, 2006, 08:18 AM	#37
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	Amazing! Is there not even any darkening at the corners of the frame? It is a pity that Century cannot provide that kind of performance with convertors which are used on the intended camera.

April 12th, 2006, 08:50 AM	#38
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I suppose there might be slight darkening at some point, but I really haven't noticed it in any footage I've edited (FWIW, I shot HDV but captured as SD using in-camera firewire downconversion). I used the Z1's allscan mode and pointed at a bright area to determine the maximum zoom point. Of course you need to remember that this lens costs around $,1000...

April 12th, 2006, 10:36 AM	#39
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	Presumably it works because the diameter of the lens elements is large? The rear element of the Century 2X is 39mm diameter - a lot less than the 58mm thread - while the front element diameter is 75mm. The comparable figures for the Sony 1.7X are 37mm and 88mm, and this allows you to zoom out a lot further than the Century

June 30th, 2006, 12:29 PM	#41
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Dale, did you post any Xm2/XL2 Century 2x footage? Just invoiced a client . .I'm feeling frisky!! Grazie

July 9th, 2006, 03:52 PM	#43
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	Thanks Dale.

July 13th, 2006, 12:48 PM	#45
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Graham, Oh yea, today I will run a test on a manual canon 300mm lens attached with a non lens converter. __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen