Posted by timepixdc on 10/27/06 01:32

In article <1161911275.900217.132280@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"carlmart" <carlmart@centroin.com.br> wrote:

> Just an add-on.
>
> It would be great to find someone that actually TRIED both and picked
> one, giving the reasons for that.

I have tried them all.

The Sony ($400) is sharp but it's "wide angle" at 0.8X isn't worth it.
When I screwed it on to my Z1U it sounded horrible and felt like it was
just waiting to bind. At its widest it gives you the equivalent (in 35mm
still terms) of a 28mm Vs. the camera's 35mm . What's the point?

The Century 0.6X ($350) is small and sharp but doesn't allow zooming
over the full range of the built-in lens. It's good from 4.5 to about
17mm on the Z1U's lens. I would have kept mine but it wouldn't have
worked on the run-and-gun doc project I'm going for. It gives you the
equivalent (in 35mm still terms) of a 21mm - 240mm lens.

The 16x9 0.7X ($600) converter is a screw-in (but not as strange
sounding as the Sony) and gives the equivalent of a 24mm lens but it's
not sharp at the edges and exhibits lots of color fringing at the edges
of the frame.

After trying all of these I went for the Century 0.7X ($750) even tough
it's the most expensive since it allows zooming through the camera's
whole zoom range. If that had not been a requirement I'd have stayed
with the Century 0.6X.

All this thanks to B&H's liberal return policy...

[Back to original message]