Posted by carlmart on 10/27/06 02:03

> I have tried them all.

That's what I needed.

> 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?

I am curious about the "horrible sound". It's when you screwed it in?

I am with you in asking what's the point in using more glass up front
for just .8x.

> 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.

Being sharp is very good. Talks in favour of the lens glass quality and
its coatings.

Can you be more specific on why it wouldn't work with your run-and-gun
project?

Does the "curving lines" distortion improve if you zoom in?

> 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.

Strange thing that fringing.

> 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.

I am not willing to put up that kind of money now. Maybe later on. But
it has all the advantages I was looking for.

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

Yes, that's very good. When I bought my previous camera I stayed in NY
for a few days, and every day I went back to B&H to exchange something
for a different option, or get the money back because it didn't work as
it should. Great policy.

[Back to original message]