Posted by timepixdc on 10/27/06 04:07

In article <1161914627.564445.32130@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"carlmart" <carlmart@centroin.com.br> wrote:

> > 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?

Yup. It didn't screw in easily and took a few tries before it started at
all. I wouldn't have trusted it in a pinch.

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

That's what I learned. The 0.8X isn't worth the effort.

> > 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?

In a doc/news situation if something happened and you just HAD to zoom
to max telephoto quickly you couldn't.

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

It's not as noticeable when it's zoomed in a bit.

> > 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.

I saw one review on B&H's web site that mentioned it and thought I'd
give it a try but it was really evident.

[Back to original message]