The111 0 #1 January 7, 2008 I made a post recently about fog problems a Raynox 5050 two-element lens on my HC5. So I just got a Century .55x single element 37mm lens. Got it from B&H for only $125. When it arrived I was AMAZED how freaking small it is. Smaller than a Royal lens by far. It's TINY. And supposedly HD too. All the other Century lenses were way more expensive, not sure why this one was so cheap. I don't have time to post any footage now, but I watched it on a large HDTV and it looked fine to me. Most importantly, NO FOG! Spot, do you know where to find out how many lines this glass is rated for? How does it compare to the Raynox 5050 I gave up? If Century can do this (HD in such a small form factor), why can't Royal? Wait a minute, it doesn't matter. Just get this lens... I for one am satisfied with it. Cheap, SMALL, and HD. I'm attaching a picture to show just how small it is.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #2 January 7, 2008 You can download a rez chart and have Kinko's print it. It's not quite as good as a hard-print rez chart, but it's close enough. http://www.sinepatterns.com/images/QA-77.jpg I'd imagine it's around 500 lines, but I'm just pulling that number out of my ass. Royal isn't their own manufacturer, they contract/jobber. Century is owned by a major glass company. The Raynox 5050 remains the highest resolution per line of all the low end wides, but since I haven't seen this Century on a chart... However, it would very hard for a single source lens to be better than a multi-element lens in terms of resolution. [edit] Oops, fixed a typo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #3 January 7, 2008 QuoteI'd imagine it's around 50 lines Is that a typo?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
garywainwright 0 #4 January 7, 2008 How wide is this compared to the raynox 0.5? I know it shouldn't be as wide (0.5 compared with 0.55) but i have found the numbers don't mean a lot! I use the raynox HD 0.3 and got over the fogging by glueing a step up ring to the end of it then putting a UV filter on it. I like how low profile this one is though.http://www.garywainwright.co.uk Instagram gary_wainwright_uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #5 January 7, 2008 QuoteHow wide is this compared to the raynox 0.5? I know it shouldn't be as wide (0.5 compared with 0.55) but i have found the numbers don't mean a lot! Yeh, I know the numbers don't always mean much. I wish I still had my Raynox .5 to compare, I wanted to do the same thing. If I remember correctly I had to have my XT lens at ~16mm to match the Raynox .5. With the Century .55 I need it at 17.5mm. So yeh, it's about 10% less wide, seems accurate as the numbers would lead you to believe. QuoteI use the raynox HD 0.3 and got over the fogging by glueing a step up ring to the end of it then putting a UV filter on it. I like how low profile this one is though. That's a pretty damn cool idea. Too bad with the 5050, the UV filter I had was causing vignetting... I guess maybe with a super slim one it would have been ok.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bowen 0 #6 January 7, 2008 Matt, I can come over with my raynox. -BowenRetired Tunnel Instructor, Sky/Tunnel Coach Former dealer for 2k Composites, Skysystems, Alti-2, Wings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #7 January 7, 2008 QuoteYou can download a rez chart and have Kinko's print it. It's not quite as good as a hard-print rez chart, but it's close enough. http://www.sinepatterns.com/images/QA-77.jpg I'd imagine it's around 500 lines, but I'm just pulling that number out of my ass. Royal isn't their own manufacturer, they contract/jobber. Century is owned by a major glass company. The Raynox 5050 remains the highest resolution per line of all the low end wides, but since I haven't seen this Century on a chart... However, it would very hard for a single source lens to be better than a multi-element lens in terms of resolution. [edit] Oops, fixed a typo. Do you know if anyone is using the Sony High Grade .7x lens and how does that compare in number of lines to the Raynox 5050 lens? I know it's not a very wide angle lens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #8 January 7, 2008 Width of angle doesn't really relate to resolution. I don't know anyone who is (or isn't) using the Sony High Grade .7. I can tell you it's a fairly cheap lens, manufactured for them by a division of Kenko. In terms of resolution, if memory serves, most of those are in the 350-400 lines range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #9 January 7, 2008 ahh so their "High Definition" lens is a waste of money? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #10 January 7, 2008 IMO, it is. It's higher than 240 lines...so that classifies it as "HD" but it's not worth the cost, IMO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parachutist 1 #11 January 8, 2008 I bought that Century lens from B&H a few weeks ago (after my 5050 got knocked off the camera by a riser slap... it's in the woods somewhere now). The Century wasn't labeled as HD at the time, but I'd read some good reviews about the optics so I tried it out. I've been happy with the results so far, though I don't have too many other experiences with different HD-quality lenses for comparison. The image just looks good to me. And it's out of the way of riser, and it has threads on front for a filter, which I like. The solid metal lens cover seems a little awkward, but no big deal... just have to thread it on and off every time. I think it's a great lens for the price, and size is perfect. Compared to a Royal .5x, this Century lens does seem like a .55. I think the view is wide enough for shooting student jumps... as long as you know your helmet well enough to know where the camera's pointing at close range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #12 January 8, 2008 QuoteThe solid metal lens cover seems a little awkward, but no big deal... just have to thread it on and off every time. Yeh, I'm gonna look for a plastic press-on cap. Every time I try to unthread the cap it unthreads the lens instead.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #13 January 8, 2008 Rub a Post-it note on the lens threads. Or use a very tiny (booger-sized) drop of rubber cement. That'll cure the lens coming loose when you remove the cap. Zriess.com sells a snap on housing for the front of the Century and Raynox lenses too, if you wanna go that direction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysurfcam 0 #14 January 8, 2008 Quote Or use a very tiny (booger-sized) drop of rubber cement.. Man, you've obviously never seen the size of my nose... C. Brother Wayward's rule of the day... "Never ever ever go skydiving without going parachuting immediately afterwards." 100% PURE ADRENALENS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #15 January 9, 2008 Quote Quote Or use a very tiny (booger-sized) drop of rubber cement.. Man, you've obviously never seen the size of my nose... C. Something tells me I'm better off for the lack of experience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
garywainwright 0 #16 January 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteHow wide is this compared to the raynox 0.5? I know it shouldn't be as wide (0.5 compared with 0.55) but i have found the numbers don't mean a lot! Yeh, I know the numbers don't always mean much. I wish I still had my Raynox .5 to compare, I wanted to do the same thing. If I remember correctly I had to have my XT lens at ~16mm to match the Raynox .5. With the Century .55 I need it at 17.5mm. So yeh, it's about 10% less wide, seems accurate as the numbers would lead you to believe. QuoteI use the raynox HD 0.3 and got over the fogging by glueing a step up ring to the end of it then putting a UV filter on it. I like how low profile this one is though. That's a pretty damn cool idea. Too bad with the 5050, the UV filter I had was causing vignetting... I guess maybe with a super slim one it would have been ok. Here is a shot of it. I used a 72-77mm step up ring (i had to dremel it down a bit). I don't see any vignetting on the foorage but if I capture a still from the footage then there is a bit.http://www.garywainwright.co.uk Instagram gary_wainwright_uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #17 January 9, 2008 You aren't seeing the vignetting because it's in the overscan. Look at the same image on a computer monitor/nle, and you'll see the vignetting. If you can zoom in a tad, so it's not at all there, you'll get a better overall pic, because the vignetting confuses the encoder when it sees a solid black or black gradient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velocityphoto 0 #18 April 7, 2008 Do you get any vignetting with this lens? Can you do any zoom with this lens? A friend will bail you out of jail , a REAL friend will be sitting next to you in the cell slapping your hand saying "DUDE THAT WAS AWSUM " ................ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velocityphoto 0 #19 April 7, 2008 Is this the century lens your speaking of here? I'm bouncing back and forth between browser windows and searching here . FOrget what i have read so far? LOL! A friend will bail you out of jail , a REAL friend will be sitting next to you in the cell slapping your hand saying "DUDE THAT WAS AWSUM " ................ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #20 April 7, 2008 QuoteDo you get any vignetting with this lens? Can you do any zoom with this lens? No vignetting, not much zoom either (about as much as with a Royal).www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velocityphoto 0 #21 April 7, 2008 I am not able to zoom with the royal.3 at all . I wonder what kind of resolution improvements there are between the royal and century? I don't have a hd tv at home as of yet. Just my imac 20 in. A friend will bail you out of jail , a REAL friend will be sitting next to you in the cell slapping your hand saying "DUDE THAT WAS AWSUM " ................ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MisterCrash 0 #22 April 7, 2008 QuoteYou aren't seeing the vignetting because it's in the overscan. Look at the same image on a computer monitor/nle, and you'll see the vignetting. If you can zoom in a tad, so it's not at all there, you'll get a better overall pic, because the vignetting confuses the encoder when it sees a solid black or black gradient. Is this effect noticable?All speeding past collide and crashing, I'm in paradise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #23 April 7, 2008 Quote Is this effect noticable? As degraded encoding quality, yes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex 0 #24 April 24, 2008 So I just got a Century .55x single element 37mm lens. Got it from B&H for only $125. Can you please send me the direct B&H web adress to buy this lens... I did'nt found it 125$ but at 329$ ?? Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #25 April 24, 2008 CLICK HERE You are looking at the 0.3x, I'm guessing... much more expensive.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
