pilotdave 0 #1 December 2, 2009 Just got my CX100 and a Century .55. I've seen so many CX100s with lenses twice the size of the camera. I wanted something a little more compact. Actually I would have loved to keep using my WayCool .45, but it's not an HD lens. Saw some reviews of the Century .55 here and it looked good, so I went for it. I didn't see any pictures, so I made some of my own in case anybody else is looking for a lens that doesn't look like it's trying to kill you. I don't have a .3 lens to compare it to, but here's a comparison with the WayCool .45. The Century .55 is just a little wider. I'm pleasantly surprised. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
c10edges 0 #2 December 2, 2009 Please correct me if I am wrong, but I did not think that the Century .55x is a true High Definition Lense. I thought it did not capture more than 300 lines/(something). Does it have the same/better/worse quality of the Raynox 3032? Also, I am assuming the lens you bought is the first one on the link $114? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=CENTURY%20.55&N=0 I have been following these threads pretty close, but i all of a sudden got confused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #3 December 2, 2009 The Century 55 is built for macro-imager HD camcorders. It's as much an HD lens as any camcorder adapter lens is going to be. depending on the camcorder, it can resolve triple the line count of most lenses made for small format camcorders. Is it "true HD" in terms of something that can resolve a full 1080 lines of information? Nope. Nothing in a threaded adapter approaches that level of resolution, in part because of the design of small imager systems and lenses. Hopefully this helps sorta answer the confusion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
c10edges 0 #4 December 2, 2009 Yes it did. Thank you very much spot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
