Wide-Angle adapters ? 0.6X - 0.7X ?

[luisalegria]

Does anybody have experience with these things ?

My objective, of course, is to compensate for the sensor crop factor.

1.5crop x 0.7 = 1

I'm wondering if its practical to use one on a 19mm-24mm MF lens. I have the Vivitar 19/3.8 (58mm filter) and the Pentax-M 24/2.8 (52mm filter) as likely candidates. Would these things cause vignetting ? "Fake Fish-Eye" effect ? I don't really want a fish-eye at all.

The problem is cost. It looks like the somewhat decent ones (Raynox?) are at least $70-80, and others are even more.

I am willing to accept some image degradation, but not as much as the cheapest plastic ones (like "Titanium" brand) seem to do -

http://photonotes.org/reviews/fisheye-adapter/

The one this guy got seems just horrible.

[Orio]

I used them for my video camera in the past.
Even the better ones still cause a lot of aberrations esp. at the edges, that can be tolerable in a video because of the low resolution and because the attention of the viewer is captured by the movement.
In photograph, I think they would be completely untolerable.
In my opinion, when budget does not allow for a full frame DSLR, it's much better to shoot good slide film to obtain full wide range from lenses. A wide adapter would make you lose all the advantages of using a digital, and then more.
-

[no-X]

I used Raynox DCR-6600PRO on my EVF (Panasonic DMC FZ30) and I was kinda disappointed. I used two macro adapters from Raynox (DCR-250 and DCR-5320PRO), both of them were good, but the WA lens wasn't: poor resolution in corners and significant CA. Even slim C-PL filters caused vignetting.

Sorry for bad news...

[LucisPictor]

I agree to the above mentioned statements.
While I once had a decent screw-in teleconverter (Raynox 2020 Pro), I have never seen a really good wide angle converter, although the Raynox DCR720 that I still have is not too bad. You still will see a considerable detrioration of the image quality, esp. at the edges.

[luisalegria]

Hi Orio,

I am certainly trying film. The problem there of course is that the BIG advantages of digital are lost - unlimited free film ! Plus instant feedback also.

That said, I am testing a new contraption for scanning slides.

-

LuicisPictor, No-X - Thank you for the advice. What lens did you use the DCR720 on, and did it vignette ? Did you try put the PL filter between the lens and the adapter ? I may be willing to accept poor edges if the center is more or less sharp. I don't plan to use this for architecture.

[rick_oleson]

Those converters tend to be junk.... the only respectable ones I've encountered are the ones that are designed for a specific camera and lens, such as the one that stretches the zoom on the Olympus IS-10 down to 28mm. Given the extra magnification of the small digital format, though, I suspect even that combination would disappoint (if it was physically possible to try it.

One of the advantages of digital is free film; but it's little use if the images aren't good.

[LucisPictor]

[LucisPictor]

OK, here are some example shots (Fuji S1 Pro):

Sigma 24-70 @ 24mm:



Sigma 24-70 @ 24mm + Raynox DCR 720 (so eff. about 17mm):

Still pretty acceptable, I guess.


Sigma 24-70 @ 24mm + Noname 0.5x WAC (so eff. 12mm):

Hardly usable, unless you aim for exactly such an effect.



Another comparison (look at the flare in the right shot!):



So, in other words, the Raynox DCR 720 (as a high quality wide angle converter) can be useful, because it uses high performance glass and only a 0.72x conversion. Any "extreme" noname converter is rather junk.

[Orio]

The Raynox has better quality but a lot barrel distortion.
The noname has worse quality but less barrel distortion.

P.S. the Raynox has bad left edge. You can see it in the landscape, and in the heather picture on the bottom.

All in all I would not use any of them and stay with film, but that's me of course.

[estudleon]