Adpaters: or how to double your lens abilities for $20

[wwjd]

Digging around my old Canon lens pile, I ran across a cheap WIDE ANGLE ADAPTER and a 2x TELE ADAPTER. And they fit just fine on my new Panny 12-35mm lens!
Yes, there are a bunch of logical reasons to never stack up cheap crap on our fine cameras, and one reason to do it: IT WORKS.
These cheap-o adapters came as pack-ins for a camera I bought a couple years ago. Litterally only cost abotu $10 each.

With the wide angle, I can make my 12mm end even wider with noticable but not unuseable distortions. Not any worse than spending $500 on some really old school lens for a "special look" or "effect". Heck, in most cases no one other than tech geeks would even notice. It's almost like a speedbooster since even more lit up areas are brought into the field of view.
Auto focus still works, I don't see any light loss in the LCD or the Histogram... it's a win for me.

The 2x converter works also but I haven't don't much with that yet.
I think there is even a MACRO style feature using these things.

Maybe I'll post some tests later on about this.

Here is the kinda of stuff I'm talking about:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...de+angle+ad,aps&rh=i:aps,k:wide angle adapter



Yes, it's not for everybody, and I'm sure the glass is not the best and some loss of resolutions and probably color aberations exists... .like buying some cheap older lenses off ebay.
Just another option for I hadn't considered.

 

[mcbob]

I've sometimes used a Canon WD-58 0.7x converter I've had around since my Sony PD150 days. It works surprisingly well with the Voigtlander 17.5, not so well with the 12-35 (substantial vignette below 18mm)

 

[DigitalBard]

I bought a cheap set of $8 macro tubes on eBay and they work GREAT with my manual lenses. I also have a half-dozen manual lenses (Pentax, Nikon, Canon FD) and I'm using the cheap sub-$10 adapters from eBay with them... Again, they all work great.

 

[Jordan_S]

Here is the kinda of stuff I'm talking about:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=wide angle adapter&sprefix=wide+angle+ad%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Awide angle adapter

View attachment 87099

Yes, it's not for everybody, and I'm sure the glass is not the best and some loss of resolutions and probably color aberations exists... .like buying some cheap older lenses off ebay.

No, not really.

When you buy an inexpensive used Russian knock-off that was made using the same formula as the much more expensive original, it's an entirely different situation than a crappy mass-produced wide angle adapter whose sole purpose is to be cheap.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

In all my time over several decades as a working professional photographer including 13 years as an air force civilian staff photographer, no one I knew would be caught DEAD putting that cheap crap on decent lenses. We'd see it now and then done by kids trying to "break into" the pro business but they never lasted long.

The one exception I made for myself was a Digital Concepts auxiliary wide angle adapter (0.45X) for first an HV20 then for HF100s that all had no way of using interchangeable lens. I ordered it oversize (52mm to use with 43mm and then 37mm thread mounts) so the large central portion of the lens helped sharpness. It gave what looked like a 24mm equiv and was quite sharp but only at the wide end of the zoom on those cameras.

 

[wwjd]

no one I knew would be caught DEAD putting that cheap crap on decent lenses.

I know what you mean, man! That's why I said it is not for everyone. I actually felt a little guilty AND dirty in a naughty way when I realized it fit, and what I was about to try. Then, after, I took a hot shower for 40 minutes. hahaha!
Really, I was amazed it worked well at all. It is just another "Artistic option" available to us. Like this weekend when my buddy shot most of a project with a $100 SLR-Magic "Toy" lens on his Black Magic Cinema Camera.

 

[drapeama]

The one exception I made for myself was a Digital Concepts auxiliary wide angle adapter (0.45X) for first an HV20 then for HF100s that all had no way of using interchangeable lens. I ordered it oversize (52mm to use with 43mm and then 37mm thread mounts) so the large central portion of the lens helped sharpness. It gave what looked like a 24mm equiv and was quite sharp but only at the wide end of the zoom on those cameras.

I remember those days! Did it, with my old Sony DCR-TRV340 with a Digital Concept. With that resolution/quality, anything more expensive would have been a waste of money! On my HV40 though, I got a Raynox WA lens, but when zooming in with the lens attached to it, it became blurry and very soft. But this was like 80% zoomed in only.

I'd reckon that using a WA lens, for a wide shot here and there (for videos) would be an option. For specific shots only, it's a workaround and an alternative to 500$+ lenses, like WWJD said. Would I prefer the Tokina 11-16mm instead? Sure, of course. Do I have the money for it? Not really. So I can understand.
But you'd have to live with the downsides of such a workaround (sharpness loss, chromatic aberration..etc).

 

[Ted Ramasola]

If you don't have a chart, stick some newspapers on your wall and shoot a comparison with and without that adapter so we can see distortions, ca, and edge to edge sharpness. That way we can avoid subjective opinions.
I'm interested to see if its usable.

 

[wwjd]

k, it fringes a LOT! As expected. With varying results depending on zoom. If you want an effect, this is cool, if you want perfection, run away now!

downloads https://copy.com/4MilpuEAqTFe
4k frames pulled using Vegas13, filmed with the 12-35mm 2.8 lens set at f4 for sharpness.