«

This looks too cheap to be any good:
http://www.neewer.com/72mm-wide-angl...l1s-p-644.html

I'd be interested in its wide-angle capability in combination with a
Canon 18-200mm lens.
- any independent reviews (I can't find any)?
- anyone tried it?

Forget it, it will give you soft distorted pictures with chromatic aberration.
And at widest point your pictures will be enclosed by a black circle.

Either stitch photos together or buy a proper wide angle lens.

DanP

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 12:50:34 -0700 (PDT), DanP <> wrote:
: Forget it, it will give you soft distorted pictures with chromatic aberration.
: And at widest point your pictures will be enclosed by a black circle.
:
: Either stitch photos together or buy a proper wide angle lens.

Stitching photos together is a hobby in its own right. If you enjoy it, do it.
But if your objective is simply to get pictures you can't get now, buy a
proper WA lens. Unless your time is truly worthless (i.e., you're in prison or
something), the time saving will soon pay for the lens. (Yes, I know there are
excellent stitching programs available. But there's still plenty of hard work
you'll have to do yourself.)

Bob

"Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
news:...
[]
> Stitching photos together is a hobby in its own right. If you enjoy it,
> do it.
> But if your objective is simply to get pictures you can't get now, buy a
> proper WA lens. Unless your time is truly worthless (i.e., you're in
> prison or
> something), the time saving will soon pay for the lens. (Yes, I know
> there are
> excellent stitching programs available. But there's still plenty of hard
> work
> you'll have to do yourself.)
>
> Bob

Bob, with a program like Autopano Pro there is virtually /no/ hard work to
do other than taking the original photos, where you may benefit from using
a fixed exposure across the set. No need for a tripod or pano head. Try
it and see for yourself:

http://www.kolor.com/

Cheers,
David

On 27/08/2011 20:50, DanP wrote:
> Forget it, it will give you soft distorted pictures with chromatic aberration.
> And at widest point your pictures will be enclosed by a black circle.
>
> Either stitch photos together or buy a proper wide angle lens.
>
> DanP

Is that based on actual experience or just 'too good to be true'
cynicism/realism, similar to my own?

"Nemo" <> wrote in message news:
kVM6q.161788$2:
> On 27/08/2011 20:50, DanP wrote:

> > Forget it, it will give you soft distorted pictures with
> > chromatic aberration. And at widest point your pictures
> > will be enclosed by a black circle.
> >
> > Either stitch photos together or buy a proper wide angle
> > lens.
> >
> > DanP

> Is that based on actual experience or just 'too good to be
> true' cynicism/realism, similar to my own?

In my experience with shelves full of these WA converters,
I have run across only a few that perform well *with lenses
that optically match them* (the final image quality depends
almost as much on compatibility as on the inherent quality
of the attachment). *IN GENERAL*, if you want a not-quite-
full-frame-fisheye attachment, some of the .43X attachments
do work well on many ***camcorder*** lenses (but NOT still
camera lenses). Also, the highest-quality converters have
relatively small rear elements, making them impractical for
use on large front diameter lenses. And, the best results
are to be had with the deeper multi-element converters rather
than the flattish one or two-cemented element converters.
For camcorders, the ones that tend to work best and purport
to be low in linear distortion (but this is not true for any
but the Sony, and especially the Raynox converters (the Sony
"HG" series, and the Raynox ".66X" series [the latter are
all the same, but with different built in thread mounts
[up to 62mm], so it's usually best to buy that size and use
a thin stepping ring for smaller diameter mounting threads],
but these do not zoom over a wide range away from widest
angle [the Canon .7X 58mm-threaded converter does, but it
has very high linear distortion]). I've never been very
impressed with the relatively expensive Century converters
in wider than .8x (although several of these are made with
72mm or larger mounting threads). Bottom line: I don't think
you will find what you want, and must do what "DanP" and
others have suggested, especially since your lens mounting
thread is so large.

--DR

On Monday, 29 August 2011 14:57:39 UTC+1, Nemo wrote:
> On 27/08/2011 20:50, DanP wrote:
> > Forget it, it will give you soft distorted pictures with chromatic aberration.
> > And at widest point your pictures will be enclosed by a black circle.
> >
> > Either stitch photos together or buy a proper wide angle lens.
> >
> > DanP
>
> Is that based on actual experience or just 'too good to be true'
> cynicism/realism, similar to my own?

I am embarrassed to say I have purchased the 58mm model one and a half year ago. I have maybe 3 shots taken with it, weird close ups.

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is now on my wish list but my wallet says no.


DanP

On 29/08/2011 16:20, David Ruether wrote:
>
>
> "Nemo" <> wrote in message news:
> kVM6q.161788$2:
>> On 27/08/2011 20:50, DanP wrote:
>
>> > Forget it, it will give you soft distorted pictures with
>> > chromatic aberration. And at widest point your pictures
>> > will be enclosed by a black circle.
>> >
>> > Either stitch photos together or buy a proper wide angle
>> > lens.
>> >
>> > DanP
>
>> Is that based on actual experience or just 'too good to be
>> true' cynicism/realism, similar to my own?
>
> In my experience with shelves full of these WA converters,
> I have run across only a few that perform well *with lenses
> that optically match them* (the final image quality depends
> almost as much on compatibility as on the inherent quality
> of the attachment). *IN GENERAL*, if you want a not-quite-
> full-frame-fisheye attachment, some of the .43X attachments
> do work well on many ***camcorder*** lenses (but NOT still
> camera lenses). Also, the highest-quality converters have
> relatively small rear elements, making them impractical for
> use on large front diameter lenses. And, the best results
> are to be had with the deeper multi-element converters rather
> than the flattish one or two-cemented element converters.
> For camcorders, the ones that tend to work best and purport
> to be low in linear distortion (but this is not true for any
> but the Sony, and especially the Raynox converters (the Sony
> "HG" series, and the Raynox ".66X" series [the latter are
> all the same, but with different built in thread mounts
> [up to 62mm], so it's usually best to buy that size and use
> a thin stepping ring for smaller diameter mounting threads],
> but these do not zoom over a wide range away from widest
> angle [the Canon .7X 58mm-threaded converter does, but it
> has very high linear distortion]). I've never been very
> impressed with the relatively expensive Century converters
> in wider than .8x (although several of these are made with
> 72mm or larger mounting threads). Bottom line: I don't think
> you will find what you want, and must do what "DanP" and
> others have suggested, especially since your lens mounting
> thread is so large.
>
> --DR
>

Thanks David and DanP, you've convinced me. I'll not be wasting my time
on it. A small, lightweight wide angle lens for 1/20th the price? -
dream on

For the relatively few occasions I need wider than 18mm (full frame
equivalent ~29mm), I'll stick to photo-stitching for the time being.

Incidentally, I find Photoshop Elements 9 does quite a good job of
stitching shots without a lot of fuss.

> The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is now on my wish list but my wallet says no.
>
>
> DanP

A somewhat lower-cost and lighter alternative, that has a rather wider
zoom range and hence is more versatile is the Tamron 10-24mm. It does
have a smaller maximum aperture though.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...4_3p5-5p6_n15/

Might be worth a look. I've been pleased with mine. The Tokina lacks the
focus motor required by some cameras.

Cheers,
David

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:20:51 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<david-> wrote:
: > The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is now on my wish list but my wallet says no.
: >
: >
: > DanP
:
: A somewhat lower-cost and lighter alternative, that has a rather wider
: zoom range and hence is more versatile is the Tamron 10-24mm. It does
: have a smaller maximum aperture though.
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...4_3p5-5p6_n15/
:
: Might be worth a look. I've been pleased with mine. The Tokina lacks the
: focus motor required by some cameras.

It does? That sounds backwards to me. I thought recent 3rd-party lenses for
Nikon cameras always had a motor, since many lower-end Nikon bodies now don't.
The Canon version, which I have, has to have a motor, of course, because Canon
bodies never did.

Bob