Field of View 'Converter' for small sensor DSLRS?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by winhag@yahoo.com, Jul 18, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Folks,

    Does anyone know if there are any devices (or if it is even practical)
    to make a field of view 'converter' device which may fit between
    lens and body to compensate for the reduced field of view
    due to non full-frame sensors?
    It is very frustrating to have wide-angle lenses which are no longer
    wide angle due to the small sensor size in 99% of digital SLRS.
    I don't want to buy another lens....especially one which I cannot
    use on my film body (e.g. EF-S series).
    I would guess if it was practical to make an optical device which
    would 'squeeze' the normal field of view of let's say a 24mm (or any)
    lens onto the smaller sensor someone would be offering it.

    Any comments?

    W
     
    , Jul 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. [BnH] Guest

    I think on my camera its WYSIWYG. I got a 'converted' field of view whenever
    I see thru my finder.
    [D1h & S2Pro]. No idea on your Canon side :)

    =bob=



    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Folks,
    >
    > Does anyone know if there are any devices (or if it is even practical)
    > to make a field of view 'converter' device which may fit between
    > lens and body to compensate for the reduced field of view
    > due to non full-frame sensors?
    > It is very frustrating to have wide-angle lenses which are no longer
    > wide angle due to the small sensor size in 99% of digital SLRS.
    > I don't want to buy another lens....especially one which I cannot
    > use on my film body (e.g. EF-S series).
    > I would guess if it was practical to make an optical device which
    > would 'squeeze' the normal field of view of let's say a 24mm (or any)
    > lens onto the smaller sensor someone would be offering it.
    >
    > Any comments?
    >
    > W
    >
     
    [BnH], Jul 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark² Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Folks,
    >
    > Does anyone know if there are any devices (or if it is even practical)
    > to make a field of view 'converter' device which may fit between
    > lens and body to compensate for the reduced field of view
    > due to non full-frame sensors?
    > It is very frustrating to have wide-angle lenses which are no longer
    > wide angle due to the small sensor size in 99% of digital SLRS.
    > I don't want to buy another lens....especially one which I cannot
    > use on my film body (e.g. EF-S series).
    > I would guess if it was practical to make an optical device which
    > would 'squeeze' the normal field of view of let's say a 24mm (or any)
    > lens onto the smaller sensor someone would be offering it.
    >
    > Any comments?


    This one works:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=354004&is=REG&addedTroughType=search























    :)
     
    Mark², Jul 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Confused Guest

    Confused, Jul 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Bill Funk Guest

    On 17 Jul 2005 16:24:39 -0700, "" <>
    wrote:

    >Folks,
    >
    >Does anyone know if there are any devices (or if it is even practical)
    >to make a field of view 'converter' device which may fit between
    >lens and body to compensate for the reduced field of view
    >due to non full-frame sensors?
    >It is very frustrating to have wide-angle lenses which are no longer
    >wide angle due to the small sensor size in 99% of digital SLRS.
    >I don't want to buy another lens....especially one which I cannot
    >use on my film body (e.g. EF-S series).
    >I would guess if it was practical to make an optical device which
    >would 'squeeze' the normal field of view of let's say a 24mm (or any)
    >lens onto the smaller sensor someone would be offering it.
    >
    >Any comments?
    >
    >W


    I don't know of any "wide angle" converters.
    I do think, though, that you are laboring under a misconception: you
    do not need to buy EF-S lenses. Standard EF lenses will work fine.

    And you are far from the only one who would like such a device.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 18, 2005
    #5
  6. "" <> writes:

    > Folks,
    >
    > Does anyone know if there are any devices (or if it is even practical)
    > to make a field of view 'converter' device which may fit between
    > lens and body to compensate for the reduced field of view
    > due to non full-frame sensors?
    > It is very frustrating to have wide-angle lenses which are no longer
    > wide angle due to the small sensor size in 99% of digital SLRS.
    > I don't want to buy another lens....especially one which I cannot
    > use on my film body (e.g. EF-S series).
    > I would guess if it was practical to make an optical device which
    > would 'squeeze' the normal field of view of let's say a 24mm (or any)
    > lens onto the smaller sensor someone would be offering it.


    Kodak has a patent on such a device, but they never have made a product out of
    it. I remember reading from a lens maker who made one of his own, and then
    discovered the patent......

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Jul 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Darrell Guest

    >>Folks,
    >>
    >>Does anyone know if there are any devices (or if it is even practical)
    >>to make a field of view 'converter' device which may fit between
    >>lens and body to compensate for the reduced field of view
    >>due to non full-frame sensors?
    >>It is very frustrating to have wide-angle lenses which are no longer
    >>wide angle due to the small sensor size in 99% of digital SLRS.
    >>I don't want to buy another lens....especially one which I cannot
    >>use on my film body (e.g. EF-S series).
    >>I would guess if it was practical to make an optical device which
    >>would 'squeeze' the normal field of view of let's say a 24mm (or any)
    >>lens onto the smaller sensor someone would be offering it.
    >>

    Why not make one so I can get the same 35mm "FOV" with my Hasselblad. I put
    a lens on and it doesn't match. It's know as learn your equipment.
     
    Darrell, Jul 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Andrew Haley Guest

    <> wrote:
    > Folks,


    > Does anyone know if there are any devices (or if it is even practical)
    > to make a field of view 'converter' device which may fit between
    > lens and body to compensate for the reduced field of view
    > due to non full-frame sensors?
    > It is very frustrating to have wide-angle lenses which are no longer
    > wide angle due to the small sensor size in 99% of digital SLRS.
    > I don't want to buy another lens....especially one which I cannot
    > use on my film body (e.g. EF-S series).
    > I would guess if it was practical to make an optical device which
    > would 'squeeze' the normal field of view of let's say a 24mm (or any)
    > lens onto the smaller sensor someone would be offering it.


    It's no great problem to do this optically, but it uses extra glass
    and it inverts the image. See instructions at

    http://www.naturfotograf.com/D1_fisheye_1,html.htm

    Andrew.
     
    Andrew Haley, Jul 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Guest

    Folks,

    Thanks. It appears this is indeed possible. For the others who did not
    understand my point.
    My point was that I have already invested in lenses with particular
    FOVs which I desire. I do
    not want to invest in other lenses (EF or EF-s) just to compensate for
    the smaller sensor.

    W
     
    , Jul 18, 2005
    #9
  10. wilt Guest

    Your idea of a behnind-the-lens wideangle-convertor rather than a
    teleconverter is a good idea! The only convertors for wider angle that
    I have seen are always designed for in-front of the lens on a P&S or
    camcorder.
    Tamron and Sigma and Tokina, et al, should figure this one out and
    develop something suitable in an 0.5X convertor. Problem is, though,
    that everyone wants to sell you new lenses in shorter focal length,
    rather than merely sell you a convertor!

    --Wilt
     
    wilt, Jul 18, 2005
    #10
  11. wilt Guest

    <<I do think, though, that you are laboring under a misconception: you
    do not need to buy EF-S lenses. Standard EF lenses will work fine. >>

    This is NOT the point! What is the point is that if I want a 24mm lens
    (35mm format-equivalent) field of view, I need to buy a 16mm lens. So
    he wants a means of getting a wider field of view with the same lens on
    the smaller DSLR format, rather than buying a whole new lense. Plus a
    fast 16mm lens is a whole lot more expensive than an equally fast 24mm
    lens, making the re-investment all that much more painful to endure.

    --Wilt
     
    wilt, Jul 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Bill Funk Guest

    On 18 Jul 2005 09:53:57 -0700, "wilt" <> wrote:

    ><<I do think, though, that you are laboring under a misconception: you
    >do not need to buy EF-S lenses. Standard EF lenses will work fine. >>
    >
    >This is NOT the point! What is the point is that if I want a 24mm lens
    >(35mm format-equivalent) field of view, I need to buy a 16mm lens. So
    >he wants a means of getting a wider field of view with the same lens on
    >the smaller DSLR format, rather than buying a whole new lense. Plus a
    >fast 16mm lens is a whole lot more expensive than an equally fast 24mm
    >lens, making the re-investment all that much more painful to endure.
    >
    >--Wilt


    Calm down. :)
    Read what he wrote, and try to understand that I addressed two points
    in his post.
    I did not say the point about EF-S lenses was the most important
    point, I only said that he seems to be working under a
    misunderstanding.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 18, 2005
    #12
  13. Bill Funk Guest

    On 18 Jul 2005 07:38:13 -0700, "" <>
    wrote:

    >Folks,
    >
    >Thanks. It appears this is indeed possible. For the others who did not
    >understand my point.
    >My point was that I have already invested in lenses with particular
    >FOVs which I desire. I do
    >not want to invest in other lenses (EF or EF-s) just to compensate for
    >the smaller sensor.
    >
    >W


    In that case, maybe a little more investigation would have revealed
    the .6x factor,and the problem could have been avoided.

    BTW, we can't read minds here, so when you say you don't want to buy
    an EF-S lens, some of us will think that you mean what you write. I
    know, it's a radical thing to do, but there it is.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Guest

    Bill,

    1. The problem could not have been avoided unless I got a 1Ds for $8k
    and
    that ($8k) is a bigger problem!

    2. Regarding EF-S, what I meant was I don't want to put significant
    money into
    a lens that would not be useable on a film body or any future digital
    body with
    a larger sensor.
     
    , Jul 18, 2005
    #14
  15. Guest

    In message <>,
    Bill Funk <> wrote:


    >I don't know of any "wide angle" converters.
    >I do think, though, that you are laboring under a misconception: you
    >do not need to buy EF-S lenses. Standard EF lenses will work fine.


    >And you are far from the only one who would like such a device.


    Theoretically, such a device could deliver an image that is nearly as
    high in resolution as full-frame, as most super-wide lenses are not
    particularly sharp and are quite oversampled with a full frame, with
    fine grain or pixel pitch. The MTF could theoretically improve with
    such a device.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Darrell Guest

    "wilt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > <<I do think, though, that you are laboring under a misconception: you
    > do not need to buy EF-S lenses. Standard EF lenses will work fine. >>
    >
    > This is NOT the point! What is the point is that if I want a 24mm lens
    > (35mm format-equivalent) field of view, I need to buy a 16mm lens. So
    > he wants a means of getting a wider field of view with the same lens on
    > the smaller DSLR format, rather than buying a whole new lense. Plus a
    > fast 16mm lens is a whole lot more expensive than an equally fast 24mm
    > lens, making the re-investment all that much more painful to endure.
    >

    I waited to buy my dSLR as I enjoy my 20mm lens. Well I shoot with a DA 14mm
    f:2.8 and I am happy. I only had to buy a single lens to keep my widest
    coverage. This was at a cost of CDN $700ish.
     
    Darrell, Jul 19, 2005
    #16
  17. Jerome Bigge Guest

    On 18 Jul 2005 00:12:55 -0400, Michael Meissner <>
    wrote:

    >"" <> writes:
    >
    >> Folks,
    >>
    >> Does anyone know if there are any devices (or if it is even practical)
    >> to make a field of view 'converter' device which may fit between
    >> lens and body to compensate for the reduced field of view
    >> due to non full-frame sensors?
    >> It is very frustrating to have wide-angle lenses which are no longer
    >> wide angle due to the small sensor size in 99% of digital SLRS.
    >> I don't want to buy another lens....especially one which I cannot
    >> use on my film body (e.g. EF-S series).
    >> I would guess if it was practical to make an optical device which
    >> would 'squeeze' the normal field of view of let's say a 24mm (or any)
    >> lens onto the smaller sensor someone would be offering it.

    >
    >Kodak has a patent on such a device, but they never have made a product out of
    >it. I remember reading from a lens maker who made one of his own, and then
    >discovered the patent......


    There was a "negative" lens made to fit on to the filter ring of camcorder
    lenses. You set the camcorder on "macro" and screwed on the lens.
    It effectively increased the field of view. I have a negative lens that
    I purchased from Edmund Scientific that does somewhat the same,
    but is just a single element and not very well corrected. I did an
    internet search for "minus lenses", but only came up with eyeglass
    lenses. Apparently there are no longer any minus lenses made for
    cameras. Decades ago they were made, but are now "out of print".
    The idea back then was that you mounted your camera lens on a
    bellows (with an slr on the other end) and used a minus lens to make
    a longer focal length lens. Then there is a focal length reducer made
    for the SCT astronomical telescopes sold by Meade and Celestron.
    These can reduce the focal length from F10 to F6.3. I don't think that
    they will work with cameras however. Perhaps the best idea would be
    to buy a shorter focal length lens if you have a camera that takes them.

    Jerome Bigge
    Photographer and Astronomer
    Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series.
    Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"
     
    Jerome Bigge, Jul 19, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan F Cross
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    423
    Bernhard Mayer
    Aug 13, 2003
  2. Doug Mitton

    View Finder vs. Image Field-Of-View!

    Doug Mitton, Dec 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    458
    Matt Ion
    Dec 14, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    3,291
    Dave Martindale
    Dec 27, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,444
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page