Neewer 0.43x 72mm Wide Angle Lens with Macro for Canon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Nemo, Aug 27, 2011.

  1. Nemo

    Nemo Guest

    Nemo, Aug 27, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nemo

    DanP Guest

    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
    DanP, Aug 27, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nemo

    Robert Coe Guest

    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, Aug 28, 2011
    #3
  4. "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
    David J Taylor, Aug 28, 2011
    #4
  5. Nemo

    Nemo Guest

    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, Aug 29, 2011
    #5
  6. "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
    David Ruether, Aug 29, 2011
    #6
  7. Nemo

    DanP Guest

    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
    DanP, Aug 29, 2011
    #7
  8. Nemo

    Nemo Guest

    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.
    Nemo, Aug 29, 2011
    #8
  9. > 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/tamron_10-24_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
    David J Taylor, Aug 30, 2011
    #9
  10. Nemo

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:20:51 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    <> 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/tamron_10-24_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
    Robert Coe, Aug 31, 2011
    #10
  11. "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:20:51 +0100, "David J Taylor"

    []
    > : 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


    According to the ever-reliable Ken Rockwell (ahem), it has no motor.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

    Photo.net agrees:

    http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/

    Perhaps there will be an updated version sometime? It stopped me buying
    the lens.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 31, 2011
    #11
  12. Nemo

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <2011083023450275249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2011-08-30 23:19:18 -0700, "David J Taylor"
    > <> said:
    >
    > > "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:20:51 +0100, "David J Taylor"

    > > []
    > >> : 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

    > >
    > > According to the ever-reliable Ken Rockwell (ahem), it has no motor.
    > >
    > > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
    > >
    > > Photo.net agrees:
    > >
    > > http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/
    > >
    > > Perhaps there will be an updated version sometime? It stopped me
    > > buying the lens.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > David

    >
    > The only current Tokina lenses with an AF motor is their new FF AT-X
    > 16-28mm f/2.8 PRO FX and the APC-S AT-X 12-24mm f/4 AF PRO DX.


    DPreview claims that the version of the 11-16 2.8 for Canon has a motor.
    Be tough selling into the Canon market without one.
    J. Clarke, Aug 31, 2011
    #12
  13. Nemo

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/28/2011 1:51 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    > "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/
    >


    Yes autostich works in many cases. But with any stitch technique, I have
    yet to see a successful scene simulating an angle of 150 and a close up
    foreground object that is under 1' from the film plane.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Sep 1, 2011
    #13
  14. Nemo

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/1/2011 11:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-09-01 07:42:34 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 8/28/2011 1:51 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    >>> "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/
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes autostich works in many cases. But with any stitch technique, I
    >> have yet to see a successful scene simulating an angle of 150 and a
    >> close up foreground object that is under 1' from the film plane.

    >
    > That might be true for that extreme example, but if it is impressive
    > panos you want it is time to step up to GigaPan.
    > < http://www.gigapansystems.com/ >
    > < http://gigapan.org/gigapans/fullscreen/46074/ >
    >
    >


    No question.
    To automate the process in theory, one would have to mount the camera on
    a concave track around the foreground object.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Sep 1, 2011
    #14
  15. Nemo

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/1/2011 1:51 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >> On 8/28/2011 1:51 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    >>> "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/
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes autostich works in many cases. But with any stitch technique, I
    >> have yet to see a successful scene simulating an angle of 150 and a
    >> close up foreground object that is under 1' from the film plane.

    >
    > That's really two different issues. Stitching of course cannot do anything
    > about close-up foreground objects, if depth of field is what you're
    > concerned with. For entirely different reasons, it cannot simulate an angle
    > of 150 degrees either, because it cannot reproduce the exaggerated
    > perspective of such a wide lens. Adding to the corners by stitching will
    > still not make them look like ultrawide corners, at least not unless
    > something else is done to them besides stitching.
    >
    >

    There is a mode for the 150 degree simulation in PS, that will give a
    decent result for landscapes.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Sep 1, 2011
    #15
  16. Nemo

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:49:11 -0400, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    : In article <2011083023450275249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    : savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    : >
    : > On 2011-08-30 23:19:18 -0700, "David J Taylor"
    : > <> said:
    : >
    : > > "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    : > > news:...
    : > >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:20:51 +0100, "David J Taylor"
    : > > []
    : > >> : 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
    : > >
    : > > According to the ever-reliable Ken Rockwell (ahem), it has no motor.
    : > >
    : > > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
    : > >
    : > > Photo.net agrees:
    : > >
    : > > http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/
    : > >
    : > > Perhaps there will be an updated version sometime? It stopped me
    : > > buying the lens.
    : > >
    : > > Cheers,
    : > > David
    : >
    : > The only current Tokina lenses with an AF motor is their new FF AT-X
    : > 16-28mm f/2.8 PRO FX and the APC-S AT-X 12-24mm f/4 AF PRO DX.
    :
    : DPreview claims that the version of the 11-16 2.8 for Canon has a motor.
    : Be tough selling into the Canon market without one.

    As I mentioned a few days ago (see above), the Canon version definitely has a
    motor.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Sep 8, 2011
    #16
    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. Zarko Jovanovic

    Shooting macro: wide angle lens or closeup filter?

    Zarko Jovanovic, Jun 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    722
    DiVenZ
    Jun 17, 2004
  2. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    701
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  3. dohc46

    .5 wide angle lens with macro

    dohc46, Jan 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    350
    Dave Martindale
    Jan 19, 2006
  4. Spacey Spade

    wide angle lens with macro

    Spacey Spade, Jan 22, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    399
    Spacey Spade
    Jan 23, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    732
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page