Reading mode: Light Dark

Questions: ultrawide/fisheye conversion lenses

Go to last post
Z

zoranT

Leading Member
Messages
913
Solutions
1
Reaction score
20
Location
Berlin, DE
Does any of you guys have experience with ultrawide/fisheye conversion lens-add-ons (ie lenses that you put on an existing lens). Any recommendations (I know that IQ decreases, but the question is how much)?

Also I wonder if there is substential quality difference between the official Sony fisheye/ultrawide converters and the various no-name products floating around the net.

I ve bought an ultrawide once to use it with the slr-magic lens - but the results are too poor. Since I use the ultrawide mainly for video I don t mind some IQ compromise.
So, the alternatives are:

– cheap 40 bucks ultrawide converter lens (add on)
– Sony ultrawide converters for NEX (100-150 bucks)
– proper ultrawide lens + adapter (400 + upward)
 
there were to threads in the last two weeks or so about the dedicated UW and fisheye adapters for the Sony 16mm. From what I have seen, they do a really good job for the price (and size), probably better than you could expect from other converters.

If you want something cheaper and don't care about the highest image quality, you could try converters like the Raynox DCR-5000 or similar. This is a small 0.5x converter that works reasonably well for most of the bigger digicams, with about 35mm equivalent WA setting. I don't know on which NEX lenses it would work, you really have to test it. The converter needs to be mounted as close as possible to the front lens (not possible with every lens design).

The Raynox has strong distortion (semi-fisheye, easy to correct in PP), the outer/border will be blurred with most lenses and maybe you will have vignetting in the outer corners. But in general it gives good images for the price (about $75-100).
 
this is a great example of getting what you pay for. a $40 converter is not very likely to give you much performance. Everything I've seen and hear about the Sony offering suggests it's farily good considering the price point.
 
I'm really pleased with the result, at least iq/price wise. This was the best I could do except for the pf; I couldn't reduce it much in LR. I have yet to try some other tools. I shall also try it att apertures wider than 10 but I doubt it will be much better.
(Click "original" to view full size.)





--
Sverker (GMT+1)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sverkerahrent/
 
I'm deciding on this at the moment as well. I'm going to Athens this Thursday and would like to take some nice landscape photos and of the ruins. Do you reckon the ultra-wide converter is a better purchase overall instead of the fisheye? From what I've read so far the ultra-wide enhances the 16mm quite nicely.
 
jtan_pdr said:
here's some with the wide angle...
Click to expand...
the images look pretty good at this size, nice contrast and no obvious flare problems. But I can see that the outer borders are a bit soft in most images; at original size I guess the border/corner blur would be very apparent.
 
nex eye is nice in the beginning but its the wide thats in my bag most of the time now...
for the price as compared to a voightlander 12mm.. there's no fight...
the voight wins hands down...
but taking into consideration the wide auto focuses..
and thats a major plus in my books..

till they launch a proper wide angle thats fast too... we'll just have to wait n see.
till then, i'll live n work with what i've got...
and work on my compositions...
 
I got the VCLECU1 ultra-wide adapter and a Raynox 0.66x adapter left over from my video camera.

If you are debating between getting the Sony or a generic, the Sony wins hands down. It clicks on the 16mm lens instead of screwing on. Once it's on, it looks like one lens, not a contraption screwed on top. It was built to match and it comes with a built-in lens hood, caps and decent zip-pouch.

I found that the combo was very sharp around f6.3. A bit of chroma aberration and distortion, but I found that it cleans up nicely in Lightroom when using the 16mm/2.8 profile correction.

Flare is well under control.

Here are a couple samples I took with the 16mm + 0.75x adapter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xbourque/5439657836/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xbourque/5442674906/

On the other hand, I use the Raynox too, but for "special effects" since it has massive radial blur around the edges. It should be treated as toy lens. Here are a couple samples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xbourque/5439005057/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xbourque/5439004815/

--Xavier
 
xbourque said:
Here are a couple samples I took with the 16mm + 0.75x adapter:
Click to expand...
looks very nice, great contrast and flare well under control. But impossible to judge corner sharpness at this resolution ...
xbourque said:
On the other hand, I use the Raynox too, but for "special effects" since it has massive radial blur around the edges. It should be treated as toy lens.
Click to expand...
In the past I have tested the 0.66x Raynox on many different digicams. IMHO it is a really low quality converter, way below the quality of the better converters from Olympus, Sony or even some other Raynox wide converters. I'm sure the dedicated Sony converter is far better and more convenient in this case.
 
jtan_pdr said:
nex eye is nice in the beginning but its the wide thats in my bag most of the time now...
for the price as compared to a voightlander 12mm.. there's no fight...
the voight wins hands down...
but taking into consideration the wide auto focuses..
Click to expand...
xbourque said:
If you are debating between getting the Sony or a generic, the Sony wins hands down. It clicks on the 16mm lens instead of screwing on. Once it's on, it looks like one lens, not a contraption screwed on top. It was built to match and it comes with a built-in lens hood, caps and decent zip-pouch.

I found that the combo was very sharp around f6.3. A bit of chroma aberration and distortion, but I found that it cleans up nicely in Lightroom when using the 16mm/2.8 profile correction.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the replies guys I appreciate it!

I was waiting for a bit more clarification on these two adapters now... I think I'll purchase the ultra-wide angle adapter instead of the fisheye.

I've already got both kit lenses so this should make the 16mm more appealing for me as I plan to take shots of the large structures in Athens.

As for the Voightlander 12mm that's too expensive for my budget you're looking at £400 opposed to £110 for the ultra wide adapter.
 
Larger sample with the Sony wide angle adadpter. Easier to judge sharpness from this one. (PP in Lightroom from RAW).



 
xbourque said:
Larger sample with the Sony wide angle adadpter. Easier to judge sharpness from this one. (PP in Lightroom from RAW).
Click to expand...
very good! I don't think one could improve this (at this size) with a more expensive lens like the CV12. Interesting that the EXIF says 12mm - so the 16mm lens tells the camera that the WA adapter is mounted? And the NEX3 even seems to offer time travel as an extra ;)
 
technic said:
xbourque said:
Larger sample with the Sony wide angle adadpter. Easier to judge sharpness from this one. (PP in Lightroom from RAW).
Click to expand...
very good! I don't think one could improve this (at this size) with a more expensive lens like the CV12. Interesting that the EXIF says 12mm - so the 16mm lens tells the camera that the WA adapter is mounted? And the NEX3 even seems to offer time travel as an extra ;)
Click to expand...
I was thinking that as well how the hell does the camera know the wide angle adapter is mounted on the camera that's quite quirky. I've ordered the VCL-ECU1 so will have it tomorrow to play with! Just hope the weather holds out as I'd like to go out and play about with it. It definitely makes a difference over just having the 16mm pancake by itself.
 
npires said:
I was thinking that as well how the hell does the camera know the wide angle adapter is mounted on the camera that's quite quirky.
Click to expand...
probably there is a small microswitch / tab on the front of the 16mm, that is activated by mounting the dedicated WA adapter. And the 16mm lens has a contact or tab to transmit this signal to the body. Sony has used something similar in the past for some of their digicam converter lenses.
 
technic said:
xbourque said:
Larger sample with the Sony wide angle adadpter. Easier to judge sharpness from this one. (PP in Lightroom from RAW).
Click to expand...
very good! I don't think one could improve this (at this size) with a more expensive lens like the CV12. Interesting that the EXIF says 12mm - so the 16mm lens tells the camera that the WA adapter is mounted?
Click to expand...
No, there's no such thing.
This "12mm" must have been patched by the photographer.

Regards,
Karsten
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top