what do 2x telephoto zoom/ 0.45x wide angle 52mm filters for the 18-55mm lenses do?

Started Feb 28, 2013 | Questions
Tanveer Tomal New Member • Posts: 9
what do 2x telephoto zoom/ 0.45x wide angle 52mm filters for the 18-55mm lenses do?

what do 2x telephoto zoom/ 0.45x wide angle 52mm filters for the 18-55mm lenses do?

do they have really good performances?

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
DigitalPhilosopher
DigitalPhilosopher Contributing Member • Posts: 999
Re: what do 2x telephoto zoom/ 0.45x wide angle 52mm filters for the 18-55mm lenses do?

They effectively change the properties of the lens (the 18-55 in this case). It's like placing a magnifying glass in front of your lens (talking about the tele now)

The image quality is ​severely ​degraded, with softness and chromatic aberrations. Possibly also reflections/ghost if there are intense element in or near the frame. I would advise against them, they offer nothing.

If you need a tele, the AF-S 55-200 is a remarkably good and cheap lens.

If you need a lens wider then 18mm, you're gonna have to spend quite much more money than the 0.45x filter (cheapest option would be a used Sigma 10-20mm probably. You should ask yourself whether you truly need (and know how to properly use) an ultra-wide...

-- hide signature --

Check my blog for reviews, tips & tutorials:
Amateur Nikon
Follow me on Twitter:
@amateurnikon

AnandaSim Forum Pro • Posts: 13,422
Re: what do 2x telephoto zoom/ 0.45x wide angle 52mm filters for the 18-55mm lenses do?

Tanveer Tomal wrote:

what do 2x telephoto zoom/ 0.45x wide angle 52mm filters for the 18-55mm lenses do?

do they have really good performances?

They are crude lenses - some people call them filters but they are not filters, they are front facing convertors that have a screw thread. Usually they are not designed for a specific lens so that means they are generally poor in sharpness for all lenses.

Also because they protrude quite a bit, they may / will vignette your field of view so that it looks like a tunnel.

For some people who do not have a removable lens camera, they are of interest because they can make something wide or tele. However you have a DSLR and there are better options.

18-55 kit lenses are also low cost, light build plastic AF threaded with small motors. If the convertor you buy is heavy, it will put an offset weight onto your lens focus mechanism and reduce the life of your lens.

 AnandaSim's gear list:AnandaSim's gear list
Kodak EasyShare P880 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-620 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Olympus PEN E-PM2 +15 more
Guidenet
Guidenet Forum Pro • Posts: 15,748
Agree +1
1

I completely agree. Stay away from those eBay bundles where there put all lthat junk together to make it seem like you're getting more than you are. They also usually include useless tripods that don't work well and other things of mnimal to no value. I'd stick with:

B&H http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

Adorama http://www.adorama.com/

Midwest Photo http://mpex.com/

These three all have steller ratings and are real photo stores. Amazon is also good, but I prefer real camera stores.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 +31 more
mgd43 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,322
Re: Agree +1

These lenses are called supplementary or auxiliary lenses. They screw onto the front of a lens to make it more wide-angle or telephoto. These lenses are really meant for cameras that do not take interchangable lenses. They are not very good on DSLR lenses. I suggest that you save up for real lenses. You can save money by buying used or refurbished lenses. Try keh.com, B&H, and Adorama for used lenses. They are very reliable, they have a good return policy, and they give a warranty. Also consider Sigma and Tamron lenses. They are very good and less expensive.

 mgd43's gear list:mgd43's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7800 Nikon D5500 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR +3 more
albert01 Regular Member • Posts: 105
Re: Agree +1
1

This is an old post but I thought I would post a few pics with the differences using an aux. telephoto lens on a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens

Pics using a HD telephoto converter lens. While looking through a viewfinder on a Nikon DSLR everything was perhaps a little closer but blurred.

(Note: the DSLR is set to auto, I never made any manual adjustment to attempt  to created less blurring when using the aux. lens)

Pics without telephoto lens

Leonard Migliore
Leonard Migliore Forum Pro • Posts: 15,944
Worse than cropping
1

albert01 wrote:

This is an old post but I thought I would post a few pics with the differences using an aux. telephoto lens on a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens

Pics using a HD telephoto converter lens. While looking through a viewfinder on a Nikon DSLR everything was perhaps a little closer but blurred.

(Note: the DSLR is set to auto, I never made any manual adjustment to attempt to created less blurring when using the aux. lens)

So I cropped one of your shots without the auxiliary lens:

This is a whole lot better than using the converter. I don't think that there's any benefit to using it.

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Sony RX100 III Nikon D300 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +12 more
albert01 Regular Member • Posts: 105
Re: Worse than cropping

I posted the the two set of pics, with and without an aux. telephoto lens, so people could compare the results

I picked up a set of aux lenses just to see what they could do. The Nikon DSLR was set to auto. I'm uncertain if an aux telephoto lens can be improved any using manual settings. When I'm out on the ocean again I'll perhaps give it another try in manual mode as an experiment to see if the telephoto lens is of any use at all with my Nikon 55-200mm lens.

I remember one person stating that telephoto aux lenses weren't originally designed to be use with SLR and DSLR cameras and lenses, their original design is for use with cameras that have stationary lenses such as various point and shoot cameras. In the past many of the aux lenses were made for specific camera(s) using a stationary lens.

Then they started manufacturing more of the universal sets fitting specific filter sizes. If any actually work with any SLR or DSLR's with a certain lens I'm uncertain.

For my DSLR and Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens
the aux. telephoto has been totally useless.

I have another telephoto lens that fits 58mm filters. When my Sigma lens that uses 58mm filters arrives I'll give that one a try also. I don't have faith that any of these aux. lenses work at all, perhaps with more specific lens optics, etc.?

PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 7,444
Re: Agree +1

Guidenet wrote:

I completely agree. Stay away from those eBay bundles where there put all lthat junk together to make it seem like you're getting more than you are. They also usually include useless tripods that don't work well and other things of mnimal to no value. I'd stick with:

B&H http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

Adorama http://www.adorama.com/

Midwest Photo http://mpex.com/

These three all have steller ratings and are real photo stores. Amazon is also good, but I prefer real camera stores.

A 14mm UWA was my favorite lens on FF and the biggest loss on my fixed lens bridges.

So in an attempt to get my 14mm-EFL again I have bought DOZENS of the (cheap) adapters from eBay.  They were ALL junk.  (Did I say JUNK !!!)

Most did NOT even provide the promised .5-.43 etc. But instead only have a fuzxy-BLUR.  (Did I say JUNK !!!)

Finally I got a ($80) Raynox 3060 (.3X w/62mm threads) and it worked acceptably well, but it did have fuzzy edges, (actually a nice "effect"). Note that since it was .3X I did not have to use full-WA and thus could use the "sharper" portion.

Then I got a ($300) Raynox 5072, (.5X w/ 72mm threads), and I have to say it is excellent and I can use the entire lens to get 25/.5=12.5mm-EFL.

It is certainly (probably) not as sharp as a dedicated UWA but appears to be and totally acceptable.

Note that I have printed & sold 24"x36" posters from both the 3062 & 5072.

But i can't recommend anything from eBay, unless it is indeed one of the Raynox, (because there was once the $300 5072 for a "buy-it-now" of $100).

petrochemist Senior Member • Posts: 1,285
Re: what do 2x telephoto zoom/ 0.45x wide angle 52mm filters for the 18-55mm lenses do?

As others have said the quality is generally appalling.

With todays digital cameras cropping the image tends to work better than even moderately good rear mounted teleconverters, AFAIK there aren't any front mounted ones that are worth the effort of screwing on.

Wide angle adapters are a little more variable - the cheap ones are generally just about worth the postage (as most are post free these days). There are some higher quality versions around. I have an Olympus 0.8x model that works well enough but is somewhat bulky/heavy and doesn't do a lot to the FOV.

Frequently stitching images works better to increase the FOV.

There is a cheap (~£50) but reasonably good third party MF fisheye available now for MFT. It's possible to defish the images this creates and get close to an UWA result. Image quality certain beats most of the WA adapters.

There are also 3rd party MF UW lenses available which are moderately affordable (my used 10mm 2.8 was cheaper than usual as the ad didn't list the mount!)

 petrochemist's gear list:petrochemist's gear list
Pentax K100D Sigma SD14 Pentax K-7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 +13 more
albert01 Regular Member • Posts: 105
Re: what do 2x telephoto zoom/ 0.45x wide angle 52mm filters for the 18-55mm lenses do?

The closest camera store in my areas is over 125 miles away. For some reason the two closest towns around ~30 miles in opposite directions have no camera stores. I guess perhaps because one is still a logging town, the other more or less was a small logging town that grew and now has a Home Depot, Walmart, etc. Is mostly now a shipping port, does still have some logging industry. Weyerhaeuser use to have a logging mill here but recently closed up. Where I reside out next to the ocean it's mostly cranberry farms, crabbers and commercial fishing. For a long time the area didn't even have a auto parts store until a Napa recently opened up approx. 10 miles away.

Anyway I do alot of shopping online and have purchased camera equipment from online camera stores such as https://robertscamera.com/ and others.

eBay sometimes has good deals on used and new cameras and lenses. Purchased a brand new Nikon lens that normally retails on sale for $150.00 for $100.00 (best offer)

Found a couple of aux. lenses for a few bucks, just to see the results of using an aux. telephoto lens.

Below is a pic of a new one found for $4.99 incl. shipping. Made from metal. Packaging says "Used for HD Video and Camera Recording" Apparently designed more for video recorders than a SLR or DSLR lens.

Another set picked up from Camera Trader for $3.00 (6.73 shipping) . Opteka brand made in China. Fairly heavy, made from metal, the wide angle has a macro lens that separates from the wide angle.

I think these aux. lenses are made more for video cameras with stationary lenses. Video cameras often don't have a removable lens so the photographer is left to the zoom and wide angle capabilities of a stationary lens and camera.

albert01 Regular Member • Posts: 105
Re: what do 2x telephoto zoom/ 0.45x wide angle 52mm filters for the 18-55mm lenses do?

I just picked up a Vivitar teleconverter 2x-3 that fits between the camera's body and lens, for $15.00 incl. shipping.

I'm still looking around at telephoto lenses that range in price used from around ~$75.00 to over ~$26,000.00.

To get 400mm and higher a teleconverter going to help but not the same as an actual telephoto lens that mounts directly on the camera.

I'll tryout the teleconverter to see what difference it makes. Yes cropping works better than an inexpensive aux. lens attachment. However If your shooting from hundreds of yards to over a mile I don't think cropping is going to work well, where you need either closer or using a longer lens.

I was able to get a little bit closer to some snowy plovers, until they realized I was a human in a vehicle, they then flew and stayed 100 - 200 yards away, near the waters edge feeding from ocean waves.

Cropped photo Snowy Plover (original photo no touch up)

Snowy plovers feast on beetles, flies, marine worms, crabs, clams, sand hoppers, seeds, and aquatic insects.

Many sandy beaches are open to vehicles that drive into the sand dunes. Some beaches are raked to make them attractive to humans and beach grasses are planted to control beach erosion. As a result, plovers' breeding numbers have decreased as their beach habitats and breeding areas are used for fun and recreation.

Near where I reside their breading areas of the sand dunes and grasses are closed to humans during their breeding season.

Caught this gull, difficult to both focus and shoot as was wind & air gliding fairly fast horizontally left to right. Apparently searching for food and enjoying the good weather at the same time.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads