Anybody here use AUX lenses?

jadedrakerider · 07-01-2015, 01:23 PM

I'm shopping around for some AUX lenses. I have an old 28mm Vivitar lens and I'd like to do a little more with it. However, on my k10D, the crop factor takes a bit of the fun out of it. I've seen these ~0.5x (specifically the brand Neewer's 0.45x). Obviously I'd prefer to buy a fisheye lens, but I can't really justify the expense for something to play around with. One of these AUX lenses would give me an effective focal length of 12.5mm.

I was wondering if anybody had any any experience with these AUX lenses and could give me any recommendations.

Also I'd prefer to get one where the edges of the filter aren't visible. I may be fine with getting one with a 52mm thread since the lens was designed for 35mm, but I don't have the ability to try it out.

Any suggestions of guidance? I'd really like to pick one up in time for the 4th of July.

Edit:
I'm really not expecting high quality here. These converters really don't have a very good reputation, however I thought it'd be fun to play with.

Last edited by jadedrakerider; 07-01-2015 at 01:53 PM.

narual · 07-01-2015, 02:45 PM

They're better than nothing, and they can be fun to play with. I had one for a while for my old 18-200 lens on my nikon, til I bought a 10-20mm sigma for it. It's handy if you're trying to get a snapshot quality image of a group of people and you can't get far enough back for the width of your lens.

If you wanted something that has the best quality you're going to manage in such a device, maybe Raynox' offering would work. I'm just guessing on that, based on their add-on macro lenses' reputations.

---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 05:47 PM ----------

(And in less than 24 hours, someone will be here talking about how wonderful Microsoft ICE is and why you should just take multiple shots and stitch them together instead of ever considering such a horrible device)

LensBeginner · 07-01-2015, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by narual

They're better than nothing, and they can be fun to play with. I had one for a while for my old 18-200 lens on my nikon, til I bought a 10-20mm sigma for it. It's handy if you're trying to get a snapshot quality image of a group of people and you can't get far enough back for the width of your lens.

If you wanted something that has the best quality you're going to manage in such a device, maybe Raynox' offering would work. I'm just guessing on that, based on their add-on macro lenses' reputations.

---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 05:47 PM ----------

(And in less than 24 hours, someone will be here talking about how wonderful Microsoft ICE is and why you should just take multiple shots and stitch them together instead of ever considering such a horrible device)

No! Never!
I once stitched a massive group (FIVE vertical pics at 18mm!!!) out of necessity and it was a nightmare! A nightmare, I'm telling you! arms raised, heads turned, friggin' people moving around, lost hours with masks and brushes.
The horror... the horror...

VoiceOfReason · 07-01-2015, 05:05 PM - **2 Likes**

Hey, you should use Microsoft and then throw ice at your computer after printing the pics and using a needle and thread to stitch them together. Or save a bit and get an UWA lens.

Zav · 07-02-2015, 04:12 AM

They can be useful for "creative" purposes. But not for the quality of the image.
For ex a wide angle converter made for bridges on a 20mm lens.

**RKKS08** · 07-02-2015, 07:29 AM

Couple of years ago, I bought a tele version (Sony), after reading the suggestions from RioRico.
Like he said, there is nearly no degradation if IQ, and F-stop stays as set from the lens.

However, it is very big and heavy. I tried it also with my Lumix DMC-LX3, and here also the results are very good. But as it is bigger and heavier than the camera, it does not get any real use. Leaving my home with the LX3 means I don't want to carry too much weight with me.

Because of these positive results with the tele converter, I gave it a try with the WA version (also Sony, from the same series).
My hopes to get equally good results converting my very good Tokina 2.8/24 (the extremely rare KA version) to a 2.8/18mm prime, were not fulfilled.
Vignetting is so strong that the usable area is about what the lens without converter delivers. And at a cost of really strong distortion.

There may exist such AUX which are usable, but I would not invest much money without getting a recommendation from someone who tried it. And tried it with the same lenses you intend to use.

narual · 07-04-2015, 07:03 AM

I'm pretty sure they're not intended to make a wide angle into an ultra wide, but to make a normal into a wide angle. I'd have thought it would work with a FF lens on a crop body without vignetting significantly though.

**RKKS08** · 07-05-2015, 01:03 PM

@narual
You are right, but I hoped it would still be usable, because of the cropping the conversion is only like 0.7x converting a 36mm lens on FF, as the outer parts of the picture are not used. On FF, where they are used, the result could be called ultra wide, on APS-C not exactly so,

Well, I got the AUX cheap, and I am sure it will re-sell for the same price.

EDIT:
I forgot to mention, that also the distance between the front glass of then lens and the rear glass of the converter will influence vignetting, and probably also distortion.
And you will nearly always need step rings to adapt the filter diameter of the lens to the rear diameter of the converter. So the distance will depend, and be different for each lens.

jeallen01 · 07-10-2015, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by RKKS08

Couple of years ago, I bought a tele version (Sony), after reading the suggestions from RioRico.
Like he said, there is nearly no degradation if IQ, and F-stop stays as set from the lens.

However, it is very big and heavy. I tried it also with my Lumix DMC-LX3, and here also the results are very good. But as it is bigger and heavier than the camera, it does not get any real use. Leaving my home with the LX3 means I don't want to carry too much weight with me.

Because of these positive results with the tele converter, I gave it a try with the WA version (also Sony, from the same series).
My hopes to get equally good results converting my very good Tokina 2.8/24 (the extremely rare KA version) to a 2.8/18mm prime, were not fulfilled.
Vignetting is so strong that the usable area is about what the lens without converter delivers. And at a cost of really strong distortion.

There may exist such AUX which are usable, but I would not invest much money without getting a recommendation from someone who tried it. And tried it with the same lenses you intend to use.

Similar issues with a Canon W/A AUX lens for a CANON P&S, and a Digital King 0.7 W/A converter!

07-01-2015, 01:23 PM	#1
jadedrakerider Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Mohave Valley, AZ Photos: Gallery Posts: 214	Anybody here use AUX lenses? I'm shopping around for some AUX lenses. I have an old 28mm Vivitar lens and I'd like to do a little more with it. However, on my k10D, the crop factor takes a bit of the fun out of it. I've seen these ~0.5x (specifically the brand Neewer's 0.45x). Obviously I'd prefer to buy a fisheye lens, but I can't really justify the expense for something to play around with. One of these AUX lenses would give me an effective focal length of 12.5mm. I was wondering if anybody had any any experience with these AUX lenses and could give me any recommendations. Also I'd prefer to get one where the edges of the filter aren't visible. I may be fine with getting one with a 52mm thread since the lens was designed for 35mm, but I don't have the ability to try it out. Any suggestions of guidance? I'd really like to pick one up in time for the 4th of July. Edit: I'm really not expecting high quality here. These converters really don't have a very good reputation, however I thought it'd be fun to play with. Last edited by jadedrakerider; 07-01-2015 at 01:53 PM.

07-05-2015, 01:03 PM	#8
RKKS08 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241	@narual You are right, but I hoped it would still be usable, because of the cropping the conversion is only like 0.7x converting a 36mm lens on FF, as the outer parts of the picture are not used. On FF, where they are used, the result could be called ultra wide, on APS-C not exactly so, Well, I got the AUX cheap, and I am sure it will re-sell for the same price. EDIT: I forgot to mention, that also the distance between the front glass of then lens and the rear glass of the converter will influence vignetting, and probably also distortion. And you will nearly always need step rings to adapt the filter diameter of the lens to the rear diameter of the converter. So the distance will depend, and be different for each lens. Last edited by RKKS08; 07-05-2015 at 01:11 PM. Reason: Info added

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anybody use a JTL LM-8 Light Meter?	Joe Dusel	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	3	03-25-2015 08:36 PM
Macro Anybody use a Promaster Macro Focusing Rail?	bladerunner6	Photographic Technique	7	12-26-2014 03:05 PM
razors, anybody use?	condor27596	General Talk	23	11-05-2014 09:03 PM
Anybody use Photo Mechanic?	Fat Albert	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	10-15-2014 10:42 AM
Anybody around here use a ZX-M?	heatherslightbox	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	20	03-16-2009 05:17 PM

07-01-2015, 02:45 PM	#2
narual Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,988	They're better than nothing, and they can be fun to play with. I had one for a while for my old 18-200 lens on my nikon, til I bought a 10-20mm sigma for it. It's handy if you're trying to get a snapshot quality image of a group of people and you can't get far enough back for the width of your lens. If you wanted something that has the best quality you're going to manage in such a device, maybe Raynox' offering would work. I'm just guessing on that, based on their add-on macro lenses' reputations. ---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 05:47 PM ---------- (And in less than 24 hours, someone will be here talking about how wonderful Microsoft ICE is and why you should just take multiple shots and stitch them together instead of ever considering such a horrible device)

07-01-2015, 03:29 PM	#3
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by narual They're better than nothing, and they can be fun to play with. I had one for a while for my old 18-200 lens on my nikon, til I bought a 10-20mm sigma for it. It's handy if you're trying to get a snapshot quality image of a group of people and you can't get far enough back for the width of your lens. If you wanted something that has the best quality you're going to manage in such a device, maybe Raynox' offering would work. I'm just guessing on that, based on their add-on macro lenses' reputations. ---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 05:47 PM ---------- (And in less than 24 hours, someone will be here talking about how wonderful Microsoft ICE is and why you should just take multiple shots and stitch them together instead of ever considering such a horrible device) No! Never! I once stitched a massive group (FIVE vertical pics at 18mm!!!) out of necessity and it was a nightmare! A nightmare, I'm telling you! arms raised, heads turned, friggin' people moving around, lost hours with masks and brushes. The horror... the horror...

07-01-2015, 05:05 PM - 2 Likes	#4
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Hey, you should use Microsoft and then throw ice at your computer after printing the pics and using a needle and thread to stitch them together. Or save a bit and get an UWA lens.

07-02-2015, 04:12 AM	#5
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	They can be useful for "creative" purposes. But not for the quality of the image. For ex a wide angle converter made for bridges on a 20mm lens.

07-02-2015, 07:29 AM	#6
RKKS08 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241	Couple of years ago, I bought a tele version (Sony), after reading the suggestions from RioRico. Like he said, there is nearly no degradation if IQ, and F-stop stays as set from the lens. However, it is very big and heavy. I tried it also with my Lumix DMC-LX3, and here also the results are very good. But as it is bigger and heavier than the camera, it does not get any real use. Leaving my home with the LX3 means I don't want to carry too much weight with me. Because of these positive results with the tele converter, I gave it a try with the WA version (also Sony, from the same series). My hopes to get equally good results converting my very good Tokina 2.8/24 (the extremely rare KA version) to a 2.8/18mm prime, were not fulfilled. Vignetting is so strong that the usable area is about what the lens without converter delivers. And at a cost of really strong distortion. There may exist such AUX which are usable, but I would not invest much money without getting a recommendation from someone who tried it. And tried it with the same lenses you intend to use.

07-04-2015, 07:03 AM	#7
narual Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,988	I'm pretty sure they're not intended to make a wide angle into an ultra wide, but to make a normal into a wide angle. I'd have thought it would work with a FF lens on a crop body without vignetting significantly though.

07-10-2015, 01:08 PM	#9
jeallen01 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2008 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,697	Originally posted by RKKS08 Couple of years ago, I bought a tele version (Sony), after reading the suggestions from RioRico. Like he said, there is nearly no degradation if IQ, and F-stop stays as set from the lens. However, it is very big and heavy. I tried it also with my Lumix DMC-LX3, and here also the results are very good. But as it is bigger and heavier than the camera, it does not get any real use. Leaving my home with the LX3 means I don't want to carry too much weight with me. Because of these positive results with the tele converter, I gave it a try with the WA version (also Sony, from the same series). My hopes to get equally good results converting my very good Tokina 2.8/24 (the extremely rare KA version) to a 2.8/18mm prime, were not fulfilled. Vignetting is so strong that the usable area is about what the lens without converter delivers. And at a cost of really strong distortion. There may exist such AUX which are usable, but I would not invest much money without getting a recommendation from someone who tried it. And tried it with the same lenses you intend to use. Similar issues with a Canon W/A AUX lens for a CANON P&S, and a Digital King 0.7 W/A converter!