[bdery]

I've owned a Raynox 0,66x wide converter since the days of my Canon S2. I recently realized it has the same 52 mm thread as my DA 18-55 WR. I decided to try pairing both lenses to see how that works (delivering a 12 mm setup). for the record, the Raynox is about 100$, and is probably the highest-quality converter of this type out there.

The results are not amazing, but quite usable. The setup vignettes a bit at wide apertures at 18 mm, all the vignetting is gone at 20 mm (about 13 "equivalent"...) Sharpness is also better when I'm not at the widest position.

The setup is quite sharp in the center, less so in the corners. Sharpness improves a lot when I close the aperture. It's not ideal, but considering I have no plans to get an ultra-wide lens, this can help in a pinch.

Examples (both at f8, first at 18 mm, second at "12 mm"):

Attached Images

   

[elho_cid]

I assume it gives you a taste of what the WA lens could produce if you decided to buy one. But judging from the example, nothing more probably.

[bdery]

It's not that bad, really. As I said vignetting is gone if I "zoom" to 20 mm, yielding a 13 mm FOV. I should post an example of that. But it's not that bad, even though it's not amazing.

[VaSA]

How come there is no door on the right in the first pic and then there is a door in the 2nd pic?

[ytterbium]

Interesting. I'd like to see some more shots. Something with sun and bright, contrasty stuff. Wide open and heavy stopped down (~f11..16, at f22 the kit lens gets fuzzy by diffraction).

How AF acts with this adapter? Does it work at all, is it slow/hunting/erroneous?

What might be the problem in here, that you cant get completely rid of unsharpness. Even when stopping down a lot.
E.g. besides the vignetting, at the top of the second shot the books are completely smeared, and this is in a very reduced size image.

I dont know the price of adapter. Probably it has some very limited uses. I'd see it as some near range action/reportage lens where capturing feeling of the event is more important than absolute quality - as it would be with landscapes. If it's anywhere near 100$, i'd better look at zenitar 16 or something similar.
And with landscapes, in most case it's not a problem to stack multiple images for wider view.

How come there is no door on the right in the first pic and then there is a door in the 2nd pic?

I think some UWA's can even distort reality. I believe the door is open and you can see what's behind them.

[Lowell Goudge]

I have a .45x front end converter that I use on my modal bridge camera

I tried it on my tamron 24 mm and also my Kiron (vivitar) 24mm and was unimpressed

Aside from barrel distortion which I could accept was lateral separation of colors at the edges and all loss of sharpness

I think most of these converters, while OK on a bridge camera are really only ok for snapshots (ie 4x6 prints)

[RioRico]

I think most of these converters, while OK on a bridge camera are really only ok for snapshots (ie 4x6 prints)

Oh, they're fine for large prints too. Just don't expect the results to be very photographic. I used an Ambico 0.5x camcorder widener quite a bit on a 5mpx Sony DSC-P10 P&S for high-contrast posterizations and to otherwise provide fodder for the shooping machine. Yeah, they usually took a lot of PP work...

[bdery]

Good advice on the posts above. I'll try to setup a more formal test with a more contrasty scene.

the door was closed because the bottom of the wardrobe was clearly in the out of focus range, and it would have messed things up even more.

Regarding the quality of the converter, it's of a much higher quality than the 0.45x you find on some online auctions. Quality with the S2 was amazing, actually, you would have been hard-pressed to determine if it was on or not (except for the FOV...).

AF was quite ok. Not really slower that I could tell, and no problems focusing across the frame.

I dont know the price of adapter. Probably it has some very limited uses. I'd see it as some near range action/reportage lens where capturing feeling of the event is more important than absolute quality - as it would be with landscapes. If it's anywhere near 100$, i'd better look at zenitar 16 or something similar.

Correct. The converter was about 100$ indeed. I'm not saying everyone should buy it, I'm saying if someone has it, it could be a "patched solution".

I'll run tests at 20 mm, f8, with a contrasty scene. That will still yield a 13 mm eq FOV.

[JoepLX3]

I will follow this thread, might be a cheap "workaround..."
- Key is acceptable IQ and so on at an non extreme UWA, but of course still significantly wider than the kit lens.

[urje]

Related to this, I got myself a cheap 300mm mirror lens some time ago, with the idea that it might come in handy some day. But the test shots I made, made me realise that I would never want to use a shot of it for anything serious, so it was rather useless. It seems to me that with this UWA adapter, the softness in the corners would prohibit me from ever screwing it on. Of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't work for anyone else, but I'd much rather try some stitching if I really need the angle of view.

[mattb123]

I have one of those that I got for my old S3 years ago and I also tried it on the K-x kit lens when I noticed it would fit. It's pretty distorted and I've since gotten myself a DA15 which I love. I took this shot last winter with the 18-55 & .66x Raynox which I still like, distortion and all. I think it adds to the surreal feeling of the scene.

[urje]

that's a great picture indeed!

[Pentaxor]

I wonder how this would work with either DA12-24 or Sigma 8-16.

I wouldn't expect much from the rendering of the 18-55 compared to those 2 lenses. also the distortion of the kitlens at 18mm is magnified much further by the wide converter. same with the Sigma which has a higher distortion but better resolution than the kitlens. so it would be interesting to see how this would turn out.

I expect some serious vignetting so there is a potentiality that the image would either be cropped or stopped down to some extent. but if it would gain you an additional 5mm or 3mm (cropped), that's a lot of area covered. 6mm would become 1mm equivalent and 12mm becomes 7mm.

[bdery]

I wonder how this would work with either DA12-24 or Sigma 8-16.

Do they have 52 mm front filter threads?

I'll try to run the tests tonight or this weekend, I'm a bit busy right now.

[mattb123]

I was considering getting an adapter ring to go from 49 to 52mm to try the Raynox on my DA15 just for fun. But I suspect the hood of the DA15 would get in the way and I don't want to waste money on a project I couldn't complete.