[jlaubza]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Good day, does anyone know of a wide angle adapter screw on lens that can be used on the 18-55mm kit lens?

There are some advertised on Amazon but I can't find images taken with these screw on adapters. I've seen 0.5x adapters advertised but I expect too much distortion from these. A 0.7x adapter seems like the right value.

Thanks.

[elliott]

I've never seen one worth the money, one that is good would not be cheap. Once you get into the price of a good one you are better off getting an actual dedicated lens. A Raynox screw on adapter is just over $200, I know they make a good macro converter so it might be decent. You could buy a Russian made Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fisheye and have a much better end result for roughly the same cost. It would have distortion, but probably not any worse than that 0.7x adapter.

[Adam]

I wouldn't bother- WA adapters are pretty bad and really only meant for cameras that don't have interchangeable lenses. If you want more reach, try looking for a cheap fisheye like the zenitar.

[p38arover]

Good day, does anyone know of a wide angle adapter screw on lens that can be used on the 18-55mm kit lens?

There are some advertised on Amazon but I can't find images taken with these screw on adapters. I've seen 0.5x adapters advertised but I expect too much distortion from these. A 0.7x adapter seems like the right value.

Thanks.

I'll post some pics later tonight. I got suckered with one of these at a Singapore camera shop. The distortion and CA is pretty bad. To make it worse, the shop charged me about 3 times the going rate elsewhere in Singapore. I'd never recommend that shop to anyone.

[jlaubza]

Thanks to all who responded, every comment is helpful. It looks like a consensus that screw on adapters are a waste of money. I wonder why manufacturers don't make some that work? It shouldn't take rocket science to tailor such a lens.

I cant face the cost of a dedicated WA lens when I use it once in a blue moon. Back to pano shots and the stiching software.

[TaoMaas]

I wonder why manufacturers don't make some that work? It shouldn't take rocket science to tailor such a lens.

They do make adapters that work. Century Precision Optics makes great adapters and they're used by videographers worldwide. But if you go to B&H and check the prices, you'll see what folks are trying to tell you...to get a good adapter, you can spend as much or more than buying a wide angle lens. The reason they are used in videography, as opposed to still photography, is because of the cost of zooms for good video cameras. Zoom lenses can roughly cost anywhere from $5000 to $20,000. So if you buy a $1000 adapter to add a few more degrees of wide-angle to that expensive zoom, it's not such a bad deal.

[Lowell Goudge]

One thing to consider is that much of the issue with thenWA adapters is the distortion and lateral CA

These are fixable to an extent and greatly improve the results. If you have the time and patience to work out a lens profile the results can be much better, and useable, but still not as good as a good WA lens

[GibbyTheMole]

My wife has an Ambico V-0310 screw-on adapter that is actually pretty decent. If you're gonna get one, that would be the one I would recommend, as long as you're looking for a fisheye effect along with the wider angle. It does a pretty good job, and it's usually cheap. She uses it on her 18-55 for a budget "fisheye zoom".

Here's one for sale, by the way.

[Odinz]

I tried a couple of screw on tele and wide angle adapters back in the day and never really found a wide angle one that was really worth it. I use to have one that was fairly good (at least it seemed so at the time) that I tried with some of my older lenses on film cameras (pre 'pixel peeking) to achieve a super wide fish-eye effect. When I got the K10D I stuck it on the front of the 18-55 (my first 'plastic' lens) and the weight of the thing really got me worrying that I would damage the gears of the lens. It worked, but once I looked at the resulting photos, the visual quality just wasn't there so I got rid of it. I imagine that the newer ones are lighter and have better coatings, but as the others have stated I doubt that you would be as happy with the results as you would be with a dedicated lens.

[nanhi]

JLAUBZA Sir, please don't get disheartened by the replies here. It is true that 90% of them sold on amazon or evilbay are crap. But there are some really good ones out there at a decent price. Here is my situation: a) I use fish eye / Super WA may be 2-3 times in a year, b) I am just a good amateur photographer, c) I am not very rich, d) I am not a pixel peeper. If required I PP these photos to about perfection. So why invest in a dedicated lens?? And you are right about 0.7x WA effect as being a perfevt solution. Anyway, all those claims about 0.43x blah blah is crap.
Please look for a decent set of a yashica Yashinon WA + Tele set on evilbay. They cost $ 15 - 30 with case, and comes in 55 mm filter mount. Buy a $ 1.70 55 to 52 mm step down ring for your kit lens and you are all set to go for a great experience.
Here is a sample photo from my backyard using the cheaper Vivitar 72 mm (claimed 0.43x WA) on a Tamron 28-75 lens. Reduced in size from 12 MB.
I do not have the Yashica sample at the moment, but it is much better.
Regards. Nanhi.
camp: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada.

[elliott]

Here is a sample photo from my backyard using the cheaper Vivitar 72 mm (claimed 0.43x WA) on a Tamron 28-75 lens. Reduced in size from 12 MB.

Considering how much must be cropped out to get a normal looking image with acceptable edges, is it really that much wider than 28mm? I'd like to see a comparison between the lens with the adapter and without.

[p38arover]

I'll post some pics later tonight. I got suckered with one of these at a Singapore camera shop. The distortion and CA is pretty bad. To make it worse, the shop charged me about 3 times the going rate elsewhere in Singapore. I'd never recommend that shop to anyone.

To follow up on my earlier post, here's what I wrote on another forum:

On my last trip to Singapore, I got suckered into buying a screw-on wide angle/macro lens (2-part) attachment to fit my Sigma DC 18-200mm lens. To make it worse, I paid far too much as I found when I saw the lens elsewhere in Singapore, i.e., for 1/3rd what I paid.

After I got back to Oz, I found the camera store in Chinatown had been mentioned on a photography forum for ripping off customers.

This is the type:



All I can say is that the lens may be OK for small prints/snap shots but don't try to enlarge them. Don't waste your money.

Here are some sample pics. Note the CA and how it is out of focus around the edges. Note that these pics have not had any post processing.

With wide angle:

Lennox's Horseshoe Bridge at Mitchell's Pass, Lapstone, opened 1833





Macro: note the edges.

Lichen

[vonBaloney]

I have a Canon WC-DC58N 0.7x converter designed for a Canon compact -- it has 58mm threads and is of surprisingly good quality on DSLR lenses. With any of these front adapters, results can vary widely depending on what base lens you put it on. I've used mine on 24mm and 28mm base lenses to good effect.

I also have the matching Canon 1.75x front converter which I've tried on a few longer lenses, but it seems to turn them all into purple fringing monsters...

[p38arover]

Von, I'll see if it fits any of my other lenses and, if it does, try some more shots.

[nanhi]

Considering how much must be cropped out to get a normal looking image with acceptable edges, is it really that much wider than 28mm? I'd like to see a comparison between the lens with the adapter and without.

Elliot Sir, your point is well appreciated. Just that I am 1000s of mile away from Bangalore and do not have a tripod to carry out controlled tests from the same spot with and without the Aux WA lens. Anyhow I will try as soon as we get some sunshine here. Also I do not have the Yashica Aux WA Lens with me now.
But we were discussing quality of the photos and not how much wider the shots were. I mentioned that the claimed 0.43x or 0.5x wideness were crap. Edge sharpness will definitely be terrible with these auxiliary lenses + some CA, except on the Yashica Aux WA + Tele set, which is an excellent buy.
Here are two more samples with my Vivitar $ 20 72 mm Aux WA + the Tamron 28-75.
Considering it is a "poor man's" lens, it is passable as a fun attachment, maybe a life saver for those rare occasions - what say you Elliot Sir - passable?? File sizes reduced from some 12 MB each.
Regards. Nanhi
Camp: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada.