[billiam]

I recently purchased a K-X (my first dslr), and I'm interested in picking up a one of sub $100 adapters. With so many available, though, it's difficult to choose.

In terms of quality (sharpness, CA) are they all about the same? I know there are some tradeoffs between the $30 - 80 adapters and a dedicated $400-600 lens, of course, but I'd be happy to hear anybody's recommendations (or specific adapters to avoid).

[bdery]

I own the Raynox 6600 pro adapter, that I used at the time I owned a Canon S2. It's surprinsingly good, but then it cost more than most kit lenses. I had researched the subject quite a lot (as had many Canon users at the time) and that one is the best. I'm not using it anymore, though.

[audiobomber]

I recently purchased a K-X (my first dslr), and I'm interested in picking up a one of sub $100 adapters. With so many available, though, it's difficult to choose.

Have you tried the fisheye digital filter in the K-x? Look in the manual, pages 140 and 228.

[Jools]

I recently purchased a K-X (my first dslr), and I'm interested in picking up a one of sub $100 adapters. With so many available, though, it's difficult to choose.

In terms of quality (sharpness, CA) are they all about the same? I know there are some tradeoffs between the $30 - 80 adapters and a dedicated $400-600 lens, of course, but I'd be happy to hear anybody's recommendations (or specific adapters to avoid).

If you are thinking about plunking down $80 for an adapter, why not try a Zenitar 16mm FE. They can be had for about $125-$135mm. Great IQ and it's a lens not an adapter.
It'll be like using a fishy 24mm lens on a dslr body.
Best of luck,

[SpecialK]

I also would vote for the Zenitar over any type of screw-on-the-front conversion lens.

[Turbo_Spool900]

+1 on the Zenitar if you're handy with a set of jewelers tools. The build quality is not always so great, but if you're one of the lucky ones like me you'll have a fantastic fisheye (sharp!) at a very good price.

[Lowell Goudge]

I bs e a bower 0.45x front end adaptor and have used it on my p&S successfully to convert the 36-360 mm equivalent to something wider. But when I use it on my 24 mm lenses off axis the CA is so bad that the images when viewed are more than 4x6 inches they are garbage

Other than snapshots they are worthless IMO

[rgibbons]

I recommend you DON'T buy a fish eye adapter.

I purchased 3 of these, include large expensive ones. They are all blurry around the edges (the place you buy a fish eye to see), and suffer from severe Chromatic aberration. They really only give somewhat sharp pictures at F22.

The Adapters aren't too bad for poor resolution video cameras, and are not bad at turning a normal lens into a wide angle lens. But they are poor at turning a wide angle into an ultra wide fish eye.

If you can't afford a real fish-eye, you might have better results taking several pictures and stitching them together with free software on your computer.

I eventually bought a real 180 degree view lens, and it is a pleasure to work with.

I got the Pro-Optic from Adormama (with "A" setting for Pentax), It is also sold as a Bowers at B&H, and under several other brands, all made by Samyang. It actually has less distortion (better projection in my opinion) than a fish eye (which expands the center, and compresses the edges more).

Ultra wide lenses are great fun, and useful for recording a wide field. I've also used this for 360 panoramas (stitched together on my computer).

It takes a while to get used to envisioning what a scene will look like, before you look through the camera, my brain wasn't used to seeing my feet at the same time as the tree branches overhead.

[Lowell Goudge]

I recommend you DON'T buy a fish eye adapter.

I purchased 3 of these, include large expensive ones. They are all blurry around the edges (the place you buy a fish eye to see), and suffer from severe Chromatic aberration. They really only give somewhat sharp pictures at F22.

The Adapters aren't too bad for poor resolution video cameras, and are not bad at turning a normal lens into a wide angle lens. But they are poor at turning a wide angle into an ultra wide fish eye.

If you can't afford a real fish-eye, you might have better results taking several pictures and stitching them together with free software on your computer.

I eventually bought a real 180 degree view lens, and it is a pleasure to work with.

I got the Pro-Optic from Adormama (with "A" setting for Pentax), It is also sold as a Bowers at B&H, and under several other brands, all made by Samyang. It actually has less distortion (better projection in my opinion) than a fish eye (which expands the center, and compresses the edges more).

Ultra wide lenses are great fun, and useful for recording a wide field. I've also used this for 360 panoramas (stitched together on my computer).

It takes a while to get used to envisioning what a scene will look like, before you look through the camera, my brain wasn't used to seeing my feet at the same time as the tree branches overhead.

+1 on this.

I also have the 8mm Pro-Optic and it is a great lens. All there is is a minor amount of CA (about 1 pixel width on my K10D) if you feel inclined to go looking for it.

As I posted above, the issue is that these are really only good for P&S cameras. I have had no issue there but the P&S is only 36mm focal length equivelent to start, putting this on a 24mm to get really wide is a disappointment. I have even played with different distances from the prime lens, and this did not help.\