Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-15-2010, 11:15 AM   #1
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 41
Are these (see link) royal pieces of dung?

I'm betting the title got your attention.

I am wanting a good fisheye lens. Now I KNOW the more you spend the better the lens, and I KNOW the less you spend, generally, the worse the lens. Thats common sense. Some day I'll drop the big money for a Pentax fisheye. But I haven't had my K-X long, and I already have lot more than I expected invested. (This is certainly an expensive hobby!!!)
So what do you guys think of these type things? Are they 100% useless gimmicks? Do they have any value at all for just "fun photography"?

Obviously I wouldn't use them at a wedding or anything, only for "playing around".

Here's the link:

???FishEye Lens With Macro for PENTAX SLR Cameras ?NEW? - eBay (item 290452628827 end time Jul-16-10 10:10:40 PDT)

Now, there are about 10 million of these on ebay, so I just picked the first one and copy/pasted. You get the general idea.

07-15-2010, 11:30 AM   #2
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
It's not a lens. It screws on to the filter thread of a lens.

Is it going to come near a true fisheye quality lens? No.

Are you going to have a ball using it? Yes.

Will normal human beings notice the difference? Yes AND no.

It is what it is, and for the price, how can you go wrong?
07-15-2010, 12:10 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
There are several answers to your question:
1. it is crap
2. you seem to be set to buy it anyway, knowing it is crap, why not?
3. You get less, then what you pay for, but everybody is entitled to burn his/her money to their own liking

If you are self employed and debt free, you certainly know better, than to buy crap, that seems cheapish, but performs even worse.

Ben
07-15-2010, 12:23 PM   #4
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
Just use the K-x fisheye effect and save the money for quality glass..

07-15-2010, 12:31 PM   #5
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
The kx fisheye filter stinks.
07-15-2010, 12:55 PM   #6
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Alameda, CA
Posts: 3,198
Let me put it diplomatically: IMHO, a $45 ($38 + $7 shipping) piece of cr@p is still piece of cr@p.

My other hobby is woodworking. On one of the WW forums, The RotoZip was voted "the most useless tool in a WW shop." The counterpart of the RotoZip in photography may very well be this "FishEye Lens With Macro."
07-15-2010, 01:19 PM   #7
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
The kx fisheye filter stinks.
Probably as good as that thing... and it's free. I used it one time and went back to regular programming.
07-15-2010, 01:41 PM   #8
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
in my experience they seem to workokon P&S cameras but have serious focus and distortion issues around the edges of the frame on a DSLR, I have one for my P&S to change it from 36-360mm down to 17-170mm (Full Frame equivelent) because 36 mm is not really all that wide

07-15-2010, 01:48 PM   #9
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by SOldBear Quote
Let me put it diplomatically: IMHO, a $45 ($38 + $7 shipping) piece of cr@p is still piece of cr@p.
So a Raynox Macro filter is a piece of crap too, based on its price?

Not to mention that a CLASSIC M42 55 1.8 Super Tak sells for around $25 to $35?

I GUARANTEE you that if 50 of us here bought this thing and posted photos with it, most wouldn't look like crap at all.

You're way off base by just looking at the price of the thing,
07-15-2010, 01:50 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by VaughnA Quote
Probably as good as that thing... and it's free. I used it one time and went back to regular programming.
The K-x fisheye filter is not for photography, but it's good to give some laughs for friend and family
07-15-2010, 01:57 PM   #11
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Alameda, CA
Posts: 3,198
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
So a Raynox Macro filter is a piece of crap too, based on its price?

Not to mention that a CLASSIC M42 55 1.8 Super Tak sells for around $25 to $35?

I GUARANTEE you that if 50 of us here bought this thing and posted photos with it, most wouldn't look like crap at all.

You're way off base by just looking at the price of the thing,
Not sure who's off-base here....

Did I say it was a piece of cr@p solely because of its price? I was just saying that a waste of $45 would still be a waste. If this "FishEye Lens With Macro" were $1300 (the most I've ever sold a lens for), it would still be a piece of cr@p, and a bigger one at that.

Since you brought up the Raynox - no, it's not a piece of crap at all. Here's from a Raynox 250 + DA* 60-250:


Last edited by SOldBear; 07-15-2010 at 02:09 PM.
07-15-2010, 02:00 PM   #12
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
So a Raynox Macro filter is a piece of crap too, based on its price?

Not to mention that a CLASSIC M42 55 1.8 Super Tak sells for around $25 to $35?

I GUARANTEE you that if 50 of us here bought this thing and posted photos with it, most wouldn't look like crap at all.

You're way off base by just looking at the price of the thing,
Your CLASSIC Super Tak is only an old, secondhand lens. Not exactly the real comparisson base, too. It certainly is good value for people who prefer to work slowly with manual focus, manual exposure, manual aperture settings. Though I symphathize to a degree I prefer an A or FA 50mm over it at any time and that is a dozent times more expensive.

The Raynox macro lenses are a piece of…, well, at least nothing to rave about, but still better, than those fishy screw-in lenses. I have tried one in the past (a much more expensive one), and though the center of the image (mounted to a 50mm standard lens) was acceptably sharp, everything else was unuseable: low contrast, colour fringing, haloing - you name all the aberrations.

Ben
07-15-2010, 02:02 PM   #13
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
in my experience they seem to workokon P&S cameras but have serious focus and distortion issues around the edges of the frame on a DSLR, I have one for my P&S to change it from 36-360mm down to 17-170mm (Full Frame equivelent) because 36 mm is not really all that wide
I still have my old Canon G5 with the dedicated Canon wide-angle adapter. This combo is not bad (though the distortion is heavy), but that lens is big, heavy and very expensive - so just another example of: you get, what you pay for.

Ben
07-15-2010, 02:09 PM   #14
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
I stand by my above statement:

Distribute this thing to 50 of us, and you will see some amazing photos as a result.
07-15-2010, 06:43 PM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,915
QuoteQuote:
So a Raynox Macro filter is a piece of crap too, based on its price?

Not to mention that a CLASSIC M42 55 1.8 Super Tak sells for around $25 to $35?

I GUARANTEE you that if 50 of us here bought this thing and posted photos with it, most wouldn't look like crap at all.

You're way off base by just looking at the price of the thing,
I think he meant crap is crap at any price - not that anything costing $45 is crap. I do agree the OP might have fun for the first photo outing. After that, eh...I have not had great experiences with screw-on-the-front things, at least on P&S's.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, ebay, fisheye, lens, link, pentax, pentax help, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macro Yellow dung fly (Vivitar 55/2.8 1:1 macro + macro flash diffuser) Rense Post Your Photos! 15 04-15-2010 06:53 AM
Royal Gramma Timtast1c Post Your Photos! 1 07-10-2009 11:12 AM
Two royal terns pingflood Post Your Photos! 2 06-27-2009 06:24 PM
Royal Academy Reflected paulyrichard Post Your Photos! 12 05-23-2009 07:16 AM
The Royal Palace drmartin Monthly Photo Contests 0 02-13-2009 07:25 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top