Steve'sDigicams

NHL · Jan 14, 2003, 8:30 PM

Sorry hearing about your experiment... Any wide attachment will vignette. Point final!

However some are more useable than other, the Olympus A28 for one:

Quote:

Anyway, I did a set of test images with both the A28 and the A200. The images are stored in http://www.sophie.org.uk/lenstest/ as 1:2 decimations of the original camera images. This is what they are:

4077: Camera with Kenko filter, 28mm
4078: Camera with Kenko filter, 200mm
4079: Camera with A28, 28mm
4080: Camera with A28, 35mm
4081: Camera with A28, 50mm
4082: Camera with A28, 100mm
4083: Camera with A28, 150mm
4084: Camera with A28, 200mm
4085: Camera with A200, 100mm
4086: Camera with A200, 150mm
4087: Camera with A200, 200mm
4088: Camera with Kenko filter with A200, 100mm
4089: Camera with Kenko filter with A200, 150mm
4090: Camera with Kenko filter with A200, 200mm

monsieurms · Jan 14, 2003, 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHL

Sorry hearing about your experiment... Any wide attachment will vignette. Point final!

That means to me--why bother? By the time it gets to the point where it is wider than the included 28mm, it vignettes and becomes useless.

What exactly would anyone buy these lenses for?

NHL · Jan 14, 2003, 8:39 PM

The Oly A28 is acceptable if you look @ her examples. I think I can live with that...

Sorry!

lg · Jan 15, 2003, 2:06 PM

I use an Olympus WCON-08E(aka A28?) .8x wide angle lens on my 38mm camera, and there is no vignetting. This makes mine only equivalent to a 30.4mm lens, which is still not as wide as your camera's lens. I've taken really sharp and clear images with this lens. You may get some vignetting using it on the wider angle 28mm lens, but I think it may be your best option.

Wider angle lenses, in addition to vignetting will give you parallax distortion (sort of a wrap around view), which you may find undesirable. This is common for lenses wider than 28mm. I wouldn't go any wider than a .8x converter for that reason. This is another point you might want to consider.

monsieurms · Jan 15, 2003, 2:30 PM

Yes, well this is the problem. If I had only a 35 or 40 lens in the first place, I'd be getting better results. But I can go down to 28mm naturally with no add ons. The Oly lens showed only minor vignetting at 28mm. Not bad! But OTOH it doesn't do a lot for me. It achieves only minor vignetting by not taking me very wide. It doesn't get me down much farther than my normal lens. Probably gets down to around a 24mm equivalent. It's almost not worth the hassle to switch lense for another few mms. It is just not enough difference--and at its extreme even it vignettes a little.

I feel like to justify the aggravation and get something materially different than what I've got, I'd need to get down to a super wide 20mm--which is what I used to love with my film camera. That evidently seems impossible without vignetting at which point....I guess I give up. :shock:

DeMorcan · Jan 15, 2003, 10:07 PM

Actually the difference between 24mm and 28mm is pretty significant. This is 14% better. But, it is not what you want. I came to digital from large format cameras. Digital cameras just do not compare on WA scenics. But not all of this is the lens. A WA photo contains more details. A 5mp CCD is not big enough to do well with the extra details. It depends on the scene, but even an 11mp camera has some problem with the WA. Although with the 11mp it may be because it shows too much detail. It takes some planning with digital cameras to take photos within their capabilities. But if you are unhappy with the WA capabilities of that dimage, you may send it to me anytime you desire. I would hate to see you being fustrated by having it around.

lg · Jan 15, 2003, 10:12 PM

There are two options you may not have considered:

1. Get the super wide angle lens, and crop out the vignetting later.

2. Take panoramas without any adapter, and stitch the photos together.

monsieurms · Jan 16, 2003, 6:40 AM

LG, I thought about playing with it all in a photo program. But after you crop out the vignetting, isn't what 's left exactly the same as if I had not shot that wide enough to create vignetting?

ANyway, the good news is that 28-200 does solve most of my issues.

lg · Jan 16, 2003, 9:28 AM

The vignetting I have experienced was using a Kenko 0.5x wide angle adapter, and the corners of the pics were all that were affected. I got useable pictures by cropping them on all four sides just enough to leave out the dark corner vignetting. Of course, post processing means more work, and the resolution of a pic cropped maybe 15% on each side leaves less to work with, but I was able to get a full room view with the lens suitable for posting on the Internet.

BillDrew · Jan 16, 2003, 11:47 AM

It also depends on how serious the vignetting is. If it is fairly minor (one stop or less?), several photo editing programs should be able to deal with it fairly well. http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/j.houghton/vignette.htm shows the basic technique. That is in the context of stitching panoramas since even minor vignetting at stitch boundries are accentuated, but the technique applies in general.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jan 14, 2003, 8:39 PM	#13
NHL Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333 Posts: 11,599	The Oly A28 is acceptable if you look @ her examples. I think I can live with that... Sorry!

Jan 15, 2003, 2:06 PM	#14
lg Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 823	I use an Olympus WCON-08E(aka A28?) .8x wide angle lens on my 38mm camera, and there is no vignetting. This makes mine only equivalent to a 30.4mm lens, which is still not as wide as your camera's lens. I've taken really sharp and clear images with this lens. You may get some vignetting using it on the wider angle 28mm lens, but I think it may be your best option. Wider angle lenses, in addition to vignetting will give you parallax distortion (sort of a wrap around view), which you may find undesirable. This is common for lenses wider than 28mm. I wouldn't go any wider than a .8x converter for that reason. This is another point you might want to consider.

Jan 15, 2003, 2:30 PM	#15
monsieurms Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 161	Yes, well this is the problem. If I had only a 35 or 40 lens in the first place, I'd be getting better results. But I can go down to 28mm naturally with no add ons. The Oly lens showed only minor vignetting at 28mm. Not bad! But OTOH it doesn't do a lot for me. It achieves only minor vignetting by not taking me very wide. It doesn't get me down much farther than my normal lens. Probably gets down to around a 24mm equivalent. It's almost not worth the hassle to switch lense for another few mms. It is just not enough difference--and at its extreme even it vignettes a little. I feel like to justify the aggravation and get something materially different than what I've got, I'd need to get down to a super wide 20mm--which is what I used to love with my film camera. That evidently seems impossible without vignetting at which point....I guess I give up. :shock:

Jan 15, 2003, 10:07 PM	#16
DeMorcan Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 24	Actually the difference between 24mm and 28mm is pretty significant. This is 14% better. But, it is not what you want. I came to digital from large format cameras. Digital cameras just do not compare on WA scenics. But not all of this is the lens. A WA photo contains more details. A 5mp CCD is not big enough to do well with the extra details. It depends on the scene, but even an 11mp camera has some problem with the WA. Although with the 11mp it may be because it shows too much detail. It takes some planning with digital cameras to take photos within their capabilities. But if you are unhappy with the WA capabilities of that dimage, you may send it to me anytime you desire. I would hate to see you being fustrated by having it around.

Jan 15, 2003, 10:12 PM	#17
lg Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 823	There are two options you may not have considered: 1. Get the super wide angle lens, and crop out the vignetting later. 2. Take panoramas without any adapter, and stitch the photos together.

Jan 16, 2003, 6:40 AM	#18
monsieurms Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 161	LG, I thought about playing with it all in a photo program. But after you crop out the vignetting, isn't what 's left exactly the same as if I had not shot that wide enough to create vignetting? ANyway, the good news is that 28-200 does solve most of my issues.

Jan 16, 2003, 9:28 AM	#19
lg Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 823	The vignetting I have experienced was using a Kenko 0.5x wide angle adapter, and the corners of the pics were all that were affected. I got useable pictures by cropping them on all four sides just enough to leave out the dark corner vignetting. Of course, post processing means more work, and the resolution of a pic cropped maybe 15% on each side leaves less to work with, but I was able to get a full room view with the lens suitable for posting on the Internet.

Jan 16, 2003, 11:47 AM	#20
BillDrew Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hay River Township, WI Posts: 2,512	It also depends on how serious the vignetting is. If it is fairly minor (one stop or less?), several photo editing programs should be able to deal with it fairly well. http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/j.houghton/vignette.htm shows the basic technique. That is in the context of stitching panoramas since even minor vignetting at stitch boundries are accentuated, but the technique applies in general.