Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Add-On Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 30, 2004, 8:46 PM   #11
CFC
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5
Default

Which one of thes pictures did you use your add-on lens?
Thanks,
CFC

tsiya wrote:
Quote:
Mikefellh wrote:
Quote:
Here we go again, AVOID THEM!!! They're garbage! ;-)

If you want a good lens, check out the Raynox brand:

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/digital/egnikon5700.htm
Actually, mine are not all that bad, I have a 2XTC and a WA, macro combo I use on My C4000Z and C2500L. Maybe I got lucky. Had to retire for health issues, before I was ready, budget is really a big issue here. 2X won't agree with MyC720UZ, other OLYs turn out clean crisp shots. If You buy from a place that is reasonable about returns, and they don't prove out, no problem, send them back. I never regretted buying Mine.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v244/tsiya/
CFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 3:43 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4
Default

But has anyone here used them and has been dissatisfied or this might be only speculation?
sciclunam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 4:57 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

sciclunam wrote:
Quote:
But has anyone here used them and has been dissatisfied or this might be only speculation?
Personally, I've read other's reviews who have bought those lenses and seen their pictures, and have learned from their mistakes...but I've also had an experience with a poor Canon lens that wasn't designed for my long zoom camera...

Here's a picture taken with the Canon .7x lens, and notice what it did to the normally recangular and perfectly level window frame:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/08...ide/barrel.jpg

It caused an effect called "barrel distortion". I've since replaced it with a Raynox DCR6600Pro .66x lens which has only -1.3% distortion.

But with lenses like Opteka, Digital Optics, Crystal Optics, etc., all I've read about them is complaints about softness, not uniform (soft near the edges), severe chromatic abberation (purple fringing), etc. Many lenses now being sold for digital cameras were originally designed for lower resolution camcorders (<0.3mp), and they worked fine on them.

Once in a while you'll see a message here saying that they bought one of those lenses I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and they're wondering why the pictures are so bad with them. The low price of them is tempting, but with the low price you get low quality.
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 10:58 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Tom Overton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

I don't have an online album yet, so I'll post a few shots individually here on this topic. I recently visited New York City and looked at Telephoto lenses in some of the Times Square shops. This in itself was an interesting experience, but more to the point, I saw first-hand the results from cheap lenses.

The first lens I tried was a "Bower" 2x Teleconverter. It came in a nice wooden box and a sticker price of... wait for it... $1499.00 US. Notice, as Mike said, the "softness" of the shot.
Attached Images
 
Tom Overton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 11:11 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Tom Overton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

Now the same shot without the tele. By the way, by the time I left the shop, the dealer had lowered the price to $200.
Attached Images
 
Tom Overton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 11:18 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Tom Overton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

Here's the same shot without the tele lens.

Oh, by the way, before I left the shop, the dealer had dropped the price to under $200 US!
Attached Images
 
Tom Overton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 11:34 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Tom Overton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

Oops, sorry about the multiple posts... I keep getting kicked off my server.

Here's a Bower 3x tele. I forget what price this one was.
Attached Images
 
Tom Overton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 11:36 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Tom Overton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

And here's the shot without...

Notice how blurry the 3x is.
Tom Overton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 12:28 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Tom Overton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

Here's the pic.

I apologize for the messed up posts. My server is having a bad day.

Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada
Attached Images
 
Tom Overton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2004, 2:58 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7
Default

since those expensive lenses are really out reach. i bought the digital optics on ebay, and tested them on my c765. Since i haven't used any other lenses, images through both 0.45macro/wide tele2X looks sharp and accurate for me.

The problem with 0.45x: not much, good lens. If you want to get rid of the fish eye effect, photoshop can do the trick.

Problem with 2x: not useful since i already have 10X. when adding a filter lens in between, there will be big black corners, must use manual focus for most pictures. (and probably would be too blurry when shooting at a very far distance.)

That's all i've found so far. I think they worth the money i paid. ($99 for 2 tripods, 3 filters, tube converter, clean kit, and those 2 lenses, 2 carring cases.) If you are like me who really can't afford expensive lenses, my suggestion is go for it.
irrelevant is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM.