Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 3, 2011, 11:49 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
JeannieBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 650
Default Conversion Lenses: Opinions Please

I would like your opinion on conversion lenses...

I have seen several that were inexpensive (big plus!) and I wondered if they were worth trying, or if they are just a waste of money.

I can't afford to spend hundreds (plural!) of dollars on a lens and most EF mount lenses are no less than that!

I am hoping that perhaps conversion lenses might be a good alternative...

Does anyone have an opinion?

Thank you!
JeannieBug is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 3, 2011, 1:34 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,748
Default

There are third party lenses what are you looking to do
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 1:51 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
JeannieBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 650
Default

I'd like a wide angle lens; not necessarily fish-eye, but nice and wide - I need to be able to focus to infinity.

I'd also like a macro lens; but I'm planning on getting a Raynox 250 - if there's a conversion lens that's better than that one, I'd like to look into getting one.

Thanks!
JeannieBug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 5:10 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

G'day Jeannie

Good Q !!
There are "accessory lenses" and "awful accessory lenses"
The Raynox is amongst the very-good ones ... beware of those whose description says "hi-quality xxx lens for digital camera"

I have played with several of the $50 "hi-quality xxx lens for digital camera" as an experiment - and they aren't worth using as paperweights

Here's a sample of the "hi-quality 2xteleconverter lens for digital camera"


Hope this helps
Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 5:34 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

You've got a dSLR. (At least I presume you've got a dSLR, since you posted this in the dSLR forums.) Buy an EF or an EF-S lens.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 4, 2011 at 5:30 AM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 5:57 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

I'm in the same boat. I used to use my 17mm on my film camera all the time. Now I need at least a 12mm or smaller to get that same angle of view But the price for such a lens is way over my budget.

Unfortunetly the conversion lenses really destroy image quality.
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2011, 6:44 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

KEH.com has some Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 lenses in a variety of conditions and prices ranging from $379 to $189. I think one of these will serve you better than putting a conversion lens on your 18-55.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2011, 2:48 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,748
Default

welcome to an expensive hobby. you can pick up telezooms at a reasonable price and pretty good image quality canons efs55-250is is an example. but if you want a ide lens then the price seems to really o up even with third party lenses. i am not a fan of converters i would rather save and get hat i require. if you are not sure then you might want to rent a lens or two to try. good luck
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2011, 5:21 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
JeannieBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 650
Default

Thank you everyone, for your input (and Phil for the example)!

I think I'm going to get one of those MD/EF adapters and see what I can do with my old Minolta lenses. I have a feeling that I'll still want to get the Raynox (and some extension tubes) for macro work, though.

Thanks again!
JeannieBug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2011, 6:59 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

While extension tubes are generally a good idea for an inexpensive way to get into macrophotography, what they do is magnify the flaws in the lenses you use them with. If all you've got is the 18-55 kit lens, you're results might not be very good.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav 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 11:01 AM.