Author Topic: Wide angle converter (Read 2520 times)

Cotillion · « **on:** December 15, 2010, 02:07:38 AM »

Just ordered a 46mm 0.42x wide angle converter.
The plan is to put it on the panny to transform it into a small 9mm 1.7. Hopefully it retains it sharpness!
Does anyone have experience with a wide angle converter on the panny 20mm (or on any other lens for that matter)?
Or do you think the quality of those converters is so bad in general that you simply prefer the oly9-18 or pan7-14?

peterb666 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 15, 2010, 05:21:59 PM »

Any chunk of glass you add in front of your lens will degrade image quailty.

Most wide angle adapters provide heaps of distortion, a good dose of vignetting and fuzzy bits galore.

I played with an old semi-fisheye lens on the front of my Panasonic 20mm lens. I jerry rigged a holder but in the end decided the results were not worth the effort and cost of spending $4 on a proper sized stepping ring via eBay.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #2 on:** December 15, 2010, 07:37:46 PM »

the olympus 0.7 w ide adapter made for olympus film bridge cameras years ago on the panny kit zoom gave very good sharpness to the corners at 14 mm giving a 22.5mm eqiv instead of the expected 28

its heavy and the oly kit zoom camt mount it but the panny 14-45 is was amazingly good, but zoomed up toward 45 it degraded quickly but at 14 its very good even if you pixel peep it

herea a thread i wrote back in april
http://e-p1.net/lenses/panny-m43-14-45mm-morphed-into-a-'11-34mm'-wide-af/

Ian Tindale · « **Reply #3 on:** December 15, 2010, 11:41:25 PM »

How does the camera differentiate between the chunks of glass you add in front of a lens, and the chunks of glass that comprise the lens product itself?

adash · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2010, 05:11:59 AM »

Quote from: Ian Tindale on December 15, 2010, 11:41:25 PM

How does the camera differentiate between the chunks of glass you add in front of a lens, and the chunks of glass that comprise the lens product itself?

All the chunks of glass in a lens are designed and optimized to work together. They compensate each other's aberrations in order to produce a sharp, undistorted image from the center to the edge.
When adding an additional piece of glass, it adds aberrations which are not compensated for. Even a single flat glass (a.k.a. filter) adds spherical aberration for objects at distances, different from infinity.
Afocal systems such as front tele/wide converters, can be compensated for all aberrations, but this is rarely the case. As stated above, Oly's front converters for their ultrazoom digital cameras are well compensated, as are (as far as I know) Raynox and Canon front attachments, but these come at higher prices as their optical construction is more complex.

lisandra · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2010, 10:57:44 AM »

if its from raynox I can testify to their good image quality

Ian Tindale · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2010, 01:56:45 PM »

I have one of the Olympus converters, from a broken iS-5000 I bought for hardly anything. It’s not a wide converter, but a tele. It’s very good.

adash · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2010, 10:47:17 PM »

Quote

I have one of the Olympus converters, from a broken iS-5000 I bought for hardly anything. It’s not a wide converter, but a tele. It’s very good.

I have an IS-series teleconverter too, "IS/L LENS E-1.3X H.Q. TELECONVERTER" and it's not bad, but the attachments for Oly's digital cameras are supposed to be even better (more lens elements, etc.) The only drawback is that they (usually) come with a special bayonet attachment.

Cotillion · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2010, 04:45:25 AM »

Interesting comments everyone! Thank you i'm learning a lot from you guys!

The reason why i want to try this out is to see if i can handle a 8-11mm 'field of view' (you understand what i mean). Why that range? The 14mm is the wide end of the kit zoom and 7mm results in too much fisheye-distortion for my taste. I guess i'm just looking for a 9 or 10mm prime pancake

(or maybe i should finally just get the presumably excellent and small 9-18mm, but then we're talking a whole different price-range)

I thought i'd use the 20mm/1.7 so that its sharpness would compensate somewhat for any degradation the converter would introduce. Don't know if that logic is flawed; based on above comments it might be?

Here's a link to the x0.42 wide converter:
http://cgi.ebay.nl/42-WIDE-Angle-LENS-For-ALL-46mm-CAMERA-Sharp-LV-E630U-/230539752097?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35ad3d72a1

At first i looked at the Raynox line (having heard earlier from Lisandra that their teleconverters are very good), but decided not to go for that one for two reasons:
- too expensive for only it trying out (and my local shops don't have them in stock

). Unfortunately this might be a case of you get what you pay for, making the test with the 0.42 converter i bought not worthwhile?
- the only options are x0.3 and x0.7! On the 20mm (with stepping ring) this would result in 6mm or 14mm - too wide or not wide enough. Maybe with the new 14mm panny x0.7, or the 25mm voightlander x0.3 (which i both do not have)

cosinaphile · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2010, 08:54:48 PM »

seriously do yo have
a 14 to 45 panny kit zoom ?
that and the olympus wide adapteri have the 0.8but theres a 0.7 too they are avail used for little money
you will need a step ring to mount 49mm "filter "on 52 mm lens use only at 14mm

as said above the 0.8 x14 = 11.5? and the quality is outstanding to the corners, really its good

Cotillion · « **Reply #10 on:** December 18, 2010, 02:50:08 AM »

Quote from: cosinaphile on December 17, 2010, 08:54:48 PM

seriously do yo have
a 14 to 45 panny kit zoom ?
that and the olympus wide adapteri have the 0.8but theres a 0.7 too they are avail used for little money
you will need a step ring to mount 49mm "filter "on 52 mm lens use only at 14mm

as said above the 0.8 x14 = 11.5? and the quality is outstanding to the corners, really its good

Only the oly kit zoom, and i think i read all kinds of warnings from various people that attaching something to that lens (heavier than a filter) would ruin the focus-motor?

peterb666 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 18, 2010, 03:12:35 AM »

Quote from: Cotillion on December 18, 2010, 02:50:08 AM

Only the oly kit zoom, and i think i read all kinds of warnings from various people that attaching something to that lens (heavier than a filter) would ruin the focus-motor?

Regardless of what damage or otherwise it could do to the AF motor, the load will prevent it from actually finding focus. You couldn't even reliable use MF either as the lens is front focussing therefore any knock or movement of the front of the lens and even just carting it about will kock the lens out of focus.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2010, 04:47:10 AM »

OLY KIT CANT BE USED AS SAID ABOVE

Wide angle converter