Hey, Andrew: those front-attaching semi-fisheye converters aren't bad at the
center, tho' a bit soft at the edges. Here are a couple of recent images
done with one atop a Zuiko 50/1.8 on Fuji Reala, followed by one using the
Zuiko 35/2.8 shift.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1005538&a=7400079&p=26270204&Sequence=0&res=high
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1005538&a=7400079&p=26332124&Sequence=0&res=high
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1005538&a=7400079&p=26270203&Sequence=0&res=high
From what I can tell most of the semi-fisheye converters are made by the
same one or two companies and marketed under different labels, so the
optical quality should be pretty similar from one to the next. Unlike a
true wide angle lens the converter has no effect on depth of field. So
while combining one with a 50mm normal lens gives coverage equivalent to a
21mm lens (with lots of curvature), DOF characteristics remain those of a
50mm lens.
I like mine for limited purposes. It's fun. The thing is most useful with
focal lengths in the 35-50mm range. Wider than 35mm, you get more circular
vignetting with increased distortion but little extra actual coverage.
Flare is surprisingly well controlled, possibly because the front element
isn't a convex bubble. These converters usually include small hoods that
can be turned to minimize most flare, and some careful shading with a hand
or hat can handle the rest. Outdoors mine usually exhibits one or two
distinctive flare points rather than a veiling sort of flare that reduces
contrast, so it's not a bad trade-off. The main problem, as with any
ultrawide lens, is not letting the bright sky fool the meter into
underexposing the shots.
Lex
===
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] front converters (was A-200 teleconverter)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:07:14 +1100
My local pawnbroker type stores (Cash Converters) always seem to have
screw
in wide and tele supplementary lenses for videocams, often in useable
filter mounts around 52/55/series VII sizes. How good or bad are these?
Anyone played with them? Are there good and bad brands - they seem to have
names like Vitacon which I've never heard of! How do they compare with
coventional teleconvertors?
I assume that as they're for video cameras, the quality doesn't have to be
as good as for still photography.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|