 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / May 2006Add-on Lenses
Has anyone had any experience with add-on telephoto & wide angle lenses? These are the ones that screw onto the end of your existing lens. Here is a link to a set I am thinking of buying if they are any good. http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7622284818&fromMakeTrack=true If it is a matter of simply screwing them on & away you go, would my dslr still work in the auto modes with auto focus? Or would I have to fiddle around with manual settings?  Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< > Has anyone had any experience with add-on telephoto & wide angle > lenses? These are the ones that screw onto the end of your existing > lens. No actual experience, but generally not as good performance as a lens set to the focal lengths you wish to use. I think they would also slow down the exposure somewhat as well. But of course may be suitable for what you need. YMMV. > Has anyone had any experience with add-on telephoto & wide angle lenses? > These are the ones that screw onto the end of your existing lens. Here [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dslr still work in the auto modes with auto focus? Or would I have to > fiddle around with manual settings? as dogfart said, the quality is generally poorer than a proper lens for the desired focal length. They do also make the lens slightly slower. With any modern SLR which uses TTL metering, this won't require any compensation on your part. Likewise Autofocus will still work. Really though, unless you can pick up the conversion lenses dirt cheap, don't bother. Even a cheap lens will outperform a lens+adaptor. i haven't used the specific ones you are bidding on on ebay, but I have experimented with various adaptors (made by traditional lens makers), and was less than impressed. >> Has anyone had any experience with add-on telephoto & wide angle >> lenses? These are the ones that screw onto the end of your existing >> lens. Here is a link to a set I am thinking of buying if they are any >> good. Most of the answers so far have been correct but missing one vital factor... you may have a camera without changable lenses, in which case these lens convertors are the only options short of buying a new camera. Nige. > >> Has anyone had any experience with add-on telephoto & wide angle > >> lenses? These are the ones that screw onto the end of your existing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > factor... you may have a camera without changable lenses, in which case > these lens convertors are the only options short of buying a new camera. The latter of course is the better option! But if you hadn't snipped this part : "would my dslr still work" you might tell us which DSLR does not have interchangeable lenses? AFAIK they all do, and the P&S (POS) cameras are not DSLR's. MrT. > But if you hadn't snipped this part : > "would my dslr still work" > you might tell us which DSLR does not have interchangeable lenses? > > AFAIK they all do, and the P&S (POS) cameras are not DSLR's. The Olympus E-10 and Olympus E-20 are both dSLRs with non-removable lenses. KC -- http://kenchandler.com >>>>Has anyone had any experience with add-on telephoto & wide angle >>>>lenses? These are the ones that screw onto the end of your existing [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > MrT. Yes, missed that bit... in which case, the OP needs to forget them (convertors) and save up for a real lense (as they imply in another post) Nige. >>>>> Has anyone had any experience with add-on telephoto & wide angle >>>>> lenses? These are the ones that screw onto the end of your existing [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Nige. Hi Nige, yes I think this is what I will be doing. I have found a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Telephoto that I will probably purchase. I currently have a EF-S 18-55mm & a EF 75-300mm that came with the 350D. Most of my photography is of family & outdoor scenery. I would also like to get into sports photography now that my son is getting a little older. Will these 3 lenses cover my needs, or are there some others I should be on the lookout for? Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< > Hi Nige, yes I think this is what I will be doing. I have found a Canon > EF 50mm f/1.8 II Telephoto that I will probably purchase. I currently [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > these 3 lenses cover my needs, or are there some others I should be on > the lookout for? Hi MJW, I'm still a fossil and use film (have a digicam but lets ignore that) and aren't familar with the multiplication factor for a 350D, but gussing it's rought 1.5 then you've got ample magnification with your 75-300 zoomy for most sports photography that involves your son (assuming you meant him being the subject) since you usually cab be on the 'boundary' line. What you'd probably benefit best from is a monopod. What's your reasoning for the 50/1.8? You'd buy this to take pics in low light, or for the benefits of a wideish aperture to blur backgrounds, etc. Cheers, Nige >> Hi Nige, yes I think this is what I will be doing. I have found a >> Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Telephoto that I will probably purchase. I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > low light, or for the benefits of a wideish aperture to blur > backgrounds, etc. Only what I have read on "lens review" websites, that it is good for portrait photography,that it coupled with the other 2 I already have is a good set of lenses for the beginner, & at the price that they are,its a cheap investment for a 3rd lens. From what you have described about it, I think it will have its benefits. > Cheers, Nige Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< > >> Hi Nige, yes I think this is what I will be doing. I have found a > >> Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Telephoto that I will probably purchase. I t's a stretch of the imagination to call a standard 50mm lens a telephoto, even if you allow for the crop factor. > >> currently have a EF-S 18-55mm & a EF 75-300mm that came with the 350D. > >> Most of my photography is of family & outdoor scenery. I would also > >> like to get into sports photography now that my son is getting a > >> little older. Will these 3 lenses cover my needs, or are there some > >> others I should be on the lookout for? Whilst the 50mm is good value and adds wide aperture benefits to your arsenal, you would still have no macro facilty. One of the macro lenses might be an alternative, albeit a more expensive one. > > I'm still a fossil and use film (have a digicam but lets ignore that) > > and aren't familar with the multiplication factor for a 350D, but [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a good set of lenses for the beginner, & at the price that they are,its > a cheap investment for a 3rd lens. Yep that pretty much sums it up. Pity it's not a USM though, the 50mm f1.4 is a lot more expensive, and not many people need the extra 2/3rds of a stop anyway. There is a big difference between a fixed f1.8 and an f5.6 zoom lens though. MrT. >>>>Hi Nige, yes I think this is what I will be doing. I have found a >>>>Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Telephoto that I will probably purchase. > > I t's a stretch of the imagination to call a standard 50mm lens a telephoto, > even if you allow for the crop factor. Thanks for your response. This is the lens in question, http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7621942596&ssPageName=ADME :B:WNA:AU:12 As you can see, this is where I got the "telephoto" from. > Whilst the 50mm is good value and adds wide aperture benefits to your > arsenal, you would still have no macro facilty. > One of the macro lenses might be an alternative, albeit a more expensive > one. The Macro's are a bit out of my price range at the moment as is the USM that is also advertised. >>>What's your reasoning for the 50/1.8? You'd buy this to take pics in >>>low light, or for the benefits of a wideish aperture to blur [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > MrT. Ok, put yourself in my position for a moment (with your knowledge & experience pre-armed). At the moment its all a learning process for me. Should I purchase the cheaper lens, or hold out & get the USM? From a learners pov, would I see a noticeable difference between the 2? Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< > >>>>Hi Nige, yes I think this is what I will be doing. I have found a > >>>>Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Telephoto that I will probably purchase. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for your response. This is the lens in question, http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7621942596&ssPageName= ADME:B:WNA:AU:12 > As you can see, this is where I got the "telephoto" from. But Canon and everyone else in the world would call it a "standard" lens. When you allow for the crop factor it becomes *slightly* "telephoto", and a lot more useful for portraits. > > Whilst the 50mm is good value and adds wide aperture benefits to your > > arsenal, you would still have no macro facilty. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Macro's are a bit out of my price range at the moment as is the USM > that is also advertised. The 50mm f1.8 is very good value then. It will show you just how much better a fixed lens can be than the zooms you have. > >>Only what I have read on "lens review" websites, that it is good for > >>portrait photography,that it coupled with the other 2 I already have is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Should I purchase the cheaper lens, or hold out & get the USM? From a > learners pov, would I see a noticeable difference between the 2? No way would *I* buy the 50mm f1.4 USM. Buy the 50mm f1.8 now, and save up for the 100mm f2.8 macro instead. MrT. >>>>>>Hi Nige, yes I think this is what I will be doing. I have found a >>>>>>Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Telephoto that I will probably purchase. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > MrT. Thankyou for your sound advice! It is my intention to get a macro further down the track, so for the moment I think I will add the 50mm to my camera bag. Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< >> Mr.T wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> -- >> >>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< Image quality is always a sought after commodity in a DSLR but how much image quality is another thing altogether when you are not a Professional Photographer. If you never expect to make monster enlargements, the image flaws which are tolerable then begin to impact the cost of glass (or acrylic) downwards.. This gallery: http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/flowers has several photos I took with a 20D and Tamron 28 -200 zoom lens. All thru the gallery are pictures taken with this lens and with "L" series lenses. There are also images taken with a Panasonic FZ20 P& S camera and a 5 year old Olympus my wife refuses to part with. The point I'm making is that these lenses sell for under $400 new and if you only ever intend to make 8x12 as your biggest enlargement, you will never see the difference between pictures shot with one of these lenses and ones taken with a $2900 Canon lens. This one: http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/Public/heavy_traffic is taken at 200mm. This one in macro mode: http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/flowers/spider_blue. The lens in point was never designed specifically for digital cameras and produces some chromatic aberrations under some extreme conditions but they are so slight, you need to make a 16x24 print to see them. Even then, "Flo's Filters" in Photoshop will clean the image up. If you can spring to a $600 lens, the new "Di" series Tamrons or the newer Sigma Digital lenses all designed for 1.6 crop cameras, will produce images of excellent to exceptional quality, often rivalling "L" series stuff and exceeding USM quality. The one I like is the Tamron 24 -300 Di. Incredible it can produce such beautiful images over such a wide range but it does. As for the aperture... You will have difficulty obtaining any depth of field at all with a F/2.8 lens at 200mm so the F/3.5 - F/6.3 lenses probably make accurate focus easier than the Pro lenses. They have their sweet spot at about F/8 which is coincidentally the hyperfocal of many mid range settings anyway. All in all, you'd have to go a long way to beat some of the new and cheap lenses from makers who have got in on Canon's weak spot and are having field day with it. Read about it here: http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/accessories/tamron_28300mm_di_lens.php Douglas > > Pity it's not a USM though, the 50mm f1.4 > > is a lot more expensive, and not many people > > need the extra 2/3rds of a stop anyway. > Should I purchase the cheaper lens, or hold out & > get the USM? From a learners pov, would I see a > noticeable difference between the 2? > and exceeding USM quality. USM = UltraSonic Motor, a quicker quieter motor to drive focus. Often found in better lenses but also found in not so good lenses. USM in and of itself has nothing to do with image quality. KC http://kenchandler.com > > > Pity it's not a USM though, the 50mm f1.4 > > > is a lot more expensive, and not many people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > USM in and of itself has nothing to do with image quality. Correct, but we were comparing the 50mm f1.8, and the 50mm f1.4 USM. The latter is a better lens at a vastly higher price, not just because it has USM. What I said was simply that it's a pity they don't add a USM motor to the 50mm f1.8. Without any other changes it would not add too significantly to the cost. It would still be far cheaper than the f1.4. Unfortunately the demand is fairly low these days when everyone prefers a crappy zoom instead for a standard lens. But IMO being able to purchase a good portrait lens (at 1.6 crop factor) for less than $200 in Australia would be a winner with a lot of people if they actually promoted it. I won't hold my breath though. MrT. > > USM in and of itself has nothing to do with image quality. > > Correct, but we were comparing the 50mm f1.8, and the 50mm f1.4 USM. The > latter is a better lens at a vastly higher price, not just because it has > USM. I was really only pointing it out for the OP. When another poster added different brands have quality exceeding USM quality (??) I thought I'd point out what USM was to kerb any confusion. I agree it would be nice to see USM in the McHappy Meal 50mm f/1.8. KC http://kenchandler.com >> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> KC >> http://kenchandler.com Canon USM lenses are considered to be superior to non USM lenses in optical performance, focusing accuracy and speed. > Canon USM lenses are considered to be superior to non USM lenses in optical > performance, Canon make no such claim. In fact some designs are optically identical to previous non USM designs. Maybe you are you confusing them with the "L" series pro lenses? > focusing accuracy and speed. Of course, that's the whole point isn't it! MrT. >>>Mr.T wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Douglas Thanks Douglas, I have saved this post so I can digest all the info bit by bit! Looking through your pictures, particularly the sports ones, I am interested in the 1.4 teleconvertor. It looks like I could really benefit from one of these. How does it hook up to the camera/lens? What are its advantages/disadvantages? Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< >> D Mac wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> -- >> >>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< The disadvantage is it only works on long lenses and kills a stop and a half of exposure. The real killer is that the camera you are considering may not auto focus very well with multiplier as the minimum aperture gets into the F/5.0 plus range. The advantages are obvious. It mounts to the camera like a lens and the lens mounts to it like it does the body. >>>D Mac wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It mounts to the camera like a lens and the lens mounts to it like it does > the body. Ok then, looking in my manual, it says the f/numbers go from 1.0 to 9.0 then 10 to 91. The EF 75-300 lens I have is f/4-5.6. Here is a photo I took on the weekend, with this lens & the camera in "auto mode". Can you see any room for improvement here? www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/Baseball.JPG Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< >> D Mac wrote: >>> MJW wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> -- >> >>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< Oh yeah... Plenty of room for improvement there mate... Start with the hitter having a shave!!! Seriously... It is clear you don't know me. I try never to comment on another Photographers pictures although sometimes the temptation is too great. One thing I will say is this: Everyone has some photos they think are better than others. With sports shooters the emotion of the moment is everything. Whenever I take pics like yours, I try to find a shutter speed that portrays the action by blurring the ball or bat without fuzzing the central object. This is something you only figure out with trial and error. My flying bird shots almost always have some part of the wing blurred by motion. Sadly, many are completely fuzzed because the bird is fluid in the air and moves upward with each flap of their wings... Unexpected by now predictable thanks to the previous 600 motion blurred shots of flying birds! Douglas >>>D Mac wrote: > > Oh yeah... Plenty of room for improvement there mate... > Start with the hitter having a shave!!! Yeah, he's an ugly bastard allright! But cause he's my bro-in-law, we love him anyway. > Seriously... It is clear you don't know me. > I try never to comment on another Photographers pictures > although sometimes the temptation is too great. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't looking for a "oh, thats a good/sh.t picture" comment, just an opinion on whether I could benefit in applying a teleconvertor to my current setup, or am I getting enough detail with what I have. I refer back to your sports pictures taken with the tele. I would be happy with consistent shots of this quality/detail. I take on board & appreciate the advice given below, but because i'm new to this camera, I don't want to settle for what I think is the best it can do, if better is simply a matter of buying an add-on of some sort! > One thing I will say is this: Everyone has some photos they think are better > than others. With sports shooters the emotion of the moment is everything. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Douglas Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< According to the sample pictures on the eBay listing they can perform wonders in bending buildings. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Has anyone had any experience with add-on telephoto & wide angle lenses? : These are the ones that screw onto the end of your existing lens. Here : is a link to a set I am thinking of buying if they are any good. http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7622284818&fromMakeTrack=true : If it is a matter of simply screwing them on & away you go, would my : dslr still work in the auto modes with auto focus? Or would I have to : fiddle around with manual settings? > According to the sample pictures on the eBay listing they can perform > wonders in bending buildings. Thanks Joan & all who have replied. Yes the pictures do make them out to be able to do great stuff. I have a set of these lenses for my p&s kodak, & the 2.5 telephoto is less than spectacular. The wide-angle will only work if the camera is already turned on & zoomed out to its maximum optical zoom, then attach the lens. Otherwise the camera just shuts off. I thought that these were just limitations of my camera not the lenses. I think I will just steer clear of the ones for my dslr. Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< Since no-one else has mentioned it, I should point out that those add-on lenses are NOT for the Canon 30D 300D 350D *cameras* indicated in the add - they're for any *lens* from any maker using whatever unspecified filter thread the adaptors fit.... Cheers > > According to the sample pictures on the eBay listing they can perform > > wonders in bending buildings. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I thought that these were just limitations of my camera not the lenses. > I think I will just steer clear of the ones for my dslr. > Since no-one else has mentioned it, I should point out that those add-on > lenses are NOT for the Canon 30D 300D 350D *cameras* indicated in the add - > they're for any *lens* from any maker using whatever unspecified filter > thread the adaptors fit.... > > Cheers Thanks for that, but yes I was aware of the attach to lens part of it. >>>According to the sample pictures on the eBay listing they can perform >>>wonders in bending buildings. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>I thought that these were just limitations of my camera not the lenses. >>I think I will just steer clear of the ones for my dslr. Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.