Re: wide angle conversion lenses for DSLRs
Better Info
>Paul Furman wrote:
>> http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/CVL/index.html
>> There are some articles announcing this upcoming line of Horseman wide
>> angle and macro conversion lenses for DSLRs from fall 2009 but I don't
>> see where they can be bought. Horseman is known for making some rather
>> fancy large format gear, so one would expect these lenses are not total
>> crap although the $60-$120 price doesn't suggest the flawless imaging
>> they describe. These are for screwing on the front of a kit lens.
>
>They might be fun to play with, but I expect that they won't be any
>better than the highest-quality conversion lenses for P&S cameras, which
>as you know, give pretty mediocre results.
Yes. Like these taken with an $80, 0.25x, fish-eye adapter on a P&S camera.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4413223426_e408833ce3_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4413223430_34e325af04_o.jpg
Used as fish-eye at 9mm EFL and 18mm EFL ultra-wide by using the P&S
camera's super-zoom lens to choose the focal-length wanted. Just as sharp,
flare-free, and CA free right up to the camera's own widest-angle where it
is then no longer needed. A continuous zoom range with one pocketable
camera and two pocketable adapter lenses, from 9mm - 736mm f/2.4-3.5, all
for under $500. Without having to expose the sensor to dust and condensing
or freezing humidity when changing them.
When compared against the images produced with a fixed-focal-length $2000
Nikkor fish-eye for DSLRs, this 0.25x adapter wins. That $2000 is just for
a single focal-length too mind you.
What were you were saying, SMS? You uselessly psychotic
pretend-photographer role-playing DSLR-TROLL.
Now remember you idiotic DSLR-Trolls, try to not misconstrue JPG artifacts
for noise or over-sharpening again, as you idiots always do.
So funny. Now that you DSLR-Trolls have taken the live-view benefits from
P&S cameras, reticulated view-finders from P&S cameras, video-modes from
P&S cameras, etc., etc., now you're going to start discovering the benefits
of leaving your lens on your camera and using front-end adapters too.
Benefits like no longer losing 2EV steps aperture when using tele-extenders
nor getting dust all over your sensor with every lens change.
Unfortunately, you'll be adding on so much more weight to your kit by using
front-end adapters large enough to retain your lens' own widest apertures
that you're back at square-one again.
OMG! You're slowly turning your DSLRs into P&S cameras! Without the main
benefits. LOL! Unfortunately, unlike pros that use P&S cameras in full
manual mode most often, you'll still be using your DSLRs in idiots'
auto-everything mode. Making your DSLRs into grossly cumbersome P&S
cameras. Unfortunately you'll also never get out from under all the
drawbacks of that image-shaking slapping mirror and image-distorting,
slow-flash-sync, crippling focal-plane shutter and all the front and back
focusing issues of your fast but wholly inaccurate phase-contrast focusing.
This is getting more and more funny. The best comedy show on earth are the
posts by DSLR proponents.
Better Info
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4413223426_e408833ce3_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4413223430_34e325af04_o.jpg
focusing issues of your fast but wholly inaccurate phase-focusing.
LOL!
wrote:
>http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/CVL/index.html
>There are some articles announcing this upcoming line of Horseman wide
>angle and macro conversion lenses for DSLRs from fall 2009 but I don't
>see where they can be bought. Horseman is known for making some rather
>fancy large format gear, so one would expect these lenses are not total
>crap although the $60-$120 price doesn't suggest the flawless imaging
>they describe. These are for screwing on the front of a kit lens.
They're very poorly made, you can tell just from the specs.
1 element, 1 group = no achromat.
2 elements, 2 groups = no achromat.
3 elements, 3 groups = no achromat.
But then if they used achromats at the size required for DSLR lenses the
prices would be as outrageous as buying a whole new fixed focal-length
lens.
I guess DSLR users will lose out on yet another benefit of P&S cameras.
High-quality adapter lenses designed with quality achromats at low prices.
LOL!
RichA
RichA
> >Paul Furman wrote:
> >>http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/CVL/index.html
> >> There are some articles announcing this upcoming line of Horseman wide
> >> angle and macro conversion lenses for DSLRs from fall 2009 but I don't
> >> see where they can be bought. Horseman is known for making some rather
> >> fancy large format gear, so one would expect these lenses are not total
> >> crap although the $60-$120 price doesn't suggest the flawless imaging
> >> they describe. These are for screwing on the front of a kit lens.
>
> >They might be fun to play with, but I expect that they won't be any
> >better than the highest-quality conversion lenses for P&S cameras, which
> >as you know, give pretty mediocre results.
>
> Yes. Like these taken with an $80, 0.25x, fish-eye adapter on a P&S camera.
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4413223426_e408833ce3_o.jpg
>
> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4413223430_34e325af04_o.jpg
>
> Used as fish-eye at 9mm EFL and 18mm EFL ultra-wide by using the P&S
> camera's super-zoom lens to choose the focal-length wanted. Just as sharp,
In all its 800x600 pixel glory. Wait! I can do the same with a 1.2
megapixel camera from 1999.
> flare-free, and CA free right up to the camera's own widest-angle where it
> is then no longer needed. A continuous zoom range with one pocketable
> camera and two pocketable adapter lenses, from 9mm - 736mm f/2.4-3.5, all
> for under $500.
Can we go back to the days when lenses were represented by their
actual focal lengths and not some equivalency rubbish?
Better Info
wrote:
>On Mar 7, 3:07�am, Better Info <bi...@address.info> wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:37:48 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> >Paul Furman wrote:
>> >>http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/CVL/index.html
>> >> There are some articles announcing this upcoming line of Horseman wide
>> >> angle and macro conversion lenses for DSLRs from fall 2009 but I don't
>> >> see where they can be bought. Horseman is known for making some rather
>> >> fancy large format gear, so one would expect these lenses are not total
>> >> crap although the $60-$120 price doesn't suggest the flawless imaging
>> >> they describe. These are for screwing on the front of a kit lens.
>>
>> >They might be fun to play with, but I expect that they won't be any
>> >better than the highest-quality conversion lenses for P&S cameras, which
>> >as you know, give pretty mediocre results.
>>
>> Yes. Like these taken with an $80, 0.25x, fish-eye adapter on a P&S camera.
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4413223426_e408833ce3_o.jpg
>>
>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4413223430_34e325af04_o.jpg
>>
>> Used as fish-eye at 9mm EFL and 18mm EFL ultra-wide by using the P&S
>> camera's super-zoom lens to choose the focal-length wanted. Just as sharp,
>
>In all its 800x600 pixel glory. Wait! I can do the same with a 1.2
>megapixel camera from 1999.
No you can't. You can't even produce these test-shots as good as this from
your piece of shit DSLR. Prove it! Put up or shut up!
>
>> flare-free, and CA free right up to the camera's own widest-angle where it
>> is then no longer needed. A continuous zoom range with one pocketable
>> camera and two pocketable adapter lenses, from 9mm - 736mm f/2.4-3.5, all
>> for under $500.
>
>Can we go back to the days when lenses were represented by their
>actual focal lengths and not some equivalency rubbish?
Just as soon as you get rid of your silly and stupid-sounding DSLR's "crop
factor" (LOL) definition.
Chrlz
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4413223426_e408833ce3_o.jpg
Those aren't very big images... but I'm sure they print just luverly
to 3" or so...
Now, given that the lens in question is the 'ProOptic' 0.25x (yes or
no?), how do you explain the rather different results that *this guy*
got, when he showed the full-resolution results? Here are the crops,
showing the (inevitable) horrible edge results, even when used on the
wonderful Sony DSC-F717's 38-190 Zeiss Sonnar lens:
http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/f20_12mmC.JPG
Oh dear. What a horrid thing to do to that lens. And you will note,
by comparing that back to the full-frame image:
http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/tests.html
that these effects extend an awful long way in towards the centre...
It's all very puzzling. Perhaps *that guy*, whoever he is, has
different quality standards, or maybe there has been manipulation of
images going on...
Better Info
wrote:
>On Mar 7, 6:25�pm, Better Info <bi...@address.info> wrote:
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4413223426_e408833ce3_o.jpg
>
>Those aren't very big images... but I'm sure they print just luverly
>to 3" or so...
>
>Now, given that the lens in question is the 'ProOptic' 0.25x (yes or
>no?)
No.
Did have fun wasting that much time?
Jump, Troll. JUMP!
Chrlz
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 03:47:43 -0800 (PST), Chrlz <mark.thoma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 7, 6:25 pm, Better Info <bi...@address.info> wrote:
> >>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4413223426_e408833ce3_o.jpg
>
> >Those aren't very big images... but I'm sure they print just luverly
> >to 3" or so...
>
> >Now, given that the lens in question is the 'ProOptic' 0.25x (yes or
> >no?)
>
> No.
>
> Did have fun wasting that much time?
>
> Jump, Troll. JUMP!
Oh. Must be that door security lens then.
Better Info
wrote:
An interesting lens. How come you didn't pick out any of these as an
example?
http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/f4_12mmC.JPG
http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/f56_12mmC.JPG
http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/f8_12mmC.JPG
Are you afraid to show what even that lens and camera combo will do? I'll
add that to my list of other inexpensive wide-angle solutions for P&S
cameras, if they're still available. THANKS!
I love it when I can put a troll to good use. :)
Jump for me some more!
Chrlz
> An interesting lens. How come you didn't pick out any of these as an
> example?
> http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/f4_12mmC.JPG
Ummmm.... I'll speak slowly.. the one I picked was the first one on
the page. Did that tiny fact escape your razor sharp intelligence?
And you are now pointing out that the horrible effects get a little
less with decreasing aperture size? Wow, who woulda thunk it.
> Jump for me some more!
You want more jumping? OK.
First up, for anyone who didn't spot it, those pages are by our troll
himself. His past keeps jumping up to bite him.
So, 'Koyaanis', if it's no longer the ProOptic, how come you got rid
of it? Was it because it sucked on the S3?
And why do you keep dancing around avoiding naming your magikal lens,
if it isn't that one? Are you afraid of what people will find when
they research the piece/s of crap that you own, and your quality
standards are thus revealed? As if it wasn't obvious from the teeny-
weeny little images you always post, along with those above...
Oh no, of course it is because you wish to punish everyone here for
their poor researching skills and not being able to find it...
Yeah, I believe that, and I'm certain everyone else here does too. So
*do* repeat it.
Cheers, Keoeeit/Koyaanis/BetterInfo/LOL!/Vern/Baumbadier/Casiobear/X-
Man/DJJohnson/Solidude/DaveIngols and a coupla hundred other names...
LOL!
wrote:
>On Mar 7, 10:32�pm, Better Info <bi...@address.info> wrote:
>> An interesting lens. How come you didn't pick out any of these as an
>> example?
>> http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/f4_12mmC.JPG
>
>Ummmm.... I'll speak slowly.. the one I picked was the first one on
>the page. Did that tiny fact escape your razor sharp intelligence?
>And you are now pointing out that the horrible effects get a little
>less with decreasing aperture size? Wow, who woulda thunk it.
>
If someone wanted to jump for a psychotic troll they could find all the
examples of wide-angle DSLR lenses that perform even poorer than that.
Hell, they don't even have to be wide-angle lenses. I've seen DSLR
fixed-focal-length, let alone zoom, lenses perform even poorer than that,
costing well over $1000. Many examples posted to this very newsgroup, with
their pride of course, until it is pointed out to them.
LOL!
>> Jump for me some more!
>
>You want more jumping? OK.
>
>First up, for anyone who didn't spot it, those pages are by our troll
>himself. His past keeps jumping up to bite him.
>
>So, 'Koyaanis', if it's no longer the ProOptic, how come you got rid
>of it? Was it because it sucked on the S3?
>
>And why do you keep dancing around avoiding naming your magikal lens,
>if it isn't that one? Are you afraid of what people will find when
>they research the piece/s of crap that you own, and your quality
>standards are thus revealed? As if it wasn't obvious from the teeny-
>weeny little images you always post, along with those above...
>
>Oh no, of course it is because you wish to punish everyone here for
>their poor researching skills and not being able to find it...
>
>Yeah, I believe that, and I'm certain everyone else here does too. So
>*do* repeat it.
>
>
>Cheers, Keoeeit/Koyaanis/BetterInfo/LOL!/Vern/Baumbadier/Casiobear/X-
>Man/DJJohnson/Solidude/DaveIngols and a coupla hundred other names...
LOL!!!!!!!!
Fuckin' eh, that's funny. Keep barking and jumping! You desperately need to
find something to date besides a bunch of unrelated names online. Keep this
up and you'll be fantasizing that everyone in the world is all the same
person ............ AND THEY'RE OUT TO GET YOU!
LOL!!!!!!!!
Here's a clue, to save you from your final break-down ...... not ONE person
in the whole wide world gives even one lousy fuck about you and what you
are. If you disappeared from the planet, not one person would have ever
noticed you were ever here. Prove it to yourself. Don't post for a month.
See if anyone says, "Hey! What happened to that Chrlz?" They won't even
notice you've been gone nor for how long. The same would happen in your
real life too if you killed yourself. Until someone noticed the stench
wafting up from your basement room.
LOL!
Damn I love the humor found on the net! It's like "Monty Python Meets One
Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".
LOL!
Ray Fischer
>On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:35:37 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/CVL/index.html
>>There are some articles announcing this upcoming line of Horseman wide
>>angle and macro conversion lenses for DSLRs from fall 2009 but I don't
>>see where they can be bought. Horseman is known for making some rather
>>fancy large format gear, so one would expect these lenses are not total
>>crap although the $60-$120 price doesn't suggest the flawless imaging
>>they describe. These are for screwing on the front of a kit lens.
>
>They're very poorly made,
You're a poor liar, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Charles
Charles
MikeWhy
news:5677p5hbqjf8nelvq...@4ax.com...
>>It's all very puzzling. Perhaps *that guy*, whoever he is, has
>>different quality standards, or maybe there has been manipulation of
>>images going on...
>
> An interesting lens. How come you didn't pick out any of these as an
> example?
>
> http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/f4_12mmC.JPG
>
> http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/f56_12mmC.JPG
>
> http://koyaanis.tripod.com/misc/f8_12mmC.JPG
>
> Are you afraid to show what even that lens and camera combo will do? I'll
> add that to my list of other inexpensive wide-angle solutions for P&S
> cameras, if they're still available. THANKS!
Are you blind or just wouldn't know a bad image when you see it? Coma and CA
are evident everywhere at every aperture. I presume your eyes work well
enough. That leaves only one conclusion.
Chrlz
And incomprehensibly, "not ONE person" (to quote you) has posted to
this thread supporting your cause. Do you understand why that would
be?
(---insert flailing, dribbling insults here in your reply---)
Rant on, dearie. I'll let others decide who is wrong. (Oh look, they
have..)