Hollz
newbie
Reged: 03/05/2008
Posts: 7
Loc: Where? I cannot say....
|
|
Am I right to be suspicious about claims of absolutely no loss of quality of image and colour, exposure or resolution with this thing? It's a lot cheaper than a 10-20mm wide-angle, which I am coveting but simply can't afford. Not that I'd be sticking it in front of anything special - just a Canon kit standard zoom.
|
sillyconguru
enthusiast
Reged: 05/11/2005
Posts: 310
|
|
Quote:
Am I right to be suspicious
More than likely.
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 2625
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
... claims of absolutely no loss of quality of image and colour, exposure or resolution ...
What they don't mention is distortion which is likely to be pretty bad 
--------------------
Rog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4241
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Am I right to be suspicious about claims of absolutely no loss of quality of image and colour, exposure or resolution with this thing?
Well the resolution will be the same in terms of pixels ... but I bet the detail is smeared out, especially towards the corners.
You might get away with it if you stop down to f/16.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9160
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
It's a lot cheaper than a 10-20mm wide-angle, which I am coveting but simply can't afford.
And I suspect that you'd be £70 further away from the 10-20 and disappointed into the bargain.
I imagine that the loss in image quality - and I simply don't believe there won't be some - is probably tolerable for a happy snapper making normal en-prints but I suspect that for anyone making larger prints or is an enthusiast it would be too iffy.
I have, and use, a 0.42x wide angle converter with my digital cameras. I only use it on my 17-70 (at 17mm) for a pseudo circular fisheye effect as it's rather cheaper than buying a proper fisheye (and I don't fancy spending £400 or so on something I only use infrequently). As soon as I zoom out to fill the frame the edge, and especially corner, quality is pants. I guess the 0.7x wont be quite so bad but even so...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
bench_ubbster
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/08/2006
Posts: 2546
Loc: Cambridgeshire, UK
|
|
If you love distortion, go for it. Here's a x0.7 Konica Minolta ZCW-200 wide-angle converter on the Ricoh GX100 it gives 17mm equivalent. Not bad! Picked up on ebay for £16 including P&P
There can be no comparison to the Sigma 10-20mm, which is infinitely sharper and no more distortion than should be expected with such a wide angle.
--------------------
Master of the Bench and Global Ambassador of the Brotherhood of the Bench
Bench or No Bench
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 976
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I'd keep saving for a proper wide angle - have a look at second hand. I have the Minolta fitting for my A2. It isn't that bad but you have to spend a lot of time in front of the computer taking out the barrel distortion etc. A last resort if you haven't got interchangeable lenses.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
