Fancy a new Wide angle lens/attachment for your Nikon? for less than $8!?

Thecageyone

http://www.amazon.com/52mm-WIDE-ANGLE-Lens-~INCLUDING-NIKON/dp/B002VSM7LE/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1267835860&sr=1-24


Has to be worth a shot for anyone with a Nikon! [might work with other models too, as suggested below] Even if it does vignette around the edges [I take it that's why they're practically giving it way?]

Slidinginfinity

This is basically a lens attachment (filter). I have no idea why they have it listed for Nikon only.

Thecageyone

I presumed it only fit on the end of Nikon lenses? Or that's how it's made out. But still, an attachment that has presumably $100+ off.

Arciphel

All I will say is - You get what you pay for!

Thecageyone

heh, probably, but if I did have a Nikon, and shopped online, I'd be tempted. You might create some artsy images with it

Ghost Train

Should work with most cameras with 52mm diameter. No reason for it to be just nikon. Bought something similar before and not too bad qualitywise.

pete4130

If they can sellit for $8 then imagine how stupid you'd be to pay over $100 for it. I've used these sorts of things in the past (10 years ago) and they are the WORST things ever. bad colour casts, flare, glare and they cut the amount of light coming into the camera by at least 2 stops I'd guess. Plus anything away from the centre is soft/blurred coupled with the circular claustrophobic vignette when shooting at the widest end.

You get what you pay for. If you want a wide angle lens be prepared to pay a few hundred €'s for it and about €700-€800 for a fisheye.

Thecageyone

pete4130 wrote: »

You get what you pay for. If you want a wide angle lens be prepared to pay a few hundred €'s for it and about €700-€800 for a fisheye.

You can do fisheye effect in photoshop for free [once you have the program obviously] - tbh, I think anyone who pays big for a fisheye lens is mad. The effect is novel.

pete4130

The fisheye effect in photoshop isn't the same as using a real fisheye. The effect is and can be novel if a fisheye ISNT used correctly. It does have its uses and its knowing how to use it properly. I've bought 3 fisheye's over the years, the Sigma 15mm 2.8 for my F100, then the Nikon 10.5mm 2.8 for my D200 and then the Nikon 16mm 2.8 for my D3 and I would never be without one. I don't use it as often as I used to as I prefer to shoot longer focal lengths these days.

The fisheye effect isn't really wide or fisheye and never will be.

Saying somebody is mad to buy one when they can do it in photoshop seems naive and doesn't sound like you really know what you are talking about.

It's similar to suggesting people who buy bug telephoto lenses are mad because they can just crop in photoshop!???

Here are some fisheye shots that don't have that "novel" feeling to them, or at least I feel they don't. You might disagree?

Thecageyone

Um, ooook, I don't know what I'm talking about? What are you? a member of the elitist fisheye movement? I know what I like, and fisheye effect doesn't do anything for me. It's done to death, and there's always a biker or skateboarder pic thrown in ... like you've just shown.

Hundreds of euro for specific lenses, or a replica effect for free in photoshop ... hmmmm.

You're pretty defensive of your fisheye, to be honest, it's a matter of taste, and it's not for me. But that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about, aren't images open to opinion? otherwise keep them to yourself huh. The staircase pic is the only one that I would take a second look at from that bunch, no offence.

I didn't post this thread to promote anything, just thought it amusing tbh that there was a "wide angle macro lens" going so cheap ...

Effects

Pete is spot on with this. I've had people in the past says there's no point getting a fisheye as you can just make it look fisheye in photoshop. I think if you believe you will get good use out of a $8 lens for your DSLR then the use of an actual fisheye lens will be lost on you.

dazftw

Yeah fisheye's are mostly used by extreme sports photographers in my opinion. The effect isn't novel on that side of things.. I don't think I have ever used my fisheye for anything else but skateboarding. I did few times in new york for the buildings curving over you "novel" look.

For the likes of Pete and myself I would say its a pet peeve! I hate those wide angle adapters so much. I think its something new photographers get thinking it will be great and there saving loads.(not calling you a new photographer) You get what you pay for I suppose.

I would like to see anybody getting the same effect as one of petes bmx photos with this adapter or some photoshop plugin.

gerk86

its so cheap because it is so shit. It's just going to end up as clutter and you'll be out a fiver.

Replica effect in photoshop? What are you on about :rolleyes:

pete4130

I'm not being defensive. You've said you can achieve the effect in photoshop. I don't see how a photoshop effect can recreate a 180 degree angle of view, unless the initial image doesn't have an angle of view that was 180 degrees to start with, which would to me suggest, you don't understand how or what a fisheye lens achieves, which in turn leads me to believe you don't know what you are talking about....again I'll ask what the point is of buying a telephoto lens if you can achieve that effect in photoshop?

The shot of the stairs wouldn't have been possible without fisheye (unless stitched photos were used) as no other lens would give that field of view and no photoshop effect would recreate it.

Your comment about the biker/skater is valid as it is a choice lens for that type of sport where you need to be close to get everything in so it isn't for the novel effect, it serves a purpose. I could say rthe same hting about 300-400mm lenses that all I ever see from them are mostly field sports or wildlife.....they suit the purpose.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I merely gave mine on that attach on lens that was posted and said that its useless and if you do want to get a wide angle lens, you do have to spend money on it.

Spending lots of money on specific lens like a fisheye is no different than the €700 odd I've spent on a dedicated 105mm macro lens that serves its purpose, or the 85mm I use for portraits.

I'm not being defensive about fisheye. I'm explaining why they cost so much and the quality of the images produced. I'd say the same about a set of macro lens adapter (albeit they perform much better than the fisheye/wide adapter) that a specific macro lens will yield more consistent results.

By all means $8 is cheap if people want to experiment and see if they want to psend more cash in the future for a proper wide/fisheye lens. You can be assured after a day or two that fisheye adapter will be sitting in the bottom of a drawer for years to come.

I'm not being pedantic or singling you out for posting about the item. I just feel strongly (in a negative way) about these cheap adapters that lots of people can and do buy only to find out they have wasted their money.

melekalikimaka

may aswell stick some cling film over the lens...

Effects

melekalikimaka wrote: »

may aswell stick some cling film over the lens...

Thecageyone

Not once did I suggest it would be a good lens ... I posted it because it was so dirt cheap.

I couldn't give a fiddler's about fisheye lenses tbh, but that is just my opinion. And you can re-create some similar casual effects in Cs4 -


http://blog.lorrifreedman.com/index.php/2009/04/10/how-to-create-a-fisheye-lens-effect-using-photoshop/

It just requires a lot of cropping.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

Not once did I suggest it would be a good lens ... I posted it because it was so dirt cheap.

I couldn't give a fiddler's about fisheye lenses tbh, but that is just my opinion. And you can re-create some similar casual effects in Cs4 -


http://blog.lorrifreedman.com/index.php/2009/04/10/how-to-create-a-fisheye-lens-effect-using-photoshop/

It just requires a lot of cropping.

imo the main point of a fisheye for me would be wide angle, near 180 viewing... all photoshop can do is distort the image

Effects

Thecageyone wrote: »

http://blog.lorrifreedman.com/index.php/2009/04/10/how-to-create-a-fisheye-lens-effect-using-photoshop/

It just requires a lot of cropping.

That's absolutely terrible, it really is.

DaireQuinlan

Thecageyone wrote: »

And you can re-create some similar casual effects in Cs4 -

http://blog.lorrifreedman.com/index.php/2009/04/10/how-to-create-a-fisheye-lens-effect-using-photoshop/

It just requires a lot of cropping.

Judging by the comments on that blog, you're not the only person completely missing the point

Thecageyone

Heh, admittedly I know little or nothing about fisheye lenses, all I know is the effect does little for me also. That might be a **** technique, but it wont cost the earth for casual users.

Slidinginfinity

Hey, for 8 bucks might get one, just to hack the stuffing out of it so it would fit on my Holga.:D:p

homer simpson

i got myself one of them (not the exact same similar though) chucked in with the camera along with some other cheap gadgets, it does widen the angle of the photo a bit as oppossed to the standard lense grand, i dont find any softness around the edges or softness for distant items as has been stated, although if its fisheye (which i know very little about) there is very very little effect with these lenses extentions, but if your on a budget and want a wide angle lense this is a great substitute, a lot of agro here towards the extention but guys it depends what your budget ect is, if you can afford to spend 100's on a lense that would be seldom used (speaking personally) so be it, but this will do you job just as well if you ask me.

dazftw

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Judging by the comments on that blog, you're not the only person completely missing the point

"simple but effective. Saves me buying a fisheye too! Cheers mate." :P

Thecageyone

Please explain the 'point' then. As you're just simply coming across like lens elitists tbh.

Effects

Thecageyone wrote: »

Please explain the 'point' then. As you're just simply coming across like lens elitists tbh.

Well you're coming across as lens ignorant. You think an $8 lens attachement works instead of a wide angle lens and that photoshop replaces the need for a fisheye lens

Thecageyone

That's the most stupid thing I've read all day, thanks.

I've said at least 3 times I only posted it because of how cheap it was, nobody said it was anyway good, well, I certainly didn't. I seem to recall saying [jokingly] it might be worth $8 as you might get some 'arty' effects .... explanation: it's probably crap, but even if it is, what you got to lose?

As for the fisheye ... well, all over the net you'll find people posting that cheap alternative. I wouldn't bother me hole tbh, I've already stated fisheye effect does NOTHING for me. I don't care how expensive your gear is.

You're coming across as someone who doesn't even read the thread and just throws a random strop for only one reason ... you spent WAY too much on a lens and now you must defend the pruchase lol.

Take some chill pills, don't lose sleep over it.


*must remember never post semi-humourous threads featuring cheapo deals even I wouldn't go for on Boards elitist photography*

Effects

I've never spent way too much on a lens. I've owned two fisheye lenses. Both were worth more than I paid for them, to me.

Thecageyone

Good stuff :cool:

I really did only post this because it was dirt cheap , someone might be interested, i don't even have a dslr yet ...

Ghost Train

Haven't used the wide adapter I bought much but here's the type of shot it gives with kit lens. Would have used lens correction filter on this

here's another photo that not processed, shows more the fringing you get with the adapter
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3439/3774926714_3a143cde5d_o.jpg
same shot without adapter
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3774121989_2155813065_o.jpg

you can also use the macro half of theses adapters on their own
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eolhc/3788421577/in/photostream/

Ricky91t

Been a long time since i've owned a lens with a 52mm filter :pac:

Edit: Woah the shots from it aren't terrible!Would certainly be handy if you wanted to take some interior shots of a house for sale!

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

I've said at least 3 times I only posted it because of how cheap it was, nobody said it was anyway good, well, I certainly didn't. I seem to recall saying [jokingly] it might be worth $8 as you might get some 'arty' effects .... explanation: it's probably crap, but even if it is, what you got to lose?

the board isn't elitest for one, its helpful but people will be straight up here, you claim to accept its a pile a balls, yet can't accept others giving detailed reasons why its balls.