Hector1959
Contributor
I found in my old stuff 2 conversions lens I had used with videocameras more than 10 years ago. One Raynox 0.66X, 52mm and one Kenko 0.43X fisheye 37 mm.
I just placed then in front of the Sony kit lens 16-50 to see thru them (I do not have the proper step-up and step-down rings) lookin for possible vignetting. The fisheye is unusable, it vignettes until about 35 mm and at this FL the FoV is more or less the same of the lens at 16mm.
But the Raynox might offer some interesting results so I ordered a 40.5 to 52 mm step-up ring to give it a try. It vignettes at 16-17 mm but it is OK at 18 mm, so I would have a FoV equivalent to a 12 mm lens. And it seems to be OK inside the 6" dome port.
I had bought the camera in a bundle including among some others gadgets e conversion lens which I do not trust too much and the WA has the same problems as 37 mm Kenko's. The macro is usable, but I do not trust the quality it might offer.
However, the Raynox is high quality CL, distortion free with no (??) light loss.
Has anyone tried it with the 16-50? Auto focusing issues?
Regards
I just placed then in front of the Sony kit lens 16-50 to see thru them (I do not have the proper step-up and step-down rings) lookin for possible vignetting. The fisheye is unusable, it vignettes until about 35 mm and at this FL the FoV is more or less the same of the lens at 16mm.
But the Raynox might offer some interesting results so I ordered a 40.5 to 52 mm step-up ring to give it a try. It vignettes at 16-17 mm but it is OK at 18 mm, so I would have a FoV equivalent to a 12 mm lens. And it seems to be OK inside the 6" dome port.
I had bought the camera in a bundle including among some others gadgets e conversion lens which I do not trust too much and the WA has the same problems as 37 mm Kenko's. The macro is usable, but I do not trust the quality it might offer.
However, the Raynox is high quality CL, distortion free with no (??) light loss.
Has anyone tried it with the 16-50? Auto focusing issues?
Regards