aux lenses

I have a Canon A95 that I'm quite happy with. For those
unfamiliar with it, the lens has a 3X zoom (35mm equiv 38-114) which is
fine most of the time. For the few times that I would use a longer
tele, it isn't worth buying a new camera. Has anyone used auxillary
tele and wide lenses on their digicams? I know that in the film days
they weren't very good, but from what I've seen on some websites the
results look pretty good. Suggestions are welcome.


Eric

"bluezfolk" <ericreh.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165337510.575658.224530@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> I have a Canon A95 that I'm quite happy with. For those
> unfamiliar with it, the lens has a 3X zoom (35mm equiv 38-114) which is
> fine most of the time. For the few times that I would use a longer
> tele, it isn't worth buying a new camera. Has anyone used auxillary
> tele and wide lenses on their digicams? I know that in the film days
> they weren't very good, but from what I've seen on some websites the
> results look pretty good. Suggestions are welcome.

I suspect that most of the cheapo brand-you-never-heard-of auxilliary lenses
you see on eBay aren't much good.

But I bought a Tiffen 0.56x Wide Converter (37mm thread) with an adapter
tube for my Canon A95, and that works fairly well. Can't remember now where
I bought it or what I paid (there are couple of places on the Web that sell
'em), but it was inexpensive enough for what it does -- provides the
equivalent of a 21mm lens at the wide end.

It's an interesting thing to play with. Wide open it's simply awful,
especially at the edges as you'd expect. Stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 it
sharpens up considerably but still isn't something you'd want to use for
large prints. It's reasonably rectilinear, some barrel distortion but no
more than you'd expect from such a w.a. lens.

I have no experience with (or interest in) tele converters for this type of
camera, though.

Neil