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" wrote in message

> 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