Canon G7/G9 wide converter (WC-DC58B)
I know there are many of you out there with a G7 or G9, but do any of you have any experience with the wide angle converter - either Canon's own WC-DC58B or any other 58mm type accessory lens?
I googled the heck out of it and can't really find any example photos showing just how wide this lens can make the G9. I could barely even find a short review of it's performance.
I often have a very hard time finding room for my 30D and 10-22 + one other lens on business or motorcycle trips. I'm close, oh so close on a G9. If someone can show me how to make it go wiiiiide, I'd be sold.
:ear
I googled the heck out of it and can't really find any example photos showing just how wide this lens can make the G9. I could barely even find a short review of it's performance.
I often have a very hard time finding room for my 30D and 10-22 + one other lens on business or motorcycle trips. I'm close, oh so close on a G9. If someone can show me how to make it go wiiiiide, I'd be sold.
:ear
Erik
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
0
Comments
example shots, here:
http://www.bangkoksite.com/DigitalPicGallery/G9Pictures/G9-11L.htm
definitely not as wide as a 10-22. Which begs the next question, has anyone ever used a fisheye adapter on this type of camera (apparently most all the Canon and other brand point/shoots use the 58mm style adapter)?
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/G7wide.html
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I will let you know how it works out. I have never been a fan of these kinds of things, but the G9 just says to me "Let me att'em boss!" so I had to give it a try.
It is the WC-DC58B Canon wide angle conversion lens. It is large - 4 inches in diameter at the included lens hood, and 2 1/4 inches thick, and heavy. At least as much as the camera if not more. This will swallow a G9 - well, not really, but it will dwarf it anyway. The glass looks nice and multi-coated.
I have the telephoto ordered also.
By the time you get a 430ex Speedlite and a Really Right Stuff bracket on it, the camera will have seemed to disappeared into thin air.
I do have frames I shot with it in this gallery that I have to remind myself were NOT shot with my 5D, like this one...
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
And Ziggy, thanks for the link. That .66x Raynox is looking good.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
I thought it would be more noticeable that is, from a FOV perspective, and less noticeable, ergonomically.
Only used it a couple of times, need more time before I can make a more intelligent comment. Second thought, probably need more than time. :uhoh
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
And another
And a close up of my canine companion with a G9 and the wide angle adapter at ISO 800 ( it has had a trip through Noiseware )
You will NOT be able to use the onboard electronic flash with this wide angle adapter, for sure.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
And yes, I'd forgotten about that. The lens intrudes on the flash in a very ugly way.
BTW, I would not recommend the optional long lens. Bad vignetting at wider focal lengths, and not good quality, I thought.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Re: DocIt's portability quest, how is the above any better than a SLR?
And actually, the Raynox Ziggy linked to is even wider (.60 against Canon's .75) and substantially smaller.
I won't mention that I've found .45x lenses on ebay for $50 that are pretty small. I think I could get by with less than perfection for that wide effect, which I usually use in perfect light anyway.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
For me, it is because 90% of the time I don't need or bring it.
I do leave the 58mm adapter on, however, just for UV/Polarizing/ND filters, and a lens cap that actually works.
I tried one of those cheap optics for a video application. Since video requires far less quality I figured I could get away with the cheaper lenses.
Even in video the results were really poor.
I wound up using a $250 accessory lens which did pretty well.
I advise staying away from the really cheap stuff.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums