Given that teleconverters are a popular item in most of our kits when we need that extra reach, why are there no wide angle converters for our 35mm gear? I've seen them for video cameras (0.7x), but never for standard film cameras.

Okay, well, we've all seen the cheap $49 fake fish eye ones, but since people are willing to pay $250-500 for tele-extenders, why isn't there a market for these? I think everybody would like the option of going wider with something as easy as an add-on converter. I'm pretty sure I would. How about you?

-- Daryl Hiebert (dhiebe@po-box.mcgill.ca), June 08, 1999

Answers

Well, it can be done. Things like this were available for several cameras that I know of (Yashica TLRs, for instance). Usually they were for a camera without interchangable lenses. I would think that the optical quality would not be as good as a lens designed to be a wide angle. For cameras with interchangable lenses like all of todays SLRs, its probably no more expensive than to just buy a WA lens, and get better correction in the process. Going the other way (tele's), it does save money compared to buying a longer lens, although, quality again takes a hit.

-- Ron Shaw (shaw9@llnl.gov), June 08, 1999.

I imagine that it has to due with image circle. A teleconverter throws away some of the image circle of the lens, a wide converter would need to take more of the image circle. 35mm lens tend to have just enough image circle to cover the negative. In other words, it would vignette horribly.

Alternatively, there could be an optical engineering reason, I wouldn't know about that.

-- Topher (topher@intranet.com), June 08, 1999.

Oops. See what I get for answering quickly? I was thinking of a wide-converter being between the lens and the camera body. You could fix the image circle problem be putting the converter on the other end of the lens. Unfotunately, then you have the problem of getting optical tolerances using the filter thread. Sigh, it's always something.

-- Topher Belknap (topher@intranet.com), June 08, 1999.

Yes, front-end wideners used to be available, and perhaps still are. Why is the market much smaller than for tele-extenders? Well, a small tele-extender will give you a 300mm lens from a 200mm one, at a great weight and cost saving. But a gadget that gives you, say, a 24mm from a 35mm would be almost as large and expensive as a prime 24mm. I suspect that barrel/pincushion distortion would also be a problem, but perhaps no worse than wide-angle zooms.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), June 09, 1999.

Adding to Ron Shaw's answer above, the Olympus IS-3 is an SLR for 35mm film with a NON-interchangeable 35-180 / 4.5-5.6 zoom lens. (It is the big brother, literally, figuratively, and cost-wise, of the Olympus IS-30, which has a non-interchangeable 28-110 4.5-5.6 zoom lens. That camera is reviewed in the July '99 issue of Popular Photography.)

Since one can't change the lens, the only way to extend its range is by screwing auxiliary optics into the filter mount. Olympus sells two converters: a 0.8x wide-angle attachment that extends the range of the IS-3 to 28mm, and a 1.7x telephoto attachment that extends the range in the opposite direction to 300mm. Each of those attachments costs $123.50 at B&H. Interestingly, the extra glass up front does not reduce the aperture of the camera, as would a classic telephoto converter placed between the lens and the body.

Please tolerate a short digression briefly reviewing the IS-3. It is the only point-and-shoot camera I know of (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!) which allows bounce flash. For $199.95, B&H sells the very capable G-40 auxiliary flash, which tilts, swivels, offers second-curtain synch, and can even provide stroboscopic multiple flashes in a single exposure. [The camera's built-in flash won't tilt or swivel. And the IS-30 reviewed in Popular Photography cannot take the G-40 or any other auxiliary flash.]

What I don't like about the IS-3 is that by the time one buys the tilt and swivel flash, the 28mm and 300mm extenders, and a $95 macro kit, the total cost is about the same as for an entry level regular SLR camera, a consumer-grade 28-200 or 28-300 zoom, a decent flash, and a close-up filter. Also, the IS-3 camera is bulky; I *hate* push-button zoom lenses, whose motors whiz past the focal length I'm seeking; the 35-180 built-in zoom range is, IMO, less useful than the 28-110 range on the IS-30; and carrying around three screw-in auxiliary lenses and an auxiliary flash kinda defeats the purpose of an all-in-one camera. So I didn't buy one.

-- Michael Lopez (mlopez@econ.ag.gov), June 15, 1999.

AHA! I found one. Well, sort of. But it's not what a person would expect. A standard close-up filter actually reduces the focal length of the lens that it's used on. Not quite what I was looking for, but it might be a start...

-- Daryl Hiebert (dhiebe@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.

I have something like that for my Yashica Electro 35 (and auto exposure fixed lens rangefinder). The test photos I've taken with it seem ok. It's somewhat cumbersome to use. You have to remove the filter from the lens, screw on the converter and attach the viewfinder. It doesn't affect exposure, but you have to adjust the focus (except at infinity). Oh and the manual recommends that you don't use the extremes of the aperture range (i.e. not wide open or stopped all the way down).

In any case, it's easier to change lenses on my Nikons than it is to attach the converter on my Yashica. Also, the front element on the Yashica mates perfectly to the rear of the converter, so you'd probably have to custom design these things to mate with a particular lens.

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), October 29, 1999.