Ok, it was a dumb idea but I thought for the cost
of freight, I could see what would happen if I hung
a couple of .5X lenses on the front of my TL-120.
We all dream of finding the real "free-lunch", right?

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3873.html

"These appear to be new and in very good condition.
Accepts 72mm filters. This is made to fit on any
camera that accepts 52mm filters/lenses. Front clear
lens diameter of 63mm, rear clear lens diameter
of 40mm. This lens doubles your angle of view and
works great! Coated optics, 55mm long."

I tried them out on my DSLR before buying 46-52 step-up
rings. The results are pretty bad.

I'm sending them back. If anyone here wants to play
with them, I'll send them to you for $42 they cost
me and I pay the postage.
________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

---

Give Messenger and Spaces Feedbacks! Click here!

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, John Thurston
wrote:

> http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3873.html
>
> "These appear to be new and in very good condition.
> Accepts 72mm filters. >

If these lenses accept a 72mm filter, how were you going to get two of
them side by side on the TL120?

Harry Calderbank

Harry Calderbank wrote:

> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, John Thurston
> wrote:
>> http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3873.html
>>
>> "These appear to be new and in very good condition.
>> Accepts 72mm filters. >
>
> If these lenses accept a 72mm filter, how were you going to get two of
> them side by side on the TL120?

oh details, details, Harry :)

I hadn't settled that one out yet.
Maybe mounting them off-center?
Maybe un-mounting their front element, grinding down the
rings and re-mounting?
Maybe removing the optics and mounting them in a box/frame
of my own manufacture?

I hadn't figured out how to cross that bridge but I thought
I could go look over the river until I did!
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Patrick Dube wrote:

> That is certainly not a dumb idea John. I had the same but my results
> were quite the opposite of yours! I made tests on my Nikon D80 AND on my
> TL-120 and I can't any difference of quality when I shoot at f22. At
> apertures lower than f16 it's an other story (a crap story) but I never
> shoot lower then f16 in MF format anyway. Right now I'm very busy but I
> as soon as I find some time I'll post more info with pictures.

Can you describe how you tested your lens on your D80? Is yours a
different coke bottle or did you grab them from surplus shed, too?

I took mine, held it in front of the tripod mounted camera with the
kit-zoom lens at about 35mm, and snapped some pictures at f/11. Maybe
I'll give it a try at f/22 before I send it back.

John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, John Thurston
wrote:

>
> Harry Calderbank wrote:
> > --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, John Thurston
> > wrote:
> >> http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3873.html
> >>
> >> "These appear to be new and in very good condition.
> >> Accepts 72mm filters. >
> >
> > If these lenses accept a 72mm filter, how were you going to get

two of

> > them side by side on the TL120?
>
> oh details, details, Harry :)
>
> I hadn't settled that one out yet.
> Maybe mounting them off-center?
> Maybe un-mounting their front element, grinding down the
> rings and re-mounting?
> Maybe removing the optics and mounting them in a box/frame
> of my own manufacture?
>
> I hadn't figured out how to cross that bridge but I thought
> I could go look over the river until I did!
> John Thurston
> Juneau, Alaska
>

I've just been spending many hours scouring the web for similar
lenses John. (You've got me intrigued now!) I noticed Adorama and
B&H have a Canon wide angle converter (model WD DC52 - 0.7x
magnification) which may actually fit the TL-120 - assuming of
course that they may do the job that we're hoping they'll do. Am I
right in thinking the 0.7x magnification would convert the TL120
lenses to about 56mm? The Canon converter has a 52mm rear thread
(needing a simple step up ring) but the maximum lens body width
appears to only be 58mm, meaning they could fit easily side by side.

Are there any candidates living near either of these stores that
would be willing to take a TL120 in and fit one to the viewfinder
lens to see if it is a feasible project?

regards,

Harry Calderbank

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Calderbank"
wrote:
I noticed Adorama and

> B&H have a Canon wide angle converter (model WD DC52 - 0.7x
> magnification) which may actually fit the TL-120 - assuming of
> course that they may do the job that we're hoping they'll do. >
> regards,
>
> Harry Calderbank
>

Oops! Model number should read WC DC52.

Harry.

I'm not sure why everyone is looking at these 52mm wide adaptors - Canon makes a great .7x 46mm wide angle adaptor for their video cameras (Canon WD-H46 46mm 0.7x Wide Angle Converter Lens) this works fine on the TL-120 - no need for stepdown/up rings, and you can get two to fit side by side - the 'ONLY ' limitations are: no front filter thread and you can't put a third one on the focusing lens so you don't know exactly how wide you are. I guess you can consider the $100 or so price a limitation also, but the image is going to be much better than anything with stepdown rings etc.  If you're serious about doing some wide angle work that's the lens to get... unless I missed something in the thread these should work better than anything you'll find at surplus shack.

vladimir


Harry Calderbank wrote:

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogro ups.com, "Harry Calderbank"
wrote:
I noticed Adorama and
> B&H have a Canon wide angle converter (model WD DC52 - 0.7x
> magnification) which may actually fit the TL-120 - assuming of
> course that they may do the job that we're hoping they'll do. >
> regards,
>
> Harry Calderbank
>

Oops! Model number should read WC DC52.

Harry.

---

Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Vladimir Galkin
wrote:

>
> I'm not sure why everyone is looking at these 52mm wide adaptors -

Canon makes a great .7x 46mm wide angle adaptor for their video
cameras (Canon WD-H46 46mm 0.7x Wide Angle Converter Lens) this
works fine on the TL-120 - no need for stepdown/up rings, and you
can get two to fit side by side - the 'ONLY ' limitations are: no
front filter thread and you can't put a third one on the focusing
lens so you don't know exactly how wide you are. I guess you can
consider the $100 or so price a limitation also, but the image is
going to be much better than anything with stepdown rings etc. If
you're serious about doing some wide angle work that's the lens to
get... unless I missed something in the thread these should work
better than anything you'll find at surplus shack.

>
> vladimir

I'm not sure that everyone is looking at this Vladimir. Personally,
I have only just started looking out of interest created by John
Thurston's experiment. I have looked at the Canon 46mm video lens
you suggested but it is listed as having an outer diameter of 67mm.
They certainly wouldn't fit side by side on my TL 120 which has a
lens sep. of 63mm. Does your TL 120 have a wider separation, or
have you found a Canon WD H46 converter with a smaller diameter?

Harry.

Harry;

My mistake. I don't own a TL-120 - but I have a friend with one. He has used wide-angle video lenses on his with a 46mm filter size. I thought they were canon's, but I could be wrong. I will confirm with him which these are and how wide they are. My main point is that there should be some kind of 46mm threaded wide-angle converter that will work without having 'step-down' ring. Maybe I didn't look at my friend's setup carefully enough. I'll double check and let you know.

Vladimir

Harry Calderbank wrote:

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogro ups.com, Vladimir Galkin
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why everyone is looking at these 52mm wide adaptors -
Canon makes a great .7x 46mm wide angle adaptor for their video
cameras (Canon WD-H46 46mm 0.7x Wide Angle Converter Lens) this
works fine on the TL-120 - no need for stepdown/up rings, and you
can get two to fit side by side - the 'ONLY ' limitations are: no
front filter thread and you can't put a third one on the focusing
lens so you don't know exactly how wide you are. I guess you can
consider the $100 or so price a limitation also, but the image is
going to be much better than anything with stepdown rings etc. If
you're serious about doing some wide angle work that's the lens to
get... unless I missed something in the thread these should work
better than anything you'll find at surplus shack.
>
> vladimir

I'm not sure that everyone is looking at this Vladimir. Personally,
I have only just started looking out of interest created by John
Thurston's experiment. I have looked at the Canon 46mm video lens
you suggested but it is listed as having an outer diameter of 67mm.
They certainly wouldn't fit side by side on my TL 120 which has a
lens sep. of 63mm. Does your TL 120 have a wider separation, or
have you found a Canon WD H46 converter with a smaller diameter?

Harry.

---

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Vladimir Galkin
wrote:
"I don't own a TL-120 - but I have a friend with one. He has used
wide-angle video lenses on his with a 46mm filter size. I thought
they were canon's, but I could be wrong. I will confirm with him
which these are and how wide they are."


I'd be keen to hear some first hand reports on the result of using
these type of video converter lenses Vladimir. If your friend could
scan some actual images taken with them, it would give us a good
idea as to whether or not it is a feasible project. In my own
searching, I did read somewhere that the size of the rear lens on
some of these converters can be small and lead to vignetting on
cameras that they weren't intended for. That is one reason why I
looked at something with a step up ring, but if there is a 46mm
converter out there that would work with no vignetting or fitting
problems, I'd definitely be keen to hear about it.

regards,

Harry Calderbank
hcalderbank@bigpond.com

Harry Calderbank writes:

> I'd be keen to hear some first hand reports on the result of using
> these type of video converter lenses Vladimir.

I had never even thought about the possibility of this so never looked
into it. The local camera shop here in Boise - the one that is only a few
steps from the convention centre and hotel - is pretty well stocked. They
know me very well and are very friendly and helpful. I am sure I could go
in there and ask to try some of these lenses out if they have them.

Since I will be VERY busy from this moment on until the convention is
over I might not have time to get this done. However, I do think that
anyone else attending the convention with a TL120 could walk in there,
use my name, and they would be treated just as well. This shop has four
locations so if they had the lenses and/or rings at a different store
they could have them brought to this one with a day or two notice.

We are also offering same day E6 processing at this store so you could
shoot a roll at the store in the morning and have it back that evening to
see the results. Then share them at the MF meeting with every one.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner
Chair, 2007 NSA/ISU Convention/Congress
chair@dddphotography.com
http://2007.nsa3d.org

---

Give Messenger and Spaces Feedbacks! Click here!

> http://soliton.map-logix.com/ConversionLensSet/
> There is no scan of TL120 slides. I don't think my scanner would do
> justice to the quality I had on film... Anyway, I was very pleased with
> the results.

I have tried wide angle/telephoto attachments in my RBT S1 stereo camera and
I was disappointed with the results. I had bought two pairs of attachments
and was able to attach them to the camera lenses, but after I saw the
results, I never used the attachments again and sold them later...

For one thing, I could see chromatic aberration, which is very unusual to
see coming from a modern camera (only via a viewer), and quite disturbing
for me (I am sensitive to its presence).

As a matter of fact, I can see chromatic aberration in your example posted
above (the top of the coffee cup has a blue band next to the white edge of
the cup).

Maybe the results depend on the quality of the attachment and the (mis)match
of the camera/attachment optics?

George Themelis

>As a matter of fact, I can see chromatic aberration in your example posted
>above (the top of the coffee cup has a blue band next to the white edge of
>the cup).

You are probably referring to the example I made with the 2x conversion
lens. I also find it to be unusable so I didnt even try it on the TL120.
Anyway I was looking for a wide angle lens not a telephoto.

>Maybe the results depend on the quality of the attachment and the
>(mis)match
>of the camera/attachment optics?

Probably. The tests I will do with the 37mm lenses will certainly clarify
this. I expect to be disappointed with the results but one must try...


Patrick

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail. Even hotter than before. Get a better look now.
www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA148

I did my tests with 3 wide angle (0.5x) 37mm conversion lenses on a TL-120
and as expected it is ugly. Heavy chromatic aberration + vignetting. So
don't waste time with convestion lens unless it is 52mm (minimum) on a slide
bar and shoot at f22.

Patrick

_________________________________________________________________
Fight Allergies With Live Search
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=Remedies+For+Spring+Allergies&mkt=en-ca&FORM=SERNEP