Canon S1 IS add-on lenses

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Has anyone actually tried wide and tele add-on lenses on this camera? Is it
worthed to buy? I mean, they are not so cheap, so...
8 answers Last reply
More about canon lenses
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Hi

    Whether they are any use to you depends on whether you are going to use
    them! The overall range of the S1 is pretty good so it is unlikely that you
    will need a longer lens in normal use (although only you can really assess
    this). As an alternative to the tele you could look at Qimage for printing
    your output (produces best quality enlargements or crops I have seen) and/or
    Genuine Fractals (or similar). QI is considerably cheaper than a tele lens.
    On a personal basis I would much prefer the wide end of the zoom to be about
    28 mm eqivalent. Panoramic software could be useful here, but I am just too
    lazy!

    Bear in mind that a wide angle add-on is only really designed to be used at
    the full wide angle end of the zoom and the tele add-on is only really
    intended for use at the maximum tele end (there is a bit of flexibility, but
    not much).

    I have a Tiffen 2* tele & 0.75* w-a (both 43mm) and Canon 1.5* (58 mm) - all
    bought for my Canon G2.

    I have Lensmate and Canon adapters for my S1 with Lensmate thread adapters
    (coupling rings). I have Canon & Tiffen adapters for my G2.

    The Canon gives excellent quality on the S1 even though it is designed for
    the G2. I would expect the Canon 1.6* designed for the S1 to be at least as
    good, if not better.

    The Tiffen wide angle is quite good, but makes the barrel distortion in the
    S1 worse (easy to correct in software). The Canon w-a designed for the S1
    should be better.

    The Tiffen tele is more of a problem. Results are good, but handling is a
    nightmare. Using a Lensmate the S1 lens gently "kisses" the rear of the
    telephoto as it zooms out and shows an error in the camera. It is possible,
    however, to continue working since the rror clears iself immediately. Manual
    focussing is still possible. Using the Canon adapter (probably a couple of
    screw thread turns longer than the Lensmate) the "kiss" is avoided, but
    auto-focussing is still not possible (probably losing too much light in the
    tele - which could be a problem with any 2* add-on).

    Lensmate had a compatibility page with examples of several different add-ons
    although they were trying to use them to change the overall zoom range and
    just showed the futility of this!

    Peter

    PS Even if you don't get the add-ons a Lensmate (since it matches the
    finish of the S! it looks better than the Canon) with a Skylight or UV
    filter plus lenshood can make an enormous difference to all your shots (as
    long as you keep the filter clean!)
    --
    Peter & Elizabeth Corser
    Leighton Buzzard
    Beds UK
    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    news:t5pmd.5678$F6.1284135@news.siol.net...
    > Has anyone actually tried wide and tele add-on lenses on this camera? Is
    > it worthed to buy? I mean, they are not so cheap, so...
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Can I echo SleeperMan's request?

    Do the camera review sites include these items as part of the review?
    Should they in fact form part of the review process?

    It would seem sensible but OTOH it would be a shame for a good bit of kit to
    be let down by a peripheral attachment.

    Rapidly concluding: great point SleeperMan - these peripherals should be in
    reviews!

    Aerticus

    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    news:t5pmd.5678$F6.1284135@news.siol.net...
    > Has anyone actually tried wide and tele add-on lenses on this camera? Is
    > it worthed to buy? I mean, they are not so cheap, so...
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Here's an example using Canon's 1.6 addon
    I took these last spring
    http://www.shellenbaum.com/s1.htm


    On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:34:10 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

    >Has anyone actually tried wide and tele add-on lenses on this camera? Is it
    >worthed to buy? I mean, they are not so cheap, so...
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Aerticus wrote:
    > Can I echo SleeperMan's request?
    >
    > Do the camera review sites include these items as part of the review?
    > Should they in fact form part of the review process?
    >
    > It would seem sensible but OTOH it would be a shame for a good bit of
    > kit to be let down by a peripheral attachment.
    >
    > Rapidly concluding: great point SleeperMan - these peripherals should
    > be in reviews!
    >
    > Aerticus
    >
    > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    > news:t5pmd.5678$F6.1284135@news.siol.net...
    >> Has anyone actually tried wide and tele add-on lenses on this
    >> camera? Is it worthed to buy? I mean, they are not so cheap, so...

    From i've read, nowhere tested any add-on lenses or any stuff except ones
    included...
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Peter Corser wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > Whether they are any use to you depends on whether you are going to
    > use them! The overall range of the S1 is pretty good so it is
    > unlikely that you will need a longer lens in normal use (although
    > only you can really assess this). As an alternative to the tele you
    > could look at Qimage for printing your output (produces best quality
    > enlargements or crops I have seen) and/or Genuine Fractals (or
    > similar). QI is considerably cheaper than a tele lens. On a personal
    > basis I would much prefer the wide end of the zoom to be about 28 mm
    > eqivalent. Panoramic software could be useful here, but I am just
    > too lazy!
    > Bear in mind that a wide angle add-on is only really designed to be
    > used at the full wide angle end of the zoom and the tele add-on is
    > only really intended for use at the maximum tele end (there is a bit
    > of flexibility, but not much).
    >
    > I have a Tiffen 2* tele & 0.75* w-a (both 43mm) and Canon 1.5* (58
    > mm) - all bought for my Canon G2.
    >
    > I have Lensmate and Canon adapters for my S1 with Lensmate thread
    > adapters (coupling rings). I have Canon & Tiffen adapters for my G2.
    >
    > The Canon gives excellent quality on the S1 even though it is
    > designed for the G2. I would expect the Canon 1.6* designed for the
    > S1 to be at least as good, if not better.
    >
    > The Tiffen wide angle is quite good, but makes the barrel distortion
    > in the S1 worse (easy to correct in software). The Canon w-a
    > designed for the S1 should be better.
    >
    > The Tiffen tele is more of a problem. Results are good, but handling
    > is a nightmare. Using a Lensmate the S1 lens gently "kisses" the
    > rear of the telephoto as it zooms out and shows an error in the
    > camera. It is possible, however, to continue working since the rror
    > clears iself immediately. Manual focussing is still possible. Using
    > the Canon adapter (probably a couple of screw thread turns longer
    > than the Lensmate) the "kiss" is avoided, but auto-focussing is still
    > not possible (probably losing too much light in the tele - which
    > could be a problem with any 2* add-on).
    > Lensmate had a compatibility page with examples of several different
    > add-ons although they were trying to use them to change the overall
    > zoom range and just showed the futility of this!
    >
    > Peter
    >
    > PS Even if you don't get the add-ons a Lensmate (since it matches the
    > finish of the S! it looks better than the Canon) with a Skylight or UV
    > filter plus lenshood can make an enormous difference to all your
    > shots (as long as you keep the filter clean!)
    >> Has anyone actually tried wide and tele add-on lenses on this
    >> camera? Is it worthed to buy? I mean, they are not so cheap, so...

    Thanks. This is very detailed info. To be honest, i'm more leaning towards
    wide lens, since, as you said, max. wide is sometimes too narrow still...
    so, with such wide lens, it's not recomended to go to full zoom...?
    I'll take a look to that programs you mentioned.Thanks
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Extremely groovy!

    Well done Bruce and good luck with the moose.

    If there are an pro-reviewers out there: now that was not difficult was it?

    Aerticus

    "Bruce Shellenbaum" <iwontreply@anotherdayinparadise.com> wrote in message
    news:h6ilp0p09gggb763oak2gi3jk1tuebsgat@4ax.com...
    > Here's an example using Canon's 1.6 addon
    > I took these last spring
    > http://www.shellenbaum.com/s1.htm
    >
    >
    > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:34:10 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    > <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
    >
    >>Has anyone actually tried wide and tele add-on lenses on this camera? Is
    >>it
    >>worthed to buy? I mean, they are not so cheap, so...
    >>
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Thanks! Very detailed explanation - pic says it better than thousand
    words...
    I see some purple fringing when using converter, but in general it's quite
    ok.


    "Bruce Shellenbaum" <iwontreply@anotherdayinparadise.com> je napisal v
    sporocilo news:h6ilp0p09gggb763oak2gi3jk1tuebsgat@4ax.com ...
    > Here's an example using Canon's 1.6 addon
    > I took these last spring
    > http://www.shellenbaum.com/s1.htm
    >
    >
    > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:34:10 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    > <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
    >
    >>Has anyone actually tried wide and tele add-on lenses on this camera? Is
    >>it
    >>worthed to buy? I mean, they are not so cheap, so...
    >>
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    I shouldn't say this...

    uh-hu so I won't

    a momentary lapse which I better keep schtum about

    Aerticeus

    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    news:bONmd.5743$F6.1284855@news.siol.net...
    > Thanks! Very detailed explanation - pic says it better than thousand
    > words...
    > I see some purple fringing when using converter, but in general it's quite
    > ok.
    >
    >
    > "Bruce Shellenbaum" <iwontreply@anotherdayinparadise.com> je napisal v
    > sporocilo news:h6ilp0p09gggb763oak2gi3jk1tuebsgat@4ax.com ...
    >> Here's an example using Canon's 1.6 addon
    >> I took these last spring
    >> http://www.shellenbaum.com/s1.htm
    >>
    >>
    >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:34:10 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    >> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Has anyone actually tried wide and tele add-on lenses on this camera? Is
    >>>it
    >>>worthed to buy? I mean, they are not so cheap, so...
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Cameras Photo Canon Peripherals