Neewer Wide and Telephoto Lens Review

Rule number 3: Photography is an expensive hobby
Rule number 4: but it doesn’t have to be.

Since digital SLR’s adopted the APS-C sized sensor, many film photographers converting to digital suddenly lost their wide angles. Like many, I liked my standard zoom to stretch to 24mm. Since manufacturers are a bit slow to catch up, the only other option is to buy an ultra wide angle zoom, but since they are rather expensive, (anyone else notice that lenses for a smaller sensor aren’t that smaller and are actually more expensive than they used to be for their 35mm equivalent?) I looked at a much cheaper option – Wide angle attachments.

Neewer 0.43x Wide Angle lens and 2.2x Telephoto Lens

The ones I went for were a package of wide angle and telephoto lens attachments in a 67mm thread. (Let’s face it. they’re really just filters that screw onto the front of a standard lens!) They’re available all over ebay and Amazon in a variety of filter sizes and prices.

First Impressions

The Neewer lenses are a pretty standard set and I imagine the same lenses will be offered under a number of different brands. They are boxed in a plain white box and each have a soft cloth case and front and rear caps, so not bad. They do weigh quite a bit and are fairly substantial.

Wide Angle Lens

Let’s start with the wide angle attachment. This is actually made up of two lenses, a wide angle one and a macro one. The macro lens can be used on its own, but the wide angle lens will only work in partnership with the macro lens.

This is where the old adage of ‘you get what you pay for’ comes in to play.

Wide Angle attachment on Nikon 18-105 at 18mm

 As you can see, there’s some serious vignetting and a real lack of sharpness at the edges. By the time you crop these out, you have less than what you would have had at 18mm. If you zoom in to remove the vignetting, you get to about 50mm and you end up with a strange zoom style motion blur that I really don’t find that pleasant.

Wide angle attachment at 50mm

 I’ll be honest, If I wanted a blurry effect, I’d use a lensbaby.

Macro Lens

OK. So the wide angle lens is a bust. What about the macro lens?

I’ll admit that I’ve never really done macro well, and I’ve only one other macro lens to compare it too, but the other lens (a Sigma Macro filter) was sharper.

Using the Macro Lens

 That’s not a bad result, but look at the full size crops below and you’ll see some nasty colour fringing at the edges as well as loss of sharpness. it does pick out some remarkable detail in the centre though.

Centre crop, full size

 

corner crop full size

 I’d say the macro lens was an average one, and you’re likely to find much better close up filters for not much more.

Telephoto Lens

I didn’t really want the telephoto lens, but it came free for the same price other’s were selling the wide angle lens alone for. This really is a hefty attachment though and I wouldn’t be keen to have this on my lens on a regular basis.

telephoto attachment at 105mm

 Actually, the results weren’t too bad. A little edge softness compared to 105mm without the attachment, but not at all bad.

Conclusion

I guess I could have done this review in a couple of choice words, but that’s not exactly helpful. So, does rule number 4 come into play here? Can you buy these and save some money, or is it worth spending (much) more? In this case, I’d have to blunt and conclude that these lenses suck. Save up your money and buy an ultra-wide angle lens. There are Sigma and Tokina lenses available for a couple of hundred quid and if you’re real lucky, you’ll find a second hand bargain. Just don’t waste your money on these.

Can Kodak save itself?

The news for Kodak is not looking good.  They managed to sell part of their business to raise cash, but I wonder how long they can keep things going. They are making a loss, and it seems they’re printer business is the only area with real growth. 

Kodak however could do one thing to turn things around. Stop focusing your business on compact cameras and get into the system camera business, and they don;t even need to create a CSC, or mirrorless or whatever they’re calling them these days (My personal favourite is Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens – that’s a good acronym.) All Kodak have to do is retro fit a manual focus camera with Pentax K mount. (I’d go with something like the ME-Super). Slap a good APS-C  sized sensor in it, and you have a manual focus digital SLR with access to cheap and plentiful PK mount lenses. Now that would be fantastic. Price it the same as an entry level Digital SLR and it would fly off the shelves.

Next you fit one with a full frame sensor and charge more and with all the hype, Kodak become relevant as an imaging company once more. Fuji have kind of caught the vision for this with the X100 and the X10. The X100 was a gamble, but it is one that seems to have gone down well with photographers. Their next gamble will be the new mirrorless system and it will be interesting to see if Fuji can pull it off. 

Only time will tell if Kodak pull a rabbit out of the fiscal hat in the next year or two, but one thing is for sure, I don’t see them creating the killer camera.

 

Rule 24: Mistakes Don’t have to be Mistakes

Mistakes don’t have to be mistakes, everything is subjective – a mistake to one person is actually a piece of art to someone elseRobert Rodriguez – 10 minute film school.

The River Wharfe
The River Wharfe at Bolton Abbey

Never really appreciated that quote until recently when I forgot to switch my lens to auto-focus. The in-focus image was rubbish, but I really like this.

Just wish I could say the same about all my mistakes 😉