# Lens question



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Using my W/A lens this Thanksgiving, I was taking a photo of my sisters sitting side by side. When I down loaded the pic I noticed that the center of the image was in focus, but the outer edge (in a ring) was slightly out of focus...Is that normal, or is that something to do with the quality of lens?
I can crop the pic and likely get a good image but just wanting to understand what is going on.
Thanks
Fred


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

What brand and specific lens were you using? Some lenses sold do have that problem. But need more info to start diagnosing your situation.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Its a Digital Concepts 0.5x. One of them EBay package deals.........I am thinking its the lens but, I wanted to make sure before I ditch it. .Spent a little over 100 bucks on this mess and the only thing that has worked is the adapter tubehwell: :redface: Believe me.........lesson learned.
BTW is Raynox a good lens? Found one on amazon that is a little less than the Canon....


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

Could you post the image?


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

I dont have that pic here, but here is one with the same effect.


----------



## jlatigo (Aug 4, 2006)

wow i see what you mean! were you zoomed in all the way?


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

If I understand correctly this is a a lens adapter that goes in front of the "primary" lens. As long as the elements are clean, I'd say it's definitely the adapter.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

I had to zoom about 1/2 to get past the tunnel efft.

Rusty, I have the S5is. This is the conversion lens and adapter tube in front of the primary and it was clean. If i use the Sony tele lens and adapter tube I dont get the fuzzy effect, only with the W/A. That is why I was thinking its the lens......But wanted to ask incase its something I am doing...or not doing. 
I was hoping to use this lens this weekend at the Moody Gardens festival of lights but, If this is what i get...then maybe I will just use the primary without a W/A


----------



## fishphoto (Mar 3, 2005)

You'll see the same problem (not as severe though) with low-end SLR wide angles as well. I wasted a lot of money to learn that lesson the hard way ;-)


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Ah-ha, I think i am picking up what you are laying down:wink: :biggrin: Just go with the Canon.......LOL.


fishphoto said:


> You'll see the same problem (not as severe though) with low-end SLR wide angles as well. I wasted a lot of money to learn that lesson the hard way ;-)


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

I think you'll find your better off without the adapter. Most of the people I've dealt with try to keep as little in front of (read filters and adapters) or behind (read teleconverters) the lens as possible. More glass means more aberration.

I personally don't recommend it, but many prefer shoot without any protective filters in front for that very reason. Best of luck with your shooting.


----------

