# Wide Angle.... Which is better .45x or .65x ???



## LEXTC (Mar 29, 2005)

I know it seems like a dumb question but sometimes higher numbers are worse than lower.  I'm just trying to make sure that this isn't the case with wide angle lenses.


I have a sony dsc F828  


On ebay there are many .45x wide angle lenses (or filters if you want to be technical) and only one or two .65x lenses.  The .45x lenses go for cheap and the only one .65x is going for $100.

Suggestions/comments.  Oh and I need a wide angle lense asap so If anyone has one.........  

 :mrgreen:  :thumbup:


----------



## lazarus219 (Mar 29, 2005)

.45x is wider than .65x not a huge difference but defintely wider, with digital cameras because of the field of view (or crop factor usually 1.6x) you need a super wide lense to get the same effect as a lense not as wide on film, go for the .45


----------



## hobbes28 (Mar 29, 2005)

^^^ditto.  The .45 and .65 is like the focal length multiplier of you digital SLRs, most of which are a 1.5 or a 1.6, so if you had a 1.5 and put a .45 wide angle adapter, it would almost make the lens that you're using have an accurate focal length.  I hope this made some sort of sense.


----------



## lazarus219 (Mar 30, 2005)

I noticed my old $25 film camera was wider than my new S5500 with a .45x on it. Seems like most cameras (other than the full framers) need wide zoom lenses just so they are decently wide (for prosumer zlr cameras,) but a fisheye for a cameras with the 24x35mm sensor is crazy for the price to get it as wide as on a film camera..


----------



## Canon Fan (Mar 30, 2005)

Heh! Ironically enough I should be finishing my "test" review of two eBay wide angle adapters today. Mine are the .42x and .45x though no .65x

I'll let you know when I have it all posted.

I guess it's back to the HTML coding then for me :cry:


----------

