Auxiliary Cell Phone Lenses

[Jim Koepke]

Ever wish you could get a better telephoto or maybe a fisheye lens for your cell phone?

Now you can:

https://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/cell-phone-lenses/

jtk

[Myk Rian]

I have an 8x and a 12x for my Samsung GS3. They work really well. I've even used them as spotting scopes without the phone.
There are many types for many different phones.

[Matt Day]

They carry them at the Apple stores too.

Cool, but for me if I'm going to upgrade my camera phone I'd rather just bring my actual camera.

[Jim Becker]

I've had some auxiliary lenses for my iPhone(s) for a couple years now. Here's a shot using the macro add-on lens on my iPhone 5S. This is our Senegal Parrot Tosca's eye...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/a-j-adopt/Macro/IMG_0470_zps78f5cbdb.jpg

[Art Mann]

Neat toy!!

[Jim Becker]

Many of today's smartphones have pretty darn good camera systems so it makes sense for the market to address the one thing that is somewhat inflexible with all of them...the lens. That photo I posted above is as good as any I've taken with my 24mp DSLR with my Macro lens. It was a harder shot to take because of the limitations in flexibility that come with the focusing setup in a smartphone (and the nature of a very alive subject who wanted to eat my phone!), but the image quality is very, very good when the light is there to work with.

[Art Mann]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be a snob. I am just very serious about photography. Your photo looks blurry to me and it isn't just DOF. It isn't really sharp anywhere. Maybe it lost a lot when it was compressed for internet posting. I have a tiny little Canon S100 that is my toy camera and it has a considerably better macro function than that (at least from what I can tell). I think those lenses are very clever and they are very inexpensive for what you get. They just aren't good enough for someone who aspires to professional level photography.

Let me draw an analogy. Lots of people spend $2000, $3000, $4000 or more on a band saw because they are professional grade and perform extremely well. I might too if I hadn't spent so much on camera equipment. I use a Craftsman (AKA Rikon) 14 inch steel frame band saw with a 1 hp motor for my resawing. It cost me less then $300 on closeout. Yes, I have band saw envy sometimes. However, I say it does very well for my purposes. I am just not silly enough to claim it performs as well as the finest European band saws.

[Larry Frank]

I do not think that any one would really expect an add on lens for a cell phone to rival a regular camera. But, I think his photo is OK and the problem seems to be that he is taking a picture of a curved surface and the lens has a very limited depth of field. I do not always want to carry a heavier, digital camera with an extra lens or two. I think that these add on lens have a place in this digital crazy camera world and I would like to have one. I am going to start looking.

I almost always have my cell phone with me and the size and convenience of these add on lens would be nice. I just do not have enough pockets to carry a cell phone, camera and other stuff all at the same time.

[Myk Rian]

They just aren't good enough for someone who aspires to professional level photography.
Nobody said they were meant for any kind of professional photography. Where did you get the idea they were meant for that?

I'll take my 8x or 12x with me when I go for a walk, or whatever. Since a phone camera uses digital for zoom, that limits the sharpness. No argument there.
But if all I have to do is wear a small lens on a lanyard when walking, etc., then that little lens is handy as can be. Like I said up-thread, I even use it as a small spotting scope without being attached to the phone.
For $10 or so on Ebay, they're pretty neat to have. And they do work very well.
Here is an example.

302850

[Art Mann]

Jim Becker offered an observation that he got better results with his iphone and tiny macro lens than he did using a DSLR camera and macro lens. I'm just saying that there are probably other reasons for that besides the outstanding quality of the iphone camera and auxiliary lens. He apparently took issue with me characterizing those lenses as toys. I don't know what is wrong with that. Can't grownups have toys too?

[Jim Koepke]

He apparently took issue with me characterizing those lenses as toys. I don't know what is wrong with that. Can't grownups have toys too?

Of course grownups can have toys.

No one likes it when they are happy with their toy and someone comes along and tells them the new toy they have is so much better.

I used to do a lot of film photography with quality equipment and very good lenses. Now I use what would be the modern equivalent of a Brownie or Instamatic camera. Of course the results are not as sharp or even as brilliantly colored as I used to get on Kodachrome. This doesn't mean I am unhappy with the results of my inexpensive one lens does all camera. If I had a cell phone with a camera, then I would likely take a lot more pictures. Some days the view up the Columbia River we when go into town makes me wish I had a camera with me. Sure they would be low quality compared to what is possible. But they would still be "great shots" in my view.

jtk

[Jim Becker]

Jim Becker offered an observation that he got better results with his iphone and tiny macro lens than he did using a DSLR camera and macro lens.

I didn't say it was "better" than my DSLR and macro lens, Art... ;) ...but perhaps I should clarify my "as good as" statement since I really was referring to shots of pets which move around a lot. I certainly get better static macro shots with my 24mp D5200 and Nikkor macro lens when I have time to compose them and not rely on auto-focus. In the shot of Tosca's eye above, the actual focus point is center-slightly-lower-left. That can be seen in the feather detail and as someone noted, the depth of field is very, very short with that particular add-on lens. (normal for a macro lens, however) With manual focus on the DSLR, I would have tweaked it to catch the eye as primary, but wouldn't have been able to get quite as close due to the particular lens I have. Honestly, that was a very lucky shot ... and I was only using it as an example of something neat that can be done with a smartphone and an add-on lens.

[Myk Rian]

Are we done here?