mobile photography technology, culture and community

www.dpreview.com

News Reviews Features Phones Tablets Cameras Apps Forums

What a view: Aukey Super Wide Angle lens quick review

Lars Rehm | Published: Mar 5, 2016 at 13:00 UTC

Quick review: Aukey Super Wide Angle smartphone lens

Aukey is a mobile device accessory maker that has been in the clip-on lens business for quite some time. We've had a chance to try out one of the company's latest models, the 'Super Wide Angle' lens which at 238 degrees offers quite an extreme angle of view.

It's compatible with any smartphone but we've found it to work best with the latest iPhone generation as the back of the lens neatly slots onto the iPhone's lens protrusion, holding it firmly in place. On devices with a smooth, non-protruding camera-module, such as the Motorola Moto X Force / Droid Turbo 2 which we also tried the lens on, you might have to optimize the position of the lens by moving it around very slightly, using a trial and error approach, until the preview image on the screen shows the best sharpness.


The lens attaches onto any smartphone with the help of a plastic clip.	The lens is constructed with 6 optical elements.

The lens is made from six optical elements and with its metal housing feels, for a smartphone accessory, reassuringly solid and weighty. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the plastic clip that holds it in place. It did its job without any issues during our testing but doesn't look like it was made to last a lifetime. There is also a plastic lens cap that should always be on the lens when it's not in use. Due to the bulbous shape of the front element it is extremely prone to fingerprint smearing.

As you can see in the samples below the angle of view is quite extreme, making it virtually impossible to keep your finger and sometimes feet out of the frame. On the other hand, the lens is great for capturing a very large portion of your surroundings without resorting to panorama modes or similar software tricks. It can also make for fun selfies in confined spaces.

Looking at the samples it's clear that optical quality should not be your number one priority when shooting with the Aukey lens. Images are generally softer than the standard output of the iPhone camera but sharpness is acceptable at the very center of the frame. That said, sharpness drops off quickly as you move toward the outer regions of the frame and corners are extremely soft. On the upside, lens flare and other artifacts are well controlled.

The lens can also be used with the iPhone's panorama mode but as you can see the stitching algorithm gets confused by the changed angle of view and actually ends up capturing a 720 degree image.

iPhone 6s Plus panorama

Of course you can also shoot video footage with the lens attached to your smartphone below. The clip below was recorded with an iPhone 6s Plus. As you can see the video footage suffers from the same image quality issues as the stills but, thanks to the lower video resolution, they are not quite as intrusive. Nevertheless the Aukey lens is an option for video shooters who want to to squeeze as much scenery as possible into their frames. Just take into account that on most smartphone cameras digital video stabilization will slightly crop the picture and therefore reduce the angle of view.

As mentioned above we also tried the lens on the Motorola Moto X Force / Droid Turbo 2 with its 21MP camera. It's more difficult to position the lens correctly on the Moto than on the iPhone and the end results we got were generally softer than on the iPhone. Still, the Aukey lens gives you the same enormous angle of view as on the iPhone and popping it on the front camera can be lots of fun as well.

Conclusion

Overall the Aukey Super Wide Angle lens is fun accessory that can provide entertainment when taking images of groups of friends but also allows you to capture small confined spaces in one single shot, making it an additional creative tool in the box. Unfortunately the optical quality isn't fantastic but in line with other accessory lenses. As long as you can live with the image quality limitations, the Super Wide Angle is fun to use and doesn't break the bank. It is currently available for $42.99 on Amazon.com

Pros:

Very wide angle of view
Good build quality of lens
Compatible with most smartphone cameras (although works best with iPhone)
Lens flare is well controlled

Cons:

Slightly flimsy attachment clip
Exposed front element prone to scratching and fingerprints
Fairly strong image softness away from center of the frame

@larsrehm

Comments

Total comments: 64

Aukey? Looks aukward.

0 upvotes

I have an Aukey 2-in-1 wide angle / macro lens that was inexpensive and has given me the opportunity to take some really impressive photos (particularly macro) that otherwise wouldn't have been possible. More importantly, the company followed up after my purchase and responded to the feedback I gave. I'm not trying to replace my existing mirrorless setup, but it's nice to have compact options like this.

0 upvotes

$43 ??? Amazon is not selling it, is giving it away !!!!!

0 upvotes

Yeah but the image quality is bad..

2 upvotes

That is what i said. but being more Saar Kastic (like maxnimo would say)

Edited 56 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

fish eye lens, wide angle is something else

0 upvotes

Don't waste your money, go and check ebay... you'll probably find something similar for five bucks, plus free shipping.... and if you're lucky it'll be sharper!

5 upvotes

This is fish eye lens not a wide-angle lens.
Subtle yet important difference if your into photography...

3 upvotes

They are not mutually exclusive.

A wide-angle can be fish-eye and a fish-eye can be wide-angle, but neither have to be. What you're referring to is a rectilinear projection (or planar).

Edited 2 times; latest 6 minutes since posting

0 upvotes

I like to think a fish eye is a type of wide-angle lens, but being a subset thereof. When I see a photography article with "wide-angle lens" in the title I don't expect to find a story about a fisheye lens. It wasn't the biggest shock in the world, as I know there is overlap between the two designs. Would just have saved me the bother of trying to read it if they had included the term fisheye in the title. Me being fussy.

Edited 4 times; latest 2 minutes since posting

0 upvotes

Buy a real camera and fish eye lens and call it a day.

3 upvotes

Honestly the softness did strange things to my eyes. Felt borderline queasy just looking at these.

2 upvotes

Ideal lens for professional portraits, especially up close! Can't wait to buy one.

Mr. Saar Kastik

9 upvotes

Hahahahaha.
Mr Sarr Kastic

Love it!

2 upvotes

Don't give Rishi bizarre ideas, man!

2 upvotes

"Fairly strong image softness" perhaps better described as "fairly weak image sharpness"

6 upvotes

Very disappointing. Pet rock.

2 upvotes

Hey, welcome to Madrid! :-)

Edited 27 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Lars Rehm, I hope you've learned a lesson. When your audience is packed with photography elitists and humorless hardware snobs, you better not review inexpensive things designed for fun. If an item's IQ can't meet the strict demands of photo editors at National Geographic or LIFE, you'll be inundated with snark and disdain.

Never mind that the cost of these lenses would alert anyone with a lick of sense that they're not "serious" photographic glass. Never mind that most who buy these lenses can get acquainted with what a fisheye or ultrawide can do, albeit without impressive sharpness. Never mind that if mounted carefully, used in bright light with suitable subjects, for display at smaller sizes online or as 4-by-6-inch prints, this lens and others like it can produce good-enough results for casual, fun-oriented snap- and selfie shooters. Apparently, those folks and the things they might enjoy aren't welcome within the IQ jihadists' jurisdiction.

17 upvotes

Well said.

2 upvotes

It's interesting to read your comment, especially after having read this:
http://www.sott.net/article/313177-The-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-United-States-Anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-of-America

1 upvote

I think your rebuttal to "elitism" is a fair example of humorless snobbiness, particularly since it is in response to people stating that a $4 piece of crap is exactly a piece of crap...for $43, with a review that is more of a sales pitch than it's worth despite its attempt to balance pros with the obvious cons. One con should have been "overpriced".

3 upvotes

Photoshack, exactly.

Edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

M1963, thanks for pointing the way to an excellent read.

photoshack, Rehm noted and illustrated the lens' deficiencies and included its price — the highest I've seen for one of these. If you deem all that a sales pitch, steer clear of advertising or marketing jobs; you might starve.

You try to hoist me on my own petard, yet adjudge the lens "a $4 piece of crap." The irony is that one person's $4 crap is another's means of having fun, learning or indulging in artistic expression. No humorless snobbiness or elitism in your flat condemnation, though.

I suggest to you that a reasonable, non-elitist, non-snobbish response would go something like this: "Similar lenses can be had for much less. They're not for me, but to each his own."

1 upvote

Its the end of the world!!!!

1 upvote

$4 at any asia street market, same lens, different casings with clip variations, same "quality"

3 upvotes

Lars Rehm;

Does this lens have a lens cap?

0 upvotes

yes, it has

0 upvotes

Good.

0 upvotes

Good, never take it off then...

8 upvotes

To save on money and probably improve the quality, how about trying the bottom of an old jam jar?

11 upvotes

In french, we call a lens with very soft borders/corners a "bottle (of wine) ass"... It also makes a cheap ultra wide angle lens.

1 upvote

"To save on money and probably improve the quality, how about trying the bottom of an old jam jar?"

I'm an IQ Jihadist; I use the bottom of of a bottle of Dom Perignon.

4 upvotes

@Sir Corey of Deane,
Where did you find a cheap and empty Dom Perignon bottle ?

Edited 12 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Personally I use the bottom of a Mouton Rothschild '82. I'm thinking of switching though because of the shocking green cast.

1 upvote

@Chris2210,
Set the camera to "Automatic White Balance" and it should be OK... ;-)

0 upvotes

My 18 Karat [Apple] Gold, diamond-encrusted with platinum-accents 6s+ doesn't seem to have AWB.

0 upvotes

Sad you had to choose between diamonds and AWB... :-(

0 upvotes

I guess, I'm not so harsh on these social medias (as I should / some others are), but in - let's say - polite words:

I not sure, this lens it worth the trouble, you know: buying/trying/crying.

1 upvote

This reviewer is much too kind to this lens, to the point that he has no credibility as even a casual photographer. All one has to do is look at the lousy images to realize this lens is a worthless piece of junk that will end up in at the bottom of a drawer or more likely in the trash bin. Save your money folks!

13 upvotes

thanks for the compliment. As a reviewer you have to put things into perspective. I cannot compare this to a Zeiss DSLR but have to view it in relation to other smartphone lens attachments and in the review is written in that context. That said, as always on Dpreview, you have full-size sample images to look at, so you can decide for yourself. if this lens is for you or not.

8 upvotes

Maybe Lars just got a bad sample...

0 upvotes

Yes it seems decentered...

0 upvotes

I like my smartphone... I even use it's camera quite often... but if there is one thing I completely fail to understand: add-on / clip-on / whatever-on lenses for a smartphone.
The IQ is always horrible - the distortion is always heavy... and who carries these things around... I mean the virtue of the smartphone is: you have it on your person mostly anyhow... but really? who carries these clip-on contraptions...
it's a tad pointless, isn't it?

5 upvotes

not 238 degrees that will get the phone and the photogs legs in frame

2 upvotes

Those samples are awful, even for a phone lens.

8 upvotes

as expected, very soft images, because they were taken handheld, I presume. a tripod would be of benefit, but not very practical.

0 upvotes

It makes no sense whatsoever in my mind to carry both a lens and a tripod, but NOT a camera. But, to each their own, I guess.
Daniel

3 upvotes

why on earth would you use a tripod in bright light with a super wide angle?

5 upvotes

@Lars Rehm: exactly what I said: a tripod is ** not practical**, but is evident that some stabilisation would bring sharper pics.

0 upvotes

It is not about how the shots were taken but the terrible quality of this addon on top of a phone with mediocre camera. My GF7+9mm BCL even when shot at ISO-3200 will produce quality at least twice than base ISO result from this setup plus I won't look like a dork or something doing crazy stuff with a phone.

2 upvotes

Even those outdoor pictures that have a shutter speed in range of 1/1000s are soft (getting visible camera shake with that short shutter speed and such as wideangle lens needs some serious effort :). Some of the indoor shots might benefit from a tripod a bit, but in the pictures taken under a good light the optics are clearly the culprit.

1 upvote

no, in this situation stabilization would not bring any benefit at all, softness is totally down to lens quality, at the very least in the bright light shots.

0 upvotes

This is not 238 degrees. 238 degrees on phone should show the phone in the picture. The sample pics show at best 170 degrees.

4 upvotes

I puked when I saw these pictures, far beyond horrible!

11 upvotes

Annie ain't you Aukey, Annie ain't you Aukey, ain't you Aukey Annie !

3 upvotes

i just ordered 3in1 on ebay for $1.50. Not this wide but still good enough and cheaper.

0 upvotes

Fun, but quite low quality.

Moreover, sunny days is a problem. You get your shadow in all images :)

1 upvote

Those samples are absolutely dreadful

19 upvotes

There are $4 door peepholes that produce better IQ... and I'm not kidding: http://aggregate.org/dit/peepfish/

Also, they say 238 degrees, but that isn't what these images seem to show. In fact, it looks like less than 180 diagonal. The shot with the buildings behind the guy doesn't come close to showing all the way up/down the street, which 180+ should (238 diagonal should be >180 horizontal).

DPReview: if you got hands on one of these, don't just quote the manufacturer, please measure the actual view angle.

9 upvotes

That does not look better at all.

0 upvotes

The ones from the $15 (in 2006) Sakar camera don't look great because the camera is terrible (just a 184-pixel diameter image circle), but on a 7MP camera from 2006, you get a 4MP circle that's already comparable; look at this image from the paper: http://aggregate.org/dit/peepfish/IMG_8850.png

On a modern cell phone, you do much better with a door peephole. The primary defect is field curvature, and the tiny sensors in cell phones have enough extra depth-of-focus to repair that. In fact, the $1 cell phone fisheye converters I've gotten via eBay (the aluminum ones, not the jelly ones which are truly abysmal) also do at least as well as the images shown in this article. I didn't have any modern images handy, but can dig some up/shoot new if people really have any doubt.

BTW, the door peepholes generally overstate view angle too. A typical 200-degree one delivers about 170 usable view angle.

Edited 7 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

I can't wait for them to make a lens that makes a smart phone take good pictures.

3 upvotes

I take photos with my D810 and load onto my Samsung cell phone. People are amazed by the detail my cell phone has!

1 upvote

Total comments: 64