NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: atpaula on August 02, 2016, 22:57:32
-
I have a special craving for these lenses, specially the older one, the f/3.5.
Compared an old f/3.5 non Ai, a f/2.8 Ais and the latest AF f/2.8D.
Just wanted to know which one is the sharpest at center and border to decide once and for all which one will remain in my bag.
I used a Nikon Df in a tripod, with Aperture Priority.
It is far from a complete and scientific test.
First batch are pictures of a map in my wall, with the camera placed 1m away from it, so focus may not be perfect. 100% crops from the center and upper left side, lens wide open and two other apertures (f/5.6 and f/8).
Second batch are from my window, lens at infinity and 100% crops from center and border (close). Only at f/5.6.
They are all in this sequence (older at the top, newer at bottom).
1- NIKKOR 16mm f/3.5 non AI
2- NIKKOR 16mm f/2.8 Ais
3- AF NIKKOR 16mm f/2.8D
WIDE OPEN
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F1%252016mm%252035%252035%2520a_zpsa2audnlv.jpg&hash=e8ad88a8a8cb28e5117fda23cbb57b0a9414456d) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/1%2016mm%2035%2035%20a_zpsa2audnlv.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F4%252016mm%252028%252028%2520a_zpsleueblt8.jpg&hash=afd1e8b756279b7894cb30b5d8a0bc4b6288d73b) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/4%2016mm%2028%2028%20a_zpsleueblt8.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F7%252016mm%2520AF%252028%2520a_zpssakcykxw.jpg&hash=3058be1385cdc538091d95e630b14b21911b79f7) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/7%2016mm%20AF%2028%20a_zpssakcykxw.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F1%252016mm%252035%252035%2520b_zpssk9ctm1a.jpg&hash=414a9284336da4c9dfcc6b5b9cc4d5c19e375b9a) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/1%2016mm%2035%2035%20b_zpssk9ctm1a.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F4%252016mm%252028%252028%2520b_zpsz6tq4dge.jpg&hash=9a1d80c0555b6e837a668d23614974a716b9a56e) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/4%2016mm%2028%2028%20b_zpsz6tq4dge.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F7%252016mm%2520AF%252028%2520b_zpsysfoqmzn.jpg&hash=51e76948430653136cf53eeed467f55be744702c) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/7%2016mm%20AF%2028%20b_zpsysfoqmzn.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F1%252016mm%252035%252035%2520c_zps0cl8rcig.jpg&hash=3dd2b0553d359e8532c6cda907b9afd41ba2bed2) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/1%2016mm%2035%2035%20c_zps0cl8rcig.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F4%252016mm%252028%252028%2520c_zps075ht1x3.jpg&hash=b14a48164acbd91745a909884dece21e3b1ebec6) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/4%2016mm%2028%2028%20c_zps075ht1x3.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F7%252016mm%2520AF%252028%2520c_zpsyax6c7l5.jpg&hash=2116d18739730580f9897a315a289f094898180c) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/7%2016mm%20AF%2028%20c_zpsyax6c7l5.jpg.html)
@f/5.6
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F2%252016mm%252035%252056%2520a_zps4aj4pcyx.jpg&hash=fe5db65ea6d0a3268b9fa42bc848ec191854d9ff) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/2%2016mm%2035%2056%20a_zps4aj4pcyx.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F5%252016mm%252028%252056%2520a_zps9mtoek3n.jpg&hash=b9cbcf83b194709df4d7f462399c5680fe9c29c4) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/5%2016mm%2028%2056%20a_zps9mtoek3n.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F8%252016mm%2520AF%252056%2520a_zpsauhzhrmg.jpg&hash=25021fe34670601bd46da08e5222ce33cd53e1a0) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/8%2016mm%20AF%2056%20a_zpsauhzhrmg.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F2%252016mm%252035%252056%2520b_zpsaus2r5vv.jpg&hash=5b27d593e4423ecc1a604c0571a683f166a1c3ca) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/2%2016mm%2035%2056%20b_zpsaus2r5vv.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F5%252016mm%252028%252056%2520b_zps1aaxs2us.jpg&hash=446782f99ee38cbb1779cad301b127cc24d09d0b) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/5%2016mm%2028%2056%20b_zps1aaxs2us.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F8%252016mm%2520AF%252056%2520b_zpslrqz3mqn.jpg&hash=afb30a1cb323b650a0b85a72449ea931c57c9d3c) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/8%2016mm%20AF%2056%20b_zpslrqz3mqn.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F2%252016mm%252035%252056%2520c_zpsn154qq8o.jpg&hash=1a314f2afece3f18aba45dbfac1ce470c0047a5e) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/2%2016mm%2035%2056%20c_zpsn154qq8o.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F5%252016mm%252028%252056%2520c_zpsyrlmgu7v.jpg&hash=7bd398ec0a02582c35dfa0bc760df6229623f0de) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/5%2016mm%2028%2056%20c_zpsyrlmgu7v.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F8%252016mm%2520AF%252056%2520c_zpsefg1mrxx.jpg&hash=d4d43e94054c5d82c59351ca2f2b5c1e268fd1c6) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/8%2016mm%20AF%2056%20c_zpsefg1mrxx.jpg.html)
@f/8
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F3%252016mm%252035%252080%2520a_zpsdgazcv3q.jpg&hash=528da22031cd17294f58b29feb9c5dffeba75591) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/3%2016mm%2035%2080%20a_zpsdgazcv3q.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F6%252016mm%252028%252080%2520a_zps7tmpwkzl.jpg&hash=98700522999011bed310079f23816313e3c3befb) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/6%2016mm%2028%2080%20a_zps7tmpwkzl.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F9%252016mm%2520AF%252080%2520a_zpsnelbi5it.jpg&hash=61c71f99ed851b224bc17b24df9b0823215df7c7) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/9%2016mm%20AF%2080%20a_zpsnelbi5it.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F3%252016mm%252035%252080%2520b_zpsfm2mygaa.jpg&hash=b0f9ebc157b056bd2439b48daa88d2ff684f7cbe) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/3%2016mm%2035%2080%20b_zpsfm2mygaa.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F6%252016mm%252028%252080%2520b_zpslj9ukpnt.jpg&hash=32a0e93f2049ad33a927484a21d96e628e3ac16d) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/6%2016mm%2028%2080%20b_zpslj9ukpnt.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F9%252016mm%2520AF%252080%2520b_zpsajcbafez.jpg&hash=edc375e043d2227fb1253e0ea284cc7c0df1a973) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/9%2016mm%20AF%2080%20b_zpsajcbafez.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F3%252016mm%252035%252080%2520c_zpsvolnmt0f.jpg&hash=fc146f70a5a7d69f98361f63cb810b5393d8c0cb) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/3%2016mm%2035%2080%20c_zpsvolnmt0f.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F6%252016mm%252028%252080%2520c_zpst8zkqrck.jpg&hash=48069d7ddebb35d6e24a424dc91249376cad264b) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/6%2016mm%2028%2080%20c_zpst8zkqrck.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F9%252016mm%2520AF%252080%2520c_zpshlttbk87.jpg&hash=54bf88e4d20b17de999e8eea73db657d310ce011) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/9%2016mm%20AF%2080%20c_zpshlttbk87.jpg.html)
FOCUS AT INFINITY AND @ f/5.6
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F12%252016mm%252035%252056%2520infinity%2520a_zpsnuyiyniw.jpg&hash=393ae3704fa45958068ee439b3fdec836e4fddc3) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/12%2016mm%2035%2056%20infinity%20a_zpsnuyiyniw.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F11%252016mm%252028%252056%2520infinity%2520a_zpscmjg6rdg.jpg&hash=ecffd12aa941217ce3f5e02d994e097c9fb0673d) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/11%2016mm%2028%2056%20infinity%20a_zpscmjg6rdg.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F10%252016mm%2520AF%252056%2520infinity%2520a_zpsciy5jrko.jpg&hash=98be6b4af86d4c0aa62ccca5f973620bfe6448e9) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/10%2016mm%20AF%2056%20infinity%20a_zpsciy5jrko.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F12%252016mm%252035%252056%2520infinity%2520b_zps984s824f.jpg&hash=7313d71cd8de1baf39d5825a417c8890af628008) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/12%2016mm%2035%2056%20infinity%20b_zps984s824f.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F11%252016mm%252028%252056%2520infinity%2520b_zpsb8hbxopc.jpg&hash=8722c462b48d27f92495eaa9133aa237a51122d1) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/11%2016mm%2028%2056%20infinity%20b_zpsb8hbxopc.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F10%252016mm%2520AF%252056%2520infinity%2520b_zpsjrnwvumq.jpg&hash=694fdb329eaaea55b6fd9f3046ebe922d47d145c) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/10%2016mm%20AF%2056%20infinity%20b_zpsjrnwvumq.jpg.html)
-
I`d say my dearest one, the oldest f/3.5 is the best IMHO, and it is one that will be my companion.
The difference at the corner @f/5.6 is so noticeable.
I was expecting the AF to have the best performance.
-
I don't appreciate this...because I got rid of my 16/3.5 AI a while back ::). Seems like I need to start hunting again!
Thanks for the effort and a very useful comparison :)
-
Extreme central sharpness has always been the forte of the 16/3.5. Corner performance, not equally so. But your examples look convincing enough.
Nikon claims the performance in the near range was given priority in the development of the AF version. I don't own this lens myself, but have on occasion used Erik's sample and it certainly works splendidly for tight shots up close.
The 16/2.8 is an all-rounder that I often deploy instead of the f/3.5 because it does focus closer. Erik modified my sample to give even closer near limit and this makes the lens very versatile. I also use it in an underwater housing for the same reason. This fisheye likes IR as well, which is not always the case with the f/3.5.
Thus if one has the opportunity, owning more than one fisheye is advantageous.
-
I wonder why the difference in exposure when the lens is changed in the first batch.
Same light and AE exposure.
All jpg right from the camera, no PP at all.
The non Ai procedure for the f/3.5 was right according to the Df manual (raise Ai camera tab, select non Ai at the non CPU lenses menu, select same aperture at the camera rotating dial as the lens').
-
.Just wanted to help. OK, I got the message. LZ
-
I`d say my dearest one, the oldest f/3.5 is the best IMHO, and it is one that will be my companion.
The difference at the corner @f/5.6 is so noticeable.
I was expecting the AF to have the best performance.
Having done the same thing as you, I found the 16/3.5 to have by far the best overall sharpness compared to either f/2.8 versions.
The /3.5 has not quite as good central sharpness (very slightly less), but far far far better off-central sharpness on DX or FX bodies.
The flare/ghosting performance is similar among the models - i.e., excellent. The only exception is that true AI models of the f/3.5 version have slightly better sun star/flare performance than early non-AI models due to slightly different internal baffling/stray light management designs.
Up until recently I had amassed three versions of the 16/3.5 AI and just sold one copy since it was doing no good sitting on the shelf.
The 16/3.5 is one of my most used lenses on my D800 or A7RII.
Nikon needs to release a modern version of equal or better optical characteristics. I just wish it were a simple process to add a CPU to this lens . . .
-
"simple process" - well, one needs to haul out the Dremel with a sharp cutting disc .... Otherwise, no problem. There is plenty of metal in the rear end casing.
-
Good comparison. The tests clearly demonstrates the slightly smaller field of view of the 16/3.5 model - 170° compared to 180° for the 16/2.8 models.
The angle of view of the two 16/2.8 models looks identical, and performance is broadly similar. Not surprisingly, they have very similar optical designs - in fact, the optical diagrams I have seen look identical although they are not high quality or with detailed dimensions. The main difference is the AF version has close range correction which permits it to focus closer (0.25m vs 0.3m) and should give more even performance through the focus range. It seems the designers simply added CRC to the manual 16/2.8 to create the AF version (they may have tweaked the glass materials, lens curvature and spacing also).
I wonder if the 16/3.5 performs better at close range (map pictures) due to a flatter field, the 16/2.8 models may have field curvature which causes the corners to go out of focus when focused on a flat subject. However the article on the development of the AF 16/2.8 http://www.nikkor.com/story/0053/ says the curvature of field is exceptionally flat. This can be tested by repeating the test, this time focusing on the corners instead of the center (use live view). If the corner sharpness improves (at the expense of center sharpness) you can be sure field curvature is the cause. This is a problem when photographing flat subjects such as the map or the common "brick wall" test, but is rarely an issue for 3D subjects. At or near infinity field curvature can become a real problem - when shooting landscapes you normally want the image to be sharp from corner to corner.
On the other hand, if the 16/2.8 models remains soft in the corners in spite of refocusing, I think we can conclude the lens is just soft in the corners!
Has anyone tried the Samyang 12mm fisheye? This is a modern design compared to the others - aspherics, ED, close focusing to 0.2m, and different stereographic projection - could be an interesting lens?
-
The flare/ghosting performance is similar among the models - i.e., excellent. The only exception is that true AI models of the f/3.5 version have slightly better sun star/flare performance than early non-AI models due to slightly different internal baffling/stray light management designs.
The first version, with the diamond-pattern rubber grip may not be multicoated (it's not a "Fisheye-NIKKOR.C"), the later pre-AI and AI versions should have better coatings, which may explain your findings. If you still have the early and late versions, maybe you can compare the coatings and let me know.
-
OK, i am confused. can anybody help me and paste a picture of the best 16mm lens here? :o :o :o
Thanks in advance...
-
The first version, with the diamond-pattern rubber grip may not be multicoated (it's not a "Fisheye-NIKKOR.C"), the later pre-AI and AI versions should have better coatings, which may explain your findings. If you still have the early and late versions, maybe you can compare the coatings and let me know.
I used this first version with diamond pattern rubber grip.
I also have a copy with the newer rubber pattern, but it has a damaged internal glass.
Thank you for the comment.
-
OK, i am confused. can anybody help me and paste a picture of the best 16mm lens here? :o :o :o
Thanks in advance...
This is the beloved fisheye Nikkor 16mm f/3.5.
Note that it has four built in filters.
The second picture shows the last version, with a different rubber grip.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F16mmf35_zpsauanpkzi.jpg&hash=7471df961c19510c23c908dede59ce1946bbfe87) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/16mmf35_zpsauanpkzi.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2FDSC_2966s_zpsgms1ogsm.jpg&hash=49d5e61b457267fd2648fa932c4d080b90257b04) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/DSC_2966s_zpsgms1ogsm.jpg.html)
-
Thanks. the price has shot up lately for that lens. :o :o :o
-
Some fisheye notes:
The 16/3.5 K(rectangle pattern in rubber grip) in my current possession has old-fashioned pale yellowish/magenta-appearing coatings on the large front elements, but the telltale green of multi-coating is visible on some of the internal elements.
The one AF16/28 D that I bought new(and quickly returned) had internal focusing*. It also had loose(rattles when shaken)internal elements...probably part of the IF arrangement... and it's imaging performance looked like a lens with loose internal elements....not so good. It did have a higher overall contrast consistent with being a more modern design with more modern coatings. It was contrastier than both my Ais 16/2.8 and the older 16/3.5.
I also briefly tried the currrent Samyang(Rokinon) 12mm/2.8 'Stereographic projection' fisheye when it came out a few years ago. It had good contrast, slightly cool color bias(compared to typical Ais lenses), and the lens body extended during [manual only]focusing.
The image "sharpness" seemed good all the way out to the sides of the 24x36 frame.
*=incorrect statement due to Memory Fade.
-
This is the beloved fisheye Nikkor 16mm f/3.5.
Note that it has four built in filters.
The second picture shows the last version, with a different rubber grip.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2F16mmf35_zpsauanpkzi.jpg&hash=7471df961c19510c23c908dede59ce1946bbfe87) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/16mmf35_zpsauanpkzi.jpg.html)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1011.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf237%2Fatpaula%2Fnovo%2FDSC_2966s_zpsgms1ogsm.jpg&hash=49d5e61b457267fd2648fa932c4d080b90257b04) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/novo/DSC_2966s_zpsgms1ogsm.jpg.html)
Wait, there are 2 types of rings!!! :o :o :o
-
Richard, Atpaula's / Aguinado's first image of the lens with serial number 274xxx and taken against the white background, is an F-type lens that has had a factory Ai conversion ring fitted to it at some stage in its life.
The second lens, whose image is against the brown background is almost certainly a K-type lens and appears to be identical to my late model K-type lens (my len's Serial Number is 2812xx). From what I can see, this lens has also had a factory Ai conversion ring fitted to it at some stage in its life.
In Roland Vink's database, his sample images line up with those shown here by Aguinado (factory Ai conversion rings not withstanding).
So in summary, what we are seeing here is just the cosmetic differences between Type F and Type K versions of the 16mm f/3.5 Nikkor lens.
-
Thank you. i will look for the ones with the diamond pattern grip :o :o :o
-
Richard, if it is the diamond grip patterned version that you are after, then the Serial Number range for these is 272281 to 276977 (see Roland's database).
However a true Ai version (Serial Nos. 290001 - 291566) might be a better option if the price is right - see Jhinkey's comment below (Post #7.).
Having done the same thing as you, I found the 16/3.5 to have by far the best overall sharpness compared to either f/2.8 versions.
The /3.5 has not quite as good central sharpness (very slightly less), but far far far better off-central sharpness on DX or FX bodies.
The flare/ghosting performance is similar among the models - i.e., excellent. The only exception is that true AI models of the f/3.5 version have slightly better sun star/flare performance than early non-AI models due to slightly different internal baffling/stray light management designs.
Up until recently I had amassed three versions of the 16/3.5 AI and just sold one copy since it was doing no good sitting on the shelf.
The 16/3.5 is one of my most used lenses on my D800 or A7RII.
Nikon needs to release a modern version of equal or better optical characteristics. I just wish it were a simple process to add a CPU to this lens . . .
-
I don't appreciate this...because I got rid of my 16/3.5 AI a while back ::). Seems like I need to start hunting again!
Thanks for the effort and a very useful comparison :)
. Do not, Sten. All of those are not up to digital era. If you badly want fish, try to find old Rolley 16/2.8, made in Singapore. With adapter it working much better, razor sharp, but fully manual. Best among them is Leica one, could be adopted by Nikon, again manual, of course, but price... Not for us, mortals... Canon's one is brilliant, needs a lot of efforts to be set on Nikon, very expensive job. Try to find Sigma 15, newest one, there is a big sample variations, but if you are lucky, this one is created for sensors, and much sharper, than any old Nikkor. Good luck! LZ
-
Practical experiences with the 16 mm Fisheyes on digital cameras do not support your conclusions. In particular the 16/3.5 images are remarkably sharp.
-
With all due respect, Bjorn, but no one can expect that everyone will share one's practical experience. I do agree with you on most things, but some of them are directly contradicting to MY practical skills. While 16/3.5 is sharper than anything else from Nikon, it isn't sharper than Rolley, (which has much better color/contrast ratio). 16/3.5 delivering much worse color, than Canon, and isn't even close to Leica, on every respect. Sigma is equal to the Nikkor in center, but way better to extreme corners, if one is lucky to get a good sample. I am always paying highest respect to you, but do waiting for the same. Thank you! LZ
-
We can agree to disagree, which is fine with me. A lens sharper than the 16/3.5 must be magnificent.
-
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8034/28507496090_586f71b6b4_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Kr7nph)20090518-try 044 (https://flic.kr/p/Kr7nph) by (https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8443/28686877442_8d5642df38_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photo[url=https://flic.kr/p/KGXKed)20090518-20090518-try 044 (https://flic.kr/p/KGXKed) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrs/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. Sorry for terrible artifacts, really sorry - I was not able to find that old RAW image. Sigma 15 wide open, D3 body - low resolving, BTW. Yes, terrible vignette. Much better at 5.6, of any respect. Just sorry for insisting, but that is a matter I know very well. LZ
-
The second lens, whose image is against the brown background is almost certainly a K-type lens and appears to be identical to my late model K-type lens (my len's Serial Number is 2812xx). From what I can see, this lens has also had a factory Ai conversion ring fitted to it at some stage in its life.
This lens looks like a native AI lens rather than an AI converted K lens. Although the two are almost indistinguishable, the K version has a different rubber grip - a bit darker, glossier, and more finely divided. The grip on the AI version looks very similar but is a dark dull grey and less finely divided. The only way to be absolutely sure is to look at the mount - the AI version has the maximum aperture indexing post next to the rear element, this is not present on pre-AI and AI converted lenses.
Ai 16/3.5 lenses have serial numbers from 290001 to at least 291566, so maybe 1600 units. The K version has serial numbers from 280001 to at least 281597, also about 1600 units, so neither is common. A number of the 28xxxx lenses are actually AI - not AI converted - it seems Nikon used some spare pre-AI parts when assembling AI lenses. I have seen the same for several other K/AI lenses.
-
Thanks Roland - the latter part of your quote may explain my potential mis-identifcation.
Certainly the second image from Aquinaldo is not a Type F (he says it is the "last version", i.e. Ai) and my own lens is certainly a late K-Type.
........................................................
........................................................
Ai 16/3.5 lenses have serial numbers from 290001 to at least 291566, so maybe 1600 units. The K version has serial numbers from 280001 to at least 281597, also about 1600 units, so neither is common. A number of the 28xxxx lenses are actually AI - not AI converted - it seems Nikon used some spare pre-AI parts when assembling AI lenses. I have seen the same for several other K/AI lenses.
-
Practical experiences with the 16 mm Fisheyes on digital cameras do not support your conclusions. In particular the 16/3.5 images are remarkably sharp.
I agree with this.
Anyone who disagrees should first learn how to spell Rollei correctly ;)
Looking at samples posted with the CZ lens I do not see anything the old Nikkor could not do in regards to corner sharpness.
According to information found in some Leica forums, the Leitz Fisheye-Elmarit-R 16 mm is the very same lens as the Minolta MC or MD Fisheye Rokkor 16 mm 1:2.8, just in a Leica R barrel. Eric Lund might have read the same comments being active in these same forums. As far as "price, not for us mortals" is concerned, I paid more then $700 for some of the lenses I owned, which seems to be the going rate for the Leica R fish eye.
So, as far as first hand experience goes, Rick, if you do not nescessarily need the 180 degree field of view of the newer lens design, the 16mm f3,5 will be amongst the sharpest lenses you can find for your Df and Nikon F. Period. And at 170 degrees and 0,3m it is plenty wide for what I use it for. It is also a very small lens, and because of that I bring it more often the the UD Nikkor
Picture of the lens for Richard:
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/2/1550/25849503493_504f70c140_b.jpg)
Picture taken with the lens (f5,6):
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7169/26685181560_0e9e294c0f_b.jpg)
f8
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7364/27828808046_049b3cd73f_b.jpg)
Close focus
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1487/26250410591_1d8d0b8e8d_b.jpg)
-
My copy of the 16/3.5 K is good enough that it eliminated my pining for Zeiss to make a new ZF FF fisheye.
Longzoom, you are not the only one to sing the praises of the Sigma. Thom Hogan mentions it as a viable alternative the current Nikon product. There is always the possibility that your test copy Nikon 16/3.5 was compromised. My 16/3.5 was hacked by a local repair facility during a routine CLA job. The reliable owner/chief tech of the shop had hired a less-skilled employee, and my 16/3.5 went to that guy. When the lens was first handed back to me, it couldn't even form an image.
-
One, who is spelling "Rolley" correctly, has posted soft images. Plain soft. This one should learn, what it is sharp, and what is not. If the same person want to advocate any lens, there is very bad attempt. Your copy of this lens is unsharp. Simply like this. Wrong try, my friend.
-
My copy of the 16/3.5 K is good enough that it eliminated my pining for Zeiss to make a new ZF FF fisheye.
Longzoom, you are not the only one to sing the praises of the Sigma. Thom Hogan mentions it as a viable alternative the current Nikon product. There is always the possibility that your test copy Nikon 16/3.5 was compromised. My 16/3.5 was hacked by a local repair facility during a routine CLA job. The reliable owner/chief tech of the shop had hired a less-skilled employee, and my 16/3.5 went to that guy. When the lens was first handed back to me, it couldn't even form an image.
. Thanks for your remark. My copy of 16/3.5 was very sharp, and there was not 1 copy only. Good copy of Sigma is sharper to extreme corners, what clearly seen on the crop I've posted above. Everything else is already posted, unnecessary to repeat myself! THX! LZ
-
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8602/28220127583_ff59ffa671_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JZHwKR)20090518-try 066 (https://flic.kr/p/JZHwKR) by longz[url=https://flic.kr/p/KuWub9](https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8295/28550833740_df6a9865f4_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/)20090518-try 066-2 (https://flic.kr/p/KuWub9) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickroom[/url], on Flickr Yes, I know, my English is not perfect, nor shiny. It is not my second language, not even third. Sorry. Back to business: Sigma 15mm fisheye, at 5.6. Huge crop from the bottom right corner. My old D3 image - not a RAW file, just a JPG from low-resolving sensor... sorry again. To hot advocate person here - to start fighting with professional - think twice, before, to not look... ahh... you know better. My promise - I will spell "Rollei" correctly! THX! LZ
-
I have no interest in the sharpness debate, but I do find Buddy's images pleasing to the eye :)
-
I agree with Chip :)
Buddy's images are really nice!
-
The one AF16/28 D that I bought new(and quickly returned) had internal focusing. It also had loose(rattles when shaken)internal elements...probably part of the IF arrangement... and it's imaging performance looked like a lens with loose internal elements....not so good. It did have a higher overall contrast consistent with being a more modern design with more modern coatings. It was contrastier than both my Ais 16/2.8 and the older 16/3.5.
The AF 16/2.8 fisheye has unit focusing with close range correction. It's not an IF or RF design, all the glass moves when focusing, the front and rear groups move at different rates, the change in spacing between them gives better correction at near and far distances. The rattling you heard was probably from the CRC mechanism. It could be easy to mistake it for an IF lens since the glass hardly moves when focusing, with lenses this short, only the smallest movements are needed for focusing. I tried a AF 16/2.8 once, and noticed that the front element rotates inside the barrel during focusing due to the CRC mechanism - similar to the AIS 20/2.8, 28/2 and 28/2.8. A very quick test (on film, at far distance) showed it performed the same as my AIS 16/2.8.
-
I used to shoot the 16mm 3.5 but changed to 16mm 2.8 AF-D many years ago - the AF-d lens does very well stopped down or not even for shooting really close to the subject.
On a general note; I have always assumed that fish eye lenses where not flat field lenses - So I have not shot any flat subjects to test how the lens performance was,,,
-
The first version, with the diamond-pattern rubber grip may not be multicoated (it's not a "Fisheye-NIKKOR.C"), the later pre-AI and AI versions should have better coatings, which may explain your findings. If you still have the early and late versions, maybe you can compare the coatings and let me know.
I did not notice a coating difference, but rather the blackness of the internally painted black light baffling surfaces is different between the versions. The non-AI version has a lighter (less dark) colored ring that you can see looking through the front element while the factory AI version has this same surface being much darker. I assume that any non-optical surfaces behind the front element that are not so dark black can't be good for flare/ghosts.
As I mentioned earlier I used to own 3 copies of the 16/3.5 AI (all native AI) (sold one just to free up funds) and they all performed identically regarding sharpness across the frame at all apertures. The only difference I found between them was due to the amount of accumulated internal dust which can seriously degrade the flare/ghosting performance depending on where the dust is. APS took one apart for a thorough internal cleaning of dust from mountain usage and it came back performing back to excellent levels again.
-
Nothing is coming out sharp. I think I must be doing it wrong. 16mm 3.5 pre-AI
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4677/28218681829_88b1bb49c6_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JZA7Z4)DSC_9152 (https://flic.kr/p/JZA7Z4)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4761/28218672589_54befee475_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JZA5eK)DSC_9155 (https://flic.kr/p/JZA5eK)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4628/39966158802_09cc834e20_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23TF1Bu)DSC_9159 (https://flic.kr/p/23TF1Bu)
-
Looks like you were a bit nervous during the session.
There is some medication for it. lol
-
Perhaps you "Rollie" over while pressing de button? ;D ;D ;D
Seriously, many thanks for bumping this thread, despite the differing opinions (perhaps the differing opinions helped?) I found it very interesting read, I own the 16 f2.8 and find it a wonderful lens, I don't see any significant corner fall off of sharpness in astro photography, even wide open.
I now hanker for a circular fisheye... OK I know: NAS!
-
I now hanker for a circular fisheye... OK I know: NAS!
I just got this one and I’m in the same situation!