NikonGear'23

Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Harald on September 28, 2016, 09:39:08

Title: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Harald on September 28, 2016, 09:39:08
Hi,

somebody any experience with this fisheye? I waited for the Irix 15mm but after the First Reviews i am not really satisfied. ;)
As i always wanted to Test a fisheye too.... ;) So i Need your advice. :)

Harald
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Erik Lund on September 28, 2016, 10:47:52
Very nice lens, stop down for optimum performance, AF-D version has CRC correction offers very good general performance. Really good in IR as well!
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Harald on September 28, 2016, 11:13:51
Hi Erik,

thank you. Is CRC also true for the Ai-S Version?

Harald
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Jakov Minić on September 28, 2016, 11:37:46
Harald, any fish-eye will grow close to your heart regardless of CRC.
According to Roland Vink's website only the AF fish-eye has CRC.

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#Fisheye
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Harald on September 28, 2016, 12:27:12
Hi,

Ok. :) What should i pay for a good copy? Any idea?

Harald
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Jakov Minić on September 28, 2016, 15:22:50
If a new fish-eye is about €600, I suppose a good 2nd hand copy should be somewhere between €300 and €400...

Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: PedroS on September 28, 2016, 15:23:46
£330 to £400
 ;)
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: pluton on September 28, 2016, 18:09:09
Make sure the copy you consider has at least one of the two available "clear" filters (L37c, L1Bc) attached at the rear of the lens. 
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Roland Vink on September 28, 2016, 22:02:47
I can confirm the AI and AIS 16/2.8 are unit focusing lenses, they don't have CRC. The AF-D version has a very similar optical design, to me it clearly is derived from the AI optics but it now has CRC, permitting the focus range to be shortened from 0.3m to 0.25m.

All Nikon 16/2.8 versions require a rear filter to be fitted for normal photography. Without the filter the lens can focus closer than normal, but cannot focus to infinity.

Performance in the center is very good, but the corners only become acceptable on stopping well down, for landscapes where corner to corner sharpness is required I usually shoot at f/11. According to some reports the Sigma 15mm fisheye does better here - if you find a good copy.

The 16mm has a relatively long focal length for a lens with 180° field of view - the Sigma and Canon fisheyes have 15mm focal length with the same field of view. That means the central portion of the image is magnified relatively more, with the edges highly compressed more to squeeze the same field of view into the frame. The result is higher distortion and compressing of objects at the edge of the frame, which I sometimes find is unpleasant. The 15mm fisheyes, or the Nikon 16/3.5 fisheye with the smaller 170° field of view should have more even distortion characteristics across the frame.

There is also the Samyang 12mm fisheye which uses the stereographic projection instead. The shorter focal length means the center of the image is smaller, and the edges are less compressed resulting in a milder fisheye effect and less distortion across the frame. This lens is relatively inexpensive, I've been quite tempted to get one but reviews are mixed, there seems to be a lot of variation between samples...
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: David H. Hartman on September 28, 2016, 23:01:33
Make sure the copy you consider has at least one of the two available "clear" filters (L37c, L1Bc) attached at the rear of the lens.

I'm quite sure now that Akira has the filters right and I was thinking of the 15/5.6 AI Nikkor. So here is a second try: My 16/2.8 AIS came with an L1Bc, A2 (pale amber), B2(pale blue), and an 056(deep orange). It took me a while but I finally found an L37c filter. The other filter are enshrined in there case somewhere as I don't use filters often these days. The L1Bc is a CC 0.025 Magenta filter or very close to it. I prefer the L37c as it is nearly colorless.

The 16/2.8 AIS is particularly immune to flare and ghost.


Dave

The above has been edited for accuracy.
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: pluton on September 29, 2016, 08:16:01
I keep the L1Bc (extreme pale magenta) filter on mine because I hate when there is too much green.
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Harald on September 29, 2016, 08:19:07
Hi,

Thanks for the Infos. :) I will look at a Sample this Weekend. It seems fine and has all Filters.

Harald
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: tommiejeep on September 29, 2016, 08:26:05
I keep the L1Bc (extreme pale magenta) filter on mine because I hate when there is too much green.
Interesting Keith, my D300 and D300s both had heavy green.  Played with tint and finally fine tuned the colours in camera and did get rid of the green.   My D750 in Photoshop CC has too much Magenta but have not really worked at correcting in camera.
Tom
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Akira on September 29, 2016, 09:13:05
If the rear filters for Ais 16/2.8 are compatible with those for AF-D 16/2.8 or Ais 15/3.5, they are still available (L37c, amber, blue and orange, L37c is the only one that is multi-coated).  Nikon hasn't discontinued them yet, which means that you don't need to pay for the rarities or the collectors' items.
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on September 29, 2016, 10:45:38
These specialised 39 mm filters are common to the 16 mm f/2.8 Fisheyes and the 15 mm (f/3.5, f/5.6).
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: jhinkey on September 29, 2016, 15:42:47
Hi,

somebody any experience with this fisheye? I waited for the Irix 15mm but after the First Reviews i am not really satisfied. ;)
As i always wanted to Test a fisheye too.... ;) So i Need your advice. :)

Harald

Great flare/ghosting resistance, but not very sharp off center.  16/3.5 AI, if you can find one, is a much better lens sharpness-wise and just about as good for flare/ghosting resistance.
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Bent Hjarbo on February 14, 2018, 09:57:08
How will dust inside affect the images?
Considering buying an AF-D version.
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: pluton on February 14, 2018, 20:53:26
Conventional wisdom: Dust inside is not a big issue unless it is very, very thick. 
Dust...or any stuck-on debris or scratches or chips in the glass... on the outer front element surface is likely to be seen in the photograph.
My 16/3.5 Fisheye-Nikkor had obvious smears and condensation deposits on its internal rotating filters** which sit in the middle of the lens, but appeared to have no effect on the image formed by the lens.  Of course, since I could see the junk on the filters if I held a bright LED  torch up to the lens, I wasn't happy until I had the deposits removed by service personnel.
** The lens you are considering does not have internal filters, so one less thing to go wrong.
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: pluton on February 14, 2018, 20:57:11
These specialised 39 mm filters are common to the 16 mm f/2.8 Fisheyes and the 15 mm (f/3.5, f/5.6).
And... the very rare 13mm/5.6 Nikkor.
Here is a recent (February 2018) FM forum thread in which a fellow in the USA purchased a Nikon Refurbished 13/5.6 from B&H for $8500. 
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1529693 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1529693)
On page 4 the lens arrives.
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: John Geerts on February 14, 2018, 21:42:53
They are not going to use the lens?   :o
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: pluton on February 15, 2018, 05:11:54
They are not going to use the lens?   :o
The guy says he is going to resell it, but I sense that he is tempted to try it.  He has to obtain a Nikon body first!
Title: Re: Nikon 16mm 2.8 Ai-s
Post by: Roland Vink on February 15, 2018, 19:51:22
At the current price of 13mm lenses, they are really collector items, too expensive to risk using. Of course some will put it on their camera, take a few test shots for the fun of it, maybe even take it into the field in carefully controlled situations. But there are probably better and cheaper lenses these days if an ultra-wide rectilinear lens is needed.