Fisheye-Nikkor 8mm and the HAL-9000........or not.

[RonVol]

OK Ron, you've made the entire review, so my guess - different base plates - proves to be wrong. Just two weeks, the movie was on TV, so I watched again for, maybe, the 30th time.... Thank you for sharing this 😎

No problem MFloyd.
Thanks for the feedback 

[MFloyd]

I found some interesting reading about the story that Kubrick used Nikkor lenses in many shots, in place of the Panavision Fairchild-Curtis 160 degrees lens, but could not mention it, in order not to anger Panavision http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=68636

Special reference is made of Douglas Trumbull http://parallax-view.org/2012/02/11/breaking-new-ground-has-always-been-in-the-medium-itself-an-interview-with-douglas-trumbull/

[pluton]

I suspect that if Nikon lenses were used for the 65mm cameras on 2001, it was probably some of the longer lenses that had a larger-than-43mm image circle.  The 65mm Super Panavision/Todd-AO camera frame is approx. 22x49mm, requiring (check my math) an image circle of 53mm or 54mm.  The earliest incarnation of the 35mm/3.5 PC-Nikkor would have been available at the time.
The Super Panavision lens set, at the time, was extensive from wide to tele, two zooms, and even a 17mm full-frame fisheye.
It's possible that Nikon lenses were used on the slit scan animation cameras as well.