Comparing 3 Nikkor 16mm fisheyes

[richardHaw]

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.

Wait, there are 2 types of rings!!!

[Hugh_3170]

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.

[richardHaw]

Thank you. i will look for the ones with the diamond pattern grip

[Hugh_3170]

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 . . .

[longzoom]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[longzoom]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

We can agree to disagree, which is fine with me. A lens sharper than the 16/3.5 must be magnificent.

[longzoom]

20090518-try 044 by 20090518-20090518-try 044 by 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

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Hugh_3170]

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.

[the solitaire]

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:



Picture taken with the lens (f5,6):



f8



Close focus

[pluton]

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.

[longzoom]

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.

[longzoom]

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