Comparing 3 Nikkor 16mm fisheyes

[longzoom]

20090518-try 066 by longz[url=https://flic.kr/p/KuWub9]20090518-try 066-2 by 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

[Chip Chipowski]

I have no interest in the sharpness debate, but I do find Buddy's images pleasing to the eye

[Jakov Minić]

I agree with Chip
Buddy's images are really nice!

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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,,,

[jhinkey]

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.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Nothing is coming out sharp. I think I must be doing it wrong. 16mm 3.5 pre-AI
DSC_9152

DSC_9155

DSC_9159

[atpaula]

Looks like you were a bit nervous during the session.

There is some medication for it. lol

[Seapy]

Perhaps you "Rollie" over while pressing de button?   

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!

[Jack Dahlgren]

I now hanker for a circular fisheye...  OK I know: NAS!

I just got this one and I’m in the same situation!