Comparing 3 Nikkor 16mm fisheyes

[atpaula]

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













@f/5.6













@f/8












FOCUS AT INFINITY AND @ f/5.6

[atpaula]

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.

[stenrasmussen]

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 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[atpaula]

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').

[longzoom]

.Just wanted to help. OK, I got the message.   LZ

[jhinkey]

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 . . .

[Bjørn Rørslett]

"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.

[Roland Vink]

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?

[Roland Vink]

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.

[richardHaw]

OK, i am confused. can anybody help me and paste a picture of the best 16mm lens here?
Thanks in advance...

[atpaula]

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.

[atpaula]

OK, i am confused. can anybody help me and paste a picture of the best 16mm lens here?
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.

[richardHaw]

Thanks. the price has shot up lately for that lens.

[pluton]

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.