Several questions regarding the 16mm 3.5 lens

[Moritat]

There's been some threads regarding fish eye lenses recently, so I'll add one more. Over the years, I've seen a number of great looking non-fisheye (rectilinear looking) photos from the Nikon 16mm 3.5 lens (I believe most of these were from the AI version). I was wondering what software is being used to defish these photos?  And for anyone who has defished shots from the 16mm 3.5 lens, are you satisfied with the sharpness on the edges and corners? As much as I've enjoyed samples from this lens on various websites, it's difficult to examine the corners on internet photos. Thanks.

[jhinkey]

There's been some threads regarding fish eye lenses recently, so I'll add one more. Over the years, I've seen a number of great looking non-fisheye (rectilinear looking) photos from the Nikon 16mm 3.5 lens (I believe most of these were from the AI version). I was wondering what software is being used to defish these photos?  And for anyone who has defished shots from the 16mm 3.5 lens, are you satisfied with the sharpness on the edges and corners? As much as I've enjoyed samples from this lens on various websites, it's difficult to examine the corners on internet photos. Thanks.

I've never de-fished my 16/3.5 AI, but I've cropped the image a lot.
Key to using this lens is very very very good composition - keep it level with horizons or other vertical/horizontal features.  Keep important things from being at the edges/sides of the image, etc.  Critical focus as well.

This is one of my sharpest lenses on my D800 or A7RII (when critically focused) and can withstand a lot of post-processing and cropping.

- John

[Bjørn Rørslett]

No fisheye lens can make perfect sharp images all over the frame after a defishing action. The 16/3.5 starts as an immensely sharp lens and thus images captured by it can stand slightly more "massaging" before the loss of sharpness into the peripheral areas becomes too visible.

The 10.5 mm sometimes is a better starting point, though, if you are on a DX format.

[Jakov Minić]

What's a fish-eye if you plan to defish it
Get a 20/1.8 and enjoy straightness...

[Erik Lund]

I have used Fisheye Hemi software.


Works great but you need to shoot the image correctly to start with or it's waste of time, can be used for people shots mostly, large group of people for instance.


Any full frame fisheye can be used,,, I shoot the 16mm AFD 2.8

[richardHaw]

you guys are making me lust for the 16/3.5

[jhinkey]

you guys are making me lust for the 16/3.5

Well, I know where there is a true AI version for sale right now for a reasonable price!

[richardHaw]

Well, I know where there is a true AI version for sale right now for a reasonable price!

The New-Nikkor one is considered to be the best,right?

[jhinkey]

The New-Nikkor one is considered to be the best,right?

Yes, the true AI version of the 16/3.5 is the "best" of the 16/3.5 variants based on my ownership of the AI'd and AI versions.  Subtle, but the flare/ghosting, though excellent for both variants, is a bit better with the true AI version.

[Moritat]

Thanks for the responses. It's interesting that John & Erik indicate composition is more important than defishing in achieving a straight picture. Something I never thought about, but it makes sense. I just read an article with some positive comments about that Hemi software. If you do need to defish, this might be the best method? Everyone seems to agree, this 16/3.5 is a very sharp lens.

[Erik Lund]

There are Two major differences for the full frame Fisheye 16mm f/3.5 and f/2.8; 170 vs. 180 degree diagonal field of view and Close Range Correction. Rolands pages has that nicely listed

I would say that it is a factor of 10 more important how you manage to include details, frame and focus a Full Frame Fisheye and - if it's the 3.5 or the 2.8!

Stop it down for sharpness,,,

Both are super nice in IR

[Roland Vink]

Note that CRC is found only on the AFD 16/2.8 (focus to 0.25m), the AI and AIS versions are unit focusing (focus to 0.3m).