Jump to content

Comparing 3 Nikkor 16mm fisheyes


I have a special craving for these lenses, especially the older one, the f/3.5.
I compared an old f/3.5 non Ai, a f/2.8 Ais and the latest AF f/2.8D. I 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 on a tripod, with Aperture Priority. This 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
1%2016mm%2035%2035%20a_zpsa2audnlv.jpg
4%2016mm%2028%2028%20a_zpsleueblt8.jpg
7%2016mm%20AF%2028%20a_zpssakcykxw.jpg

 

1%2016mm%2035%2035%20b_zpssk9ctm1a.jpg
4%2016mm%2028%2028%20b_zpsz6tq4dge.jpg
7%2016mm%20AF%2028%20b_zpsysfoqmzn.jpg

 

1%2016mm%2035%2035%20c_zps0cl8rcig.jpg
4%2016mm%2028%2028%20c_zps075ht1x3.jpg
7%2016mm%20AF%2028%20c_zpsyax6c7l5.jpg


@f/5.6
2%2016mm%2035%2056%20a_zps4aj4pcyx.jpg
5%2016mm%2028%2056%20a_zps9mtoek3n.jpg
8%2016mm%20AF%2056%20a_zpsauhzhrmg.jpg

 

2%2016mm%2035%2056%20b_zpsaus2r5vv.jpg
5%2016mm%2028%2056%20b_zps1aaxs2us.jpg
8%2016mm%20AF%2056%20b_zpslrqz3mqn.jpg

 

2%2016mm%2035%2056%20c_zpsn154qq8o.jpg
5%2016mm%2028%2056%20c_zpsyrlmgu7v.jpg
8%2016mm%20AF%2056%20c_zpsefg1mrxx.jpg


@f/8
3%2016mm%2035%2080%20a_zpsdgazcv3q.jpg
6%2016mm%2028%2080%20a_zps7tmpwkzl.jpg
9%2016mm%20AF%2080%20a_zpsnelbi5it.jpg

 

3%2016mm%2035%2080%20b_zpsfm2mygaa.jpg
6%2016mm%2028%2080%20b_zpslj9ukpnt.jpg
9%2016mm%20AF%2080%20b_zpsajcbafez.jpg

 

3%2016mm%2035%2080%20c_zpsvolnmt0f.jpg
6%2016mm%2028%2080%20c_zpst8zkqrck.jpg
9%2016mm%20AF%2080%20c_zpshlttbk87.jpg

 

FOCUS AT INFINITY AND @ f/5.6
12%2016mm%2035%2056%20infinity%20a_zpsnu
11%2016mm%2028%2056%20infinity%20a_zpscm
10%2016mm%20AF%2056%20infinity%20a_zpsci

 

12%2016mm%2035%2056%20infinity%20b_zps98
11%2016mm%2028%2056%20infinity%20b_zpsb8
10%2016mm%20AF%2056%20infinity%20b_zpsjr

  • Like 1

Comments

Recommended Comments

  • Subscriber

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Contributor

It's no wonder the old 16/3.5 has such a dedicated following.

I've owned the 10.5/2.8 DX and the 16/2.8 AF-D in the past and was never happy with either of them in performance, both lacking in sharpness and having bad edge colour fringing (which was extensive in both). In fact my current cheap, manual focus Samyang 8/2.8 on my Fuji cameras completely betters those two Nikkors managed in their day, both on DX and FX cameras. For a company that had such a huge reputation for brilliant fisheyes in earlier years, Nikon really seems to have lost the plot with their f2.8 AF fisheye lenses of more recent times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Great post, Aguinaldo! I think this deserves to be made an article, so I will work on doing that this morning. 

 

I used to have the 16/2.8 AIS which I never got to use on digital because I sold it before Nikon brought out their FX cameras. I truly regretted that because as you guys will have seen from my event work, I love fisheyes! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

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.

 

16mmf35_zpsauanpkzi.jpg

 

DSC_2966s_zpsgms1ogsm.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Toby Marshall

Posted

I concur the f3.5 version is the best. I have the 2.8 AiS version and don't like it much. Truth be told, the fisheye I love is the 8mm Samyang. Sharpness in the corners almost equals that of the center starting at f4. But more importantly, it has an near stereographic projection, as compared to the equidistant projection of the Nikkors (and almost all the others except the Nikkor 10mm circular.)

What that means practically is much less pronounced barrel distortion than with equidistant projection, but still covering 180 degrees diagonally. It it a DX lens (OK with my D800). Practically speaking, it is like having a 12mm FF fisheye. That means that the size of the center objects is the same as it would be with a 12mm rectilinear lens instead of a 16--that is a huge amount less "ballooning" of the center portion of the image as compared to the edges.

For the low price of this lens, I definitely recommend it. You might end up leaving all three of your Nikkors at home ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Life Member

First, thank you for doing this interesting and useful exercise and posting it with your findings.

 

Mongo is surprised by these results but the pictures speak a thousand words (each !) and Mongo agrees with your findings.

 

It is a shame Mongo is not after one of these lenses. He will probably buy a Tamron 15-30mm for his wide angle purposes. However, your article does make Mongo give some healthy respect where it is due to the lenses you tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Contributor

Interesting test, thanks a lot for the effort. I no longer shoot with a Nikon dslr but I became infected by the fish-eye virus since I bought my excellent performing Samyang 7.5mm for MicroFourThirds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks atpaula for your findings

 

Indeed they are the same of mine.

 

Yes... I've been a fisheye addicted... and for almost 25 years I widely used -and abused- a beloved SMC Takumar 17mm f4 -screw attachment- modified for Nikon by a great professional.

 

It is a really outstanding lens, currently still one of the best I ever used among my Nikon gear (among them... noct 58 f1,2 -for the bokeh- 180 2.8, dc 135 f2, afs 85 1.8, afs 24 1.4, 55 3.5, and some more).

 

I've been forced to change it because of the wearing of the front lens and some haze on the inside lenses that was impossible to clean.

 

So I bought thru ebay an almost mint Nikkor ais 16mm f2.8, but I immediately discovered that: while with the Takumar 17mm I was able to count the leaves in the corner of the frame (even with the haze in the lenses), with the Nikkor 16mm I was only able to count the trees (this is not a joke)

 

So, I sold it right away and one year later I've been luck to find an excellent Nikkor 16mm f3,5 (AI modified). Before to buy it I did some comparison with the Takumar 17mm where it showed it's really good sharpness and contrast.

 

So, I'm now the lucky owner of a Nikkor 16mm f3,5 but... if somebody would find an old Takumar 17mm f4 I do suggest him to modify it as I did, as it's rendition, contrast and minimal CA  -even at full wide aperture- can be set among the best lenses ever conceived.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Ross Alford

Posted

Had a 16/3.5 Nikkor and sold it in the early days of digital.  Really wish I hadn't.  The 10.5 for DX seems quite good, but I had the impression the 16 AF was not quite as sharp, now confirmed.  Just have to shoot stopped down when possible I guess. 

 

I also shoot Micro 4/3 and have had a wonderful time with the Olympus body cap fisheye; it really is astonishingly good (particularly since I usually shoot in 2:3 aspect ratio, so I lose the extreme corners) and I can carry that, a Panasonic GM5 with its standard 24-64 equivalent zoom, a spare battery, and a closeup filter in a tiny case meant for a point-and-shoot.  Nice as a travel kit.  A couple of examples, both from a trip to New Orleans, one the full frame still in fisheye the other partially defished and corrected for convergence.

P1010527_ACR_1.jpg

P1010526_defished_and_deslanted.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Welcome Ross! Nice to have a new participant on our site. :) 

 

I also shoot m43 in 3:2 aspect ratio, but because I shoot RAW getting the missing bits recovered is as simple as clicking the crop tool in Lightroom. I can't tell you how many times that little feature on its own has saved an image for me by allowing me to reincorporate what I might have missed while shooting. 

 

If you want a really cool little fisheye for your GM5 you should get the Samyang 7.5/3.5. One of my favourite lenses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Luc de Schepper
      This lens is an good example of the advantages the new Z-mount brings. The large diameter of the Z mount allows the lens designers to come up with new exciting and/or better performing lenses. The Z 24-70mm f4 is an example of the latter, it's optimised for the new mount and thus behaves in a way like the similarly optimised lenses for the Micro Four Thirds system, the outstanding Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 comes to mind. 
       
      The Nikkor Z 24-70mm f4 has excellent MTF figures but what's more important in every day use, it's a no-nonsense tool for fantastic images. Finally a "standard range" zoom lens for a full frame system that to me has no flaws. Sharpness is outstanding, even in the far corners. Optical distortion is corrected in the RAW profile and Jpegs. Color, contrast and bokeh are good (although the Z 50mm f1.8 has more punch). Built, size and handling are also very nice. In a kit combined with the Z6 or Z7 this lens represents great value for money and should be a no-brainer when contemplating the purchase of a Z6 or Z7.
       
      Some images (all shot on a Nikon Z6)
       
      1. f5 1/13sec iso320

       
      2. f5 1/15sec iso560

       
      3. f5.6 1/40sec iso100

       
      4. f10 1/13sec iso100

       
      5. f4 1/1600sec iso 100

       
    • By crowecg
      I thought all the big events were over and done with but there has been a barrage of new products in the last few days - all mirrorless !
       
      first a new Nikon Z Lens; a new Canon R body plus a slew of R mount lenses previewed and a new body and lens from Fuji.  There was also a Panasonic announcement a week or two earlier.
    • By Rick Waldroup
      In my seemingly never ending quest for smaller and lighter gear for my street photography, I recently acquired a slightly used Nikon Coolpix A compact camera.  I had previously been shooting with M4/3 gear, specifically Panasonic cameras.
       
      The A was introduced in June 2013.  It features an APS-C DX 16.2 megapixel sensor in a very small, compact package.  It comes with a fixed 28mm (35mm equivalent) f/2.8 lens.  The camera has a shutter speed range of 30 seconds to 1/2000 and the ISO can be set from 100 to 6400, with two extensions available- 12,800 and 25,600.  While I rarely shoot anything beyond 3200,  I have tried the 12,800 setting and the results were really astonishing- very clean and usable images.  My settings for the camera are the same ones I have used on all film and digital cameras I have used in the past- I shoot in aperture priority with center-weighted metering.  I set the lens to autofocus about 50% of the time.  The rest of the time I switch the lens to manual focus, set the lens to f/11,  and zone focus by manually focusing the lens on an object about 6 feet away- anything from about 4 feet away and beyond is in focus.  
       
      The biggest adjustment I had to make when I first got the camera was learning to use a screen to compose the shots with instead of some sort of viewfinder.  In the past I had always used some type of viewfinder, whether it be optical or electronic.  Plus, in very bright sunlight, the screen on the back of the camera can be difficult to use, so I promptly purchased an Xpro Viewfinder III for the camera.  This is an extremely well-made optical bright-line viewfinder with markings for 28, 35, and 45mm lenses.  This viewfinder is a real bargain compared to the Nikon viewfinder, which can cost as much as $300.00.  The XPro viewfinder is approximately $75.00.  I also added a Nikon lens hood which snaps into a ring that surrounds the lens.
       
      Using the camera on the streets has truly been a liberating experience.  The fixed 28mm lens is just about perfect for street photography.  I tend to compose the shots a bit differently than I had previously and the small, compact size of the camera means that I virtually take it with me everywhere I go.  A lot of times, I do not carry any type of bag or pouch for the camera- I simply hang the camera around my neck (something I never did previously), stuff an extra battery and memory card in my pocket, and then I am off to explore and see what I can find.
       
      In the next few weeks I will be publishing an article about another type of camera I will be experimenting with- street photography using a large format 8x10 pinhole film camera.  I will be scanning the 8x10 black-and-white contact prints using an Epson flat-bed scanner.  I do not know what the results are going to be using such a large and slow camera for street photography, but I do know one thing- it should be a lot of fun.  Stay tuned for the results. 
       
      Pacific Street - Dallas, Texas
       

       
       
      Elm Street - Dallas, Texas
       

       
       
      Animas Street - Trinidad, Colorado
       

       
       
      The Eye - Commerce Street - Dallas, Texas
       

       
       
      Houston Street - Dallas, Texas
       

       
       
      El Dorado Motel - Fort Worth, Texas
       

       
       
      NW 4th Street - Fort Worth, Texas
       

       
       
      Main Street - Dallas, Texas
       

       
       
      Pegasus Plaza - Dallas, Texas
       

       
    • By Michael Erlewine
      On my seemingly-eternal search for interesting lenses for close-up work I could not help but come across the Schneider Kreuznach Macro Varon 85mm f/4.5 CAS lens, if only because Schneider promotes the Macro Varon all over the place. And that’s a lot of promotion for a lens most photographers have never heard of.
       
      Well, I heard about the Macro Varon and searched it down to its price tag of $4500 and that set me back on my heels a bit. I don’t need a new lens THAT much. Well, perhaps a Zeiss Otus or two would be alright. I did make some calls, sent out some email requests and finally found that the Macro Varon could be had for somewhere in the mid $3K range brand-new. Well, of course that just sent me to Ebay looking for used copies. However, while it has happened, the Macro Varon does not show up used on Ebay very often, in fact hardly ever. Well, that limited my searching. I did find out that one sold on Ebay some time ago.
       
      Again, I spoke with Schneider reps about the Makro Varon on the phone and finally just let it go. It’s not that I don’t have other lenses that I might buy. LOL. And for those of you foolish so think I’m rich, guess again. I sell old equipment to buy new equipment as I go along. I just do it methodically.
       
      To make a long story short, recently a good friend sent me a message that there was a Makro Varon actually on Ebay for $1500. Well, that turned the corner for me and I bought it in about 15 seconds from receiving the message. It came from China, was used, but looked in decent condition. When the lens finally showed up at my door it was obviously brand new or in mint condition. However, it came in a strange industrial lens-mount which held the lens captive with three very tiny screws.
       
      I exhausted my collection of tiny screwdrivers, flat, Phillips, and torx (star). Then I called the local optician and gear-heads and no one had a tool that small. Well, that was disappointing, since I had no way to mount the lens without removing this big clucky adapter that gripped it first. Then I went salvaging through dozens of boxes of camera-related stuff and finally found a set of tiny torx drivers, but none of them was small enough to work. But, there was one (tiny) hole where a missing torx wrench should be. Where was it? And sure enough, in the bottom of my box of Cambo Actus parts was the tiny torx screwdriver and to my surprise, it worked! I had the lens mounted in a few minutes and was good to go.
       
      Now, I wanted to find out if this lens is best mounted directly to the camera and the camera placed on a focus rail, or should the lens be mounted directly on the camera with a small helicoid to focus with. The lens itself has no way to focus. It has six aperture blades (I wish there were more) and It has f/stops from f.4.5 through and including f/8. It does have something special, however.
       
      The Macro Varon has an additional ring on the barrel that allows me to adjust the floating lens parts in the lens to fit a particular magnification ratio 0.5x to 2.0x. This compensates and suppresses aberration depending on the magnification ratio. The only other lens that I have that has such a ring is the first edition of the Nikon Printing Nikkor 150mm APO f/2.8. These rings actually work.
       
      Another rather unique feature of the Macro Varon is that on each individual lens, during final adjustment, a tiny drop of red paint is placed on the rim of the barrel that allows (when the M42 adapter is screwed on tight) us to orient the particular lens to the camera sensor orthogonally, at right-angles. This is red dot calculated and optimized for each individual lens.
       
      Anyway, I soon figured out that (at least for now) I get the most play out of mounting the lens on the Cambo Actus Mini View Camera. Next, I had to decide what kind of hood would be best, since my first shots (made without a hood) lacked a bit of contrast. I tried both flared and narrow-tube hoods and finally fashioned one from the Nikon K-Ring set, one K5 plus two K3s all screwed together. They made a nice tubular hood that seems fine so far.
       
      Mounted on the Cambo Actus Mini, I soon found out that rather than the large (special order) cambo bellows I normally use that prevented me from getting as much field of view as I wanted with this lens, so I substituted a short bellows, which is fine because I do not need as much room with the Macro Varon anyway. That helped a bunch. I could also look into using a tiny extension/helicoid mounted directly on the camera, but I doubt that I would gain much, and moving the rear-standard on a view camera is better for stacking than using a helicoid. Anyway, I am up and running.
       
      Here is a quick photo of my setup, the Nikon D850 on the Cambo Actus Mini. On that is the Schneider Macro Varon 85mm f/4.5 lens adapted to Nikon mount, with a hood made of several K-rings. So far, so good. And I include a couple of early shots taken with the Makro Varon to give you an idea of what this lens can produce.
       
      This setup is not hiking-material, but certainly can go outside to the fields and meadows, at least if there is easy access so that the gear does not have to be carried far. The lens itself would be easy to carry for hikes, but would have to include some form of helicoid to focus or be happy with a DOF at F/8 and fixed focus.
       
      Anyway, I’m checking out the Schneider Macro Varon 85mm and would be interested in any other user’s experience.
       
      A fine review of the Scheider Macro Varon is this one by Robert O’Toole:
       
      https://www.closeuphotography.com/macro-varon/schneider-macro-varon-lens
       

       






    • By Michael Erlewine
      The Nikon industrial Printing Nikkors are exemplary and highly corrected lenses, but for whom? Who wants to use them because, for the most part, they are restricted to a particular narrow field of view. There not only is no infinity available, but in general they are highly restricted as far as view. 
       
      Worse (much worse) is that the higher the f/stop, the less sharpness and resolution. So, we can’t just dial up the f/stop to f/11 or f/16 and expect spectacular results. The Printing Nikkors are optimized wide open or close to it.. They may be better than ordinary lenses, but the sharpness and resolution are confined to the lens either wide-open or nearly so. And that is a very thin depth of field. Who uses that?
       
      And so, there is no sweet spot for standard photography unless... and here it comes, we stack focus. That’s where these lenses come into their own and earn their high prices, at least in my book. Using focus stacking, we can paint on focus just where we want it, a razor-thin layer at a time.
       
      Yet, even for focus stackers, the reproduction rate for most is very limited in range. It’s a kind of “take it or leave it” proposition, i.e. use this limited field of view or forget about it. Most Printing Nikkors only come alive on a bellows system, some work only well on a focus rail and none work well on the camera itself without a rail or a small helicoid. There is no native helicoid or way to focus other than the rail, which as focus stackers know, is the least preferred way to stack focus.
       
      Why do I bother with these lenses and invest hard-earned cash in finding them? That’s a good question, but the answer is: I like the quality in these lenses and I only wish that kind of correction was the standard in lenses. The closest I come are the Zeiss Otus lenses, (and the Zeiss 135mm) which I consider an Otus.
       
      With the above in mind, let’s look at the main Printing Nikkors (95mm, 105mm, and 150mm) and see what their field of view IS like. Forget about macro range and above. These lenses can go there, but I don’t. Someone else can check that out.
       
      The 95mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/3x~1/1.5x, while the 105mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/1.5x~1.5x, and the 150 PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/x. Other than there, we are going outside their optimum qualities at our own risk IQ-wise.
      Since I don’t usually do macro, but rather close-up photography, that tells me that the PC 95 is going to be the most useful (all around) for me. It does not mean that the others (or the 95mm) don’t go higher in f/stops, but that they don’t go higher at their sharpest. 
       
      What’s the point of having a $3K lens if I am not going to be able to shoot at the range I want to shoot at and get top IQ? Unless I want to stack focus, I am kind of limited to “arty” photos, ones with just a hint of field depth. It’s nice, but for only once in a while.
       
      The 95mm PN can be used mounted directly to my Nikon D850, provided that camera is mounted on a focus fail. I could also add a very small helicoid to the lens, but the moment I do that I immediately lose some of what I most need, range. This lens is designed for something like 1:2 magnification. I find the 95mm very sharp, easy to use, and probably gives me the best bang for the buck, so to speak.
       
      The PN 95mm has 45mm outer threads. The lens mount M45 x 0.75 and there are 12 blades.
       
      The 105mm PN pretty much has to be on a bellows or view camera and, even then, the range is limited to about one view and (for my work) that is not even at its sharpest.
       
      The PN 105mm has 43mm filter threads and the lens mount is M45 x 0.75. There are 12 blades.
       
      There are two PN 150s (actually three), but the one not mentioned here follows the lead of the PN 150, 2nd version, and I don’t have it.
       
      The 150mm PNs are advertised for 1X magnification range, but it will work wider, but of course at a loss in IQ I would imagine.
       
      The PN 150mm (first version) has front and rear threads of 62mm. I’m not an expert, but this earlier version of the 150mm has an additional ring that compensates for the magnification, insuring sharper images over a wider range of magnification. This is perhaps what makes this version the most useful to me. It actually works and is kind of amazing to watch. You just dial it in and it is sharper.
       
      And the PN 150 (version 2) has a filter thread of 58mm and 12 blades. It can’t go much above f/4.5 and not lose quality. It does not have the extra ring to compensate for magnification.
      As far as mounting the Printing Nikkors to the Nikon-F mount, it is not difficult, but you do have to match up adapters. I have enough laying around here to mix and match until they all are ready to go. 
       
      I post here two stacked photos for each of the four Printing Nikkors I have. These photos give you a rough idea of the kind of reproduction-ratio that I can get with these lenses. I am sure if you want to go 1:1 and above, you would with some get better results. However, I do the best I can with what I have.
      Below are shown two sets of four images, the first four are simple stacks of 2 layers, one each focused around the center of each flower. This lets you see each lens with little stacking.
      The second four images are all stacked liberally. They will show you what a stacked image looks like with each lens.
       
      I’m not sure what you will get out of these, but you can take a look. Meanwhile, I continue checking out these interesting (to me) lenses, the Printing Nikkors.
       




       
       
       
       




  • Join Our Small Community

    Like what you see on Fotozones? Join up here and make friends with like-minded photography enthusiasts from all across the planet without having to sell your soul to the Facebook monster. We are limiting our membership to no more than 2000 individuals, so if you are seeing this message there is still space available for you to join. We'd love to have you along. :)  

     

     



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.