Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D Lens

[Oneputt]

I am interested to hear from anyone who has this lens or who have used it. The 10.5 is too wide on a FF camera.

[Glen]

Hi John,
I rented one of these maybe 20 years ago (not really sure if it was the 3.5 or 2. and took pictures I could never have taken with anything else, remember a few great ones of my LTD grill. My memory is too dim to relate the quality etc, but Bjorn Rorslett's review is here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_fish.html

From memory it was very expensive then, they seem cheap as chips now

[Oneputt]

Thanks Glen I will have a read.

[Killakoala]

I've used one and found it very useful for shooting people close-up doing work or sport, that kind of thing. It's not too wide that it shows a lot of distortion but wide enough to get everything in shot. It's better than the 10.5 in that regard and has less Chromatic Aberration. I'd swap my 10.5 FE for one.

[Rikphoto]

Hi John,

It works fine on the D3, I have used one for years on the film bodies but it sat in the cupboard for a while after I got a 10.5 for the DX bodies.
I did a rough comparison the other day with D3/AFD16mm and D200/AFD10.5mm.
Using Capture NX to straighten out the lines I got a slightly wider FOV from the D3 and 16mm lens.
It was a great deal wider than the 14-24mm but you could see a big difference in detail quality in the corners where NX had interpolated the pixels..

Cheers
Richard

[Oneputt]

That is very interesting Richard - on the D3 wider than the 14-24? How does that work because that particular lens is next on my list (very shortly I hope).

[Rikphoto]

The 14-24mm is a rectilinear lens and has minimal lineal distortion, the 16mm fish-eye has a super wide view but the trade-off is a massive lineal distortion. The 16mm angle of view is listed at 180 degrees across the corners and after Capture NX has finished the fish-eye correction it looks to be about ~118 degrees. The 14mm end of the 14-24 is 114 degrees. As I said earlier there is a noticeable quality drop-off in the corners of the corrected 16mm image. What surprised me the most is that the full frame 16mm corrected image showed more than the DX 10.5mm corrected image.

I haven't done any work yet to find out the entrance pupil location on the 14-24 or the 16mm for use on a VR pan head but I'll get around to that one day soon I hope.

Better start working out at the gym to strengthen those forearm muscles, the D3 with a 14-24 on it is a monster .

Cheers
Richard

[Oneputt]

Thanks Richard, but it will not be as heavy as my 28-70

[big pix]

John....... have you had a look at the Sigma 12-24, as this is a full frame lens.......

[Oneputt]

I haven't actually Bernie as I made a conscious decision a year ago to stick with Nikkor lenses unless there was a very good reason not to. I have owned Sigma lenses as you know, and have certainly had no complaints about quality.

[big pix]

I haven't actually Bernie as I made a conscious decision a year ago to stick with Nikkor lenses unless there was a very good reason not to. I have owned Sigma lenses as you know, and have certainly had no complaints about quality.

....... well now, Nikon make a 12-24 as well...... http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm

[Oneputt]

Sold my 12-24 because it was DX

[Rikphoto]

Thanks Richard, but it will not be as heavy as my 28-70

Hi John, I think the 14-24 is about 100g heavier that the 28-70. I'll be up your way in June, if we can catch up you can have a play with the 16mm.

[Oneputt]

Richard if you do come up, give me a little notice and we will certainly get together