>In article <3ovne7$dmm@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> Bob Neuman,
>d_ruether@hotmail.com writes:
>>This must be true in order to account for the absurd star ratings
>>for several lenses (over-ratings, as well as under-ratings),
>>most notable in memory of ratings: the 16mm F2.8 and the 85mm's.
>>The 85mm F1.4 Nikkor, BTW, is quite good at 1.4, center-to-corner,
>>at least in a good sample (have tried 4 of them - 3 of them were
>>good, the fourth, a bit better). Seems to me the point of paying
>>for and lugging around a fast lens is so that one can use its
>>wider apertures. Hope this helps.
>
>I just bought an AIS 16mm F2.8 and have ordered a used 85mm F1.4. Thanks
>for calming me about the 85mm. What exactly do you think about the
>Fish-eye?
>
>--Terje Tveras, Univ. of Bergen, Norway
>tert@cc.uib.no
>
Hi-- The 16mm F2.8 varies more than the 3.5, and is not quite so good at
wider stops near infinity, though it is a little better at mid and closer
distances sometimes - because of different field curvature. Both are good,
though I prefer the F3.5. Both are superb on TC14XA by F5.6. A good
sample of F2.8 with horizon running from one corner diagonally to opposite
corner should look like this:
2.8 corners have detail, but is not crisp - most of frame decent
4, 5.6 corners improved, still not equal to center which is good
8 > smaller most of frame is excellent, corners continue to improve
Performance, particularly at room distances, is fine F8 and smaller.
I would rate a good sample of this lens *** 1/2 - a fine lens when used
with understanding. BTW, I would probably rate 85 1.4 **** - a very
fine lens that can be used at all apertures and distances with somewhat
lower quality at wider apertures than stopped down, though still very
good wide open. Hope this helps.