Hi--

>Thanks so much for your recent assistance. I do have another few
>questions...They are a little lengthy, so don't get in a rush to
>answer....I know your busy, so If you don't have time to reply, I can
>totally empathize.
>
>#1 I've seen a Sigma 16 mm fisheye F 3.5 for $350. it was used of
>course, and had a mar on the front element. it was near the outer part,
>and was a coating blemish, not scratched glass. I see the rating is OK,
>not great. Question....Will the blemish affect images or produce
>flare? I imagine shooting into the sun may raise the propensity for
>flare, but at the outer part of the image will it be very noticeable?
>extra noticeable? unnoticeable?

I had one - terrible, but maybe a bad sample (my 8mm Sigma is excellent).
Any mar on the front element is likely to show, since the DOF is so great
(put the lens at closest focus and smallest stop and aim it at the sky
while looking through it and holding in the DOF preview - if you don't
see a problem, try a film test...). Maybe if the mar is truly only in the
coating, it will not show - but dust can, and any scratch.

>#2 I've seen your ad for WTB, fisheye adapter....Is this a viable
>alternative for fisheye? I saw one at a camera show that screwed into
>the front element... it was 46 mm which means I'd need step ring, but
>it seemed so heavy on the front end which would seem to me to increase
>the minimum handheld speed. True? What about image? I'd imagine that
>shooting at F/5.6-f/16 might produce acceptable images, but what bout
>corner sharpness? a total blur? I'd use this on a 24 mm or 35 mm
>nikkor.

No - they can be good on video cameras (a mystery...;-), but rarely on
still cameras (one I found, that maddeningly will not work on my
current video camera, did look good on a 28mm Nikkor set at f16 - but
most are very soft). Most are actually Series VII, so you would need
a 52->Ser. VII ring after removing the 46->Ser. VII ring.

>#3 Is the 16 mm Nikkor 3.5 AI MF necessarily ALOT better image quality
>than the AF-D? I'd naturally prefer the AF-D as My eyes just don't mf
>well - seem lots of MF photos turn out fuzzy. Is the DOF on the MF 3.5
>such that I wont have tremendous blur at wider apertures?
> donc1@airmail.net

The MF 16 f2.8's vary somewhat, but all need f11 or so for fine over-all
quality - the f3.5 is fine by f5.6. BTW, you may want to check out
my article on 4-way glasses - this solution cured my VF and other seeing
problems (under "I babble..."). Also BTW, scale-focusing of superwides
is VERY reliable (more than MF or AF...). Check a 16 f3.5 for correct infinity focus - they are commonly wrong, but assigning a new focus
indicator location on the barrel solves the problem (tolerances
get dicey with short lenses...;-). 16's have so much DOF, that focus
appears universal with all but close-focusing. And they can be hand-held
at VERY slow speeds. And they can be SHARP. And they cover a very
wide angle of view. Gosh, I like them! ;-) (There are a bunch of fisheye photos on my web page - and can't remember if I pointed out "Seeing
and Perspective" under "I babble...", too...)