On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 01:55:02 -0700, byen*NOSPAM*@ix.netcom.com (B Yen) wrote:

> I am surveying full-frame fisheye lenses (esp Nikon 16mm/2.8 & Canon
>15mm/2.8), & need some feedback on sharpness & performance.
[...]
> Let's say I go for the Nikon, is there any difference betweent the AF
>(~$650 mail-order) & AIS manual-focus ($650 mail-order)? I saw the AF at a
>recent swap meet, & it didn't look as solid as the manual-focus version.
>I'm a fan of solidity (& thus older manual focus lenses), so I would lean
>towards the AIS. Or, has the lens formulation changed (w/improved
>coatings), & would the AF be preferable?
>
> A friend claims that the Nikon 16mm/3.5 is no good (a poor performer).
>Any comments?
[...]

Hmmmm, one of the all-time GREAT wide-angles, the Nikkor
16mm f3.5....! ;-) Imagine a wide angle that takes in
about 170 degrees (diagonal) and is snappy-sharp to
the corners by only one stop down, and excellent to
the corners even wide open...!!! I can't think of any
other lens shorter than 35mm that can do that! The f2.8
Nikkor (same optics in both AF and MF versions) is
somewhat soft at the edges/corners at the widest stops,
but equal to the f3.5 when stopped down. BTW, both are
excellent on the TC14A converter by f5.6 (a neat and
unusual wide lens results...;-) The f3.5 often focuses
beyond infinity, which could be the source of your
friend's low opinion of it, if he scale-focuses (the
VF split-image also seems to give inaccurate focus
with this lens, but plain GG focusing is easy with
it...). The only other FF fisheye I've tried was the
Minolta (Leitz was the same...), which was not sharp
at the edges/corners until about f16. I take it you
have not found my Nikkor evaluation list yet (on my
web page under "I babble"...;-).