16mm f/3.5 or f/2.8 On Dx As Subsititute For 20/2.8 on FX?

<p>On film my 20/2.8 AF-D was one of my favorite lenses - small and wide. Since their is no 14mm DX lens that fits the small criteria, how would a 16mm f/3.5 or f/2.8 AI or AIS Fisheye on DX (D300 specifically) be as a substitute for my former 20/2.8 AFD on film?<br>

I know they are full-frame fish-eye lenses, but with the DX crop would the distortion be all that bad and would it be comparable to the FOV that my 20mm/2.8 had on Film? The 20/2.8 had it's own distortion that was just fine with me.<br>

Any thoughts? I've found a 16/2.8 AIS Fisheye locally for $499 (probably could bargain down for a bit less).<br>

Thanks - John</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... but with the DX crop would the distortion be all that bad and would it be comparable to the FOV that my 20mm/2.8 had on Film?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it will not be the same (or even close) to the field of view of a 20mm on film (94°). The 16mm Fisheye on DX gives a wider 107° field of view, with obvious barrel distortion at the edges. If you keep straight lines near the middle of the frame it is less obvious.</p>

<p>Check this thread for a sample image I posted of the 16mm Fisheye on a DX body:<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UT9Y<br /> </p>

<p>Michael -<br>

Thanks for the reply.<br>

What I'm after is the ~94 deg. FOV of the 20mm on Film, so if I apply some software de-fishing will I have enough left from the 16mm on DX to have approximately the same FOV?<br>

- John</p>

<p>Your 20/2.8 is an excellent lens and I don't think defishing a 16/2.8 will come anywhere close in quality. That is full retail price for a 16/2.8 in excellent condition and would be too steep a price to pay, in my opinion, since you are not using it for what it is meant to be used for on full frame. For that price there must be a better option, even something like a used Tamron 14mm. I used my Nikon 14mm on a crop body until I went full frame. That does provide a look very close to the 20mm focal length.</p>

<p>I'll have a look aroung and see what I find on the net. </p>

<p>Get the 11-16 f2.8 from Tokina and you'll have a zoom that covers that for less than a prime would probably be if Nikon ever makes it.</p>

<p>Wonderful lens, but then again, not real small.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... will I have enough left"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, I can't answer that definitively, as I sold the 16mm shortly after I acquired my D200 (didn't use it very much on film either). But as the field of view of the 16mm Fisheye on DX is close to that of a 17mm rectilinear lens on FX/film (104°), I would guess that you probably do, as you will have about 20° to play with.</p>

<p>I forgot my standard answer of a lens like the Sigma 12-24 which works on full frame or crop body. I bought my Nikon 14mm for under $600 USD so you may find one if you have patience, but you could likely find a used Tamron 14mm for that price or a bit more, a lot quicker.</p>

<p>I used a 20mm f2.8 AFD on a D80 for awhile, and was tremendously unimpressed by it. It just isn't all that sharp, and it gets CA because it has the old coatings. Honestly, the best lens for what you're wanting is the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. It's in a whole different class compared to the Nikon. It will give you the wideness you are after, do it with less distortion than any of the old Nikons, and will also be sharper. It's a winner in every sense. The only downside to the 11-16mm f2.8 is that everyone shooting DX seems to want one and it takes some patience to find one. That should tell you something right there. The effort is well worth it though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies guys.<br>

I have not looked at the Tamron 14mm, but I will. All of the zooms fail my small size requirement, hence my looking at a FX fisheye that is somewhat de-fished. My dream lens would be a 12mm/4 DX - wide, small, and lite - a bit of distortion is fine with me since I'm not shooting architecture.<br>

I also found my 20/2.8 disappointing on DX - heck my 18-70 (before I sold it) had better IQ, especially in the corners. Also it had a fair amount of distortion that never really bothered me since I almost always shot landscapes or people with it on my FE2 or FM3A (both long since sold off). The 10.5DX is interesting, but it's too much of a fish-eye and correcting it back to rectilinear seems to really degrade the corner IQ from what I've read.<br>

Plus, the current 16/2.8 AFD fish-eye is going for over $900! I understand that the AI version is the same optics.<br>

- John</p>

<p>I just looked and Adorama wants over $1K for the Tamron 14mm/2.8 - definitely out of my $$ league.<br>

There's a 16/3.5 AI on ebay at the moment - I'll see if I can get that one for a reasonable price. If not I'll see if the $499 on the 16/2.8 AIS can be knocked down (usually they can).<br>

- John</p>

<p>It turns out the 16/3.5 on e-bay has been "factory converted" to be an AI lens - so it is in fact one of the original versions of the 16/3.5 - Is there any issue with this early lens compared to the last 16/3.5's produced?<br>

Thanks - John</p>

<p>honestly, i'd just get the tokina 11-16.</p>

<p>i have the sigma 15mm fisheye and it's very sharp but only a semi-fish on DX.</p>

<p>Sooner or later, you're going to end up with the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 if you need that kind of speed and ultrawide focal length. ;-) There's nothing else out there in its class.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Sooner or later, you're going to end up with the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 if you need that kind of speed and ultrawide focal length. ;-) There's nothing else out there in its class.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Yes, the Tokina 11-16/2.8 has been suggested, but again it fails my smallness/weight desires. If it's too big it won't make it in the bag/on the trip/etc.<br>

I may still get one eventually, but I need something small and wide (like my 20/2.8 was on film).<br>

- John</p>

<p>Noone's been making wide angle primes for years. Ever since digital crop sensors, all the wide-angle technology has gone into zooms instead of primes. I think you will find that a modern wide zoom will perform as well as your old prime. This necessitates a larger lens, but if that's a problem, you could look into a Leica system. You're really not going to find what you're looking for if you keep excluding the zooms that are taking over.</p>

<p>If size and price are an issue, and you still insist on a prime lens, you're stuck with using an old film prime that won't look as good on your newer DX camera, has a different field of view, as there really ISN'T anything out there to do this at this time on a DX. Good luck with that fisheye idea...I can only pity the troubles you will have.</p>

<p>I also have the tokina 11-16 2.8, and use it on the D300. Its terrific.</p>

 

<p>I use a Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye as a poor man's wide angle lens. It defishes to about as wide as a 12.5mm rectilinear lens, and about as high as a 14.5mm (you get an image with a higher aspect ratio than 1.5:1). So the FOV is in the range of what you'd get with 19-22mm lenses on full frame, depending on how you want to crop the output.</p>

<p>I'm always annoyed by measuring FOV diagonally. It seems more relevant to me to think about horizontal (long dimension) FOV. Measuring a fisheye by the diagonal FOV is especially misleading as the fisheye projection becomes more extreme as you go away from the optical axis and you can't get any farther away than in the corners.</p>

<p>I don't disagree with any of the previous comments about quality. I think defishing a fish is a poor substitute for a good lens, but way better than no lens. I do like the relatively small size of the fisheyes though, and the Zenitar was priced right ($125 or so?). </p>

<p>I wish someone would make a couple of wide-angle DX primes. I'd like an 18/2.8DX and it sounds like you would like a 13/4DX. Why none of these below 30mm??</p>

<p>John,<br>

If you are ok with an f/4 lens, try the Tokina 12-24 f/4. I have the Pentax version and they are quite similar. The distortion is low, and the lens is pretty sharp - especially in the 14-18mm region and it isn't too big to carry (430 grams, vs 255 grams for the 20mm 2.8 Nikon). Have a look at some of the reviews on the various internet sites devoted to lens reviews for more info. This lens compares pretty well to the Nikon 12-24 f4 at about 40% of the price. The biggest part of the lens is the hood, which has to be large when you are dealing with this field of view and the relatively large front glass. Pentax also makes a 14mm f2.8 prime lens, which is about the same size and weight as the 12-24 zoom, but I don't think Tokina has an equivalent version in a Nikon mount. (Pentax and Tokina are both owned by Hoya Corp. and co-develop some of their lenses.)<br>

The obstacle with building a small, lightweight wide angle lens for DX is that the registration distance mandated by the 35mm format lenses is between 44 and 47 mm, depending on manufacturer. This means that additional optics in the lens are devoted to dealing with putting a 16mm focal length image inside the camera from a registration distance of nearly 45mm. This tends to make the lenses longer and heavier than the equivalent lens in a rangefinder (or micro 4/3), where the registration distance is on the order of 19-28 mm.<br>

Good luck in your search!</p>

 

<p>I believe the front focal plane of a fisheye is spherical, in contrast to the flat front focal plane of a rectilinear lens. This might lead to somewhat weird corners after correction at apertures larger than f8.<br>

FWIW, I use my sigma 15mm fisheye as a "normal" lens on DX. It gives a slightly distorted but similar look to my 20mm/f3.5 on FX. I love the look. This works great for lanscapes without correction. Corrected images usually do not look as good, probably because I'm unable to previsualize properly while shooting. I have to be careful about composition and framing with both the 15mm on DX and 20mm on FX but in different ways. The 15mm on FX does of course give a real fisheye look that you probably wouldn't be able / want to easily "correct".<br>

The 20mm/f3.5 shows minimal CA when slides are projected wall high, but scans are easily corrected on Capture NX2.</p><div></div>

<p>There is a Tamron 14mm f2.8 currently on eBay for buy-it-now of $680 by a longtime ebay seller of photographic items. Something to consider.</p>

<p>You could try a Zenitar 16/2.8....shouldn't cost you more than $150.00. I've used my Nikon 10.5 quite a bit de-fished, but it's not the same as a standard wide angle...but interesting nevertheless.</p>

<p>As far as Tokina, Tamron, Sigma lenses go...well...nevermind.</p>