Mis-labeled Nikkor Fisheye Lens

<p>I have a standard MF Nikkor 16mm Fisheye lens that is nice and unremarkable except....</p><div></div>

<p>....this one is labelled 6mm! It appears to be some error in the engraving process. Has anyone ever seen anything like this before? Does this give it any special collector value? Just curious.</p><div></div>

<p>I just received an email question if the white had simply worn off. No. The numbers are engraved and there is simply no "1".</p>

<p>No idea if it has a collectors value, but hey, if you have it, keep it. Rare items with imperfections have been known to have an oddly high value.</p>

<p>Yes, I know of collectors who would be very interested in adding this to their trophy case. I would add 25-40 percent to the value of a similar lens without the imperfection.</p>

<p>Funny, when I look at that picture, all I see is major impact damage. Look at the shape of the reflections. Or the way "f=6mm" curves up while "Auto 3.5" and the serial number curve down. Or the same reversal of the curve in the bead above the focus ring. Someone has really whacked that lens.</p>

<p>I'd say the 1 was filled in by whoever straightened out some of it (but really didn't do a very good job).</p>

<p>"Collectors", LOL.</p>

<p>See the "f = 6mm" marking? There is an obvious gap between the equal sign and 6 for the missing 1. Either it was an error during manufacturing or somehow that 1 came off this old lens.</p>

<p>Having seen (in Japan) the rather huge 6mm Fisheye Nikkor, the lens image posted is not one of 'em.</p>

<p>Since the spacing is there for the '1' and the numeral is missing, someone likely made it go away.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's Nikon's catch 22 fisheye model. It work like this. It is a Non-AI lens so you can't use it on (good) digital bodies without having it AI'D. AI it will negate the furture collecting vaule. Yes, if one is collecting, no need to make it usable. But if you don't use it folks might label you as a collector. Better have it AI'D or buy a D3000 which you don't need. Wait, that could be worst and so on and so on .... :-) </p>

<p>Hey Louis, it will likely work on an APS-C Canon EOS camera without modification. Looking at the back of it, it seems to lack the projection that is there on many of my old non-AI Nikkors, so it might even fit on a 35mm sensor EOS. Plus, it will always work on my beloved Nikon F. This one is clearly flawed so I'd get rid of it right away. eMail me for my home address and I'll take care of it for you. ;)</p>

<p>I wouldn't mess with it it, quite aside from the missing "1", the preservationist in me always hates to see old non-AI lens, AI'd. On the other hand, I did put red kid leather on my Exakta VX :(, but it <em>is</em> reversable.</p>

<p>Talking about collectables,<br>

here is the serial number on my TC-301. I bought this used in mint collection in one of the local stores...<br>

Christoph</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you all for your speedy replies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Someone has really whacked that lens. I'd say the 1 was filled in by whoever straightened out some of it (but really didn't do a very good job).</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Joseph</strong>- No. The lens has never been damaged or repaired. It is in outstanding condition. You may be seeing optical distortion from the lighting and the crummy kit lens on my EOS 300D. Here is another angle where I used a Tamron 90mm macro instead. There is nothing in front of that 6 but bare metal. I'm thinking it's just an engraving error but find it odd that it wasn't picked up in QC. I'm just wondering if any body else has seen this type of anomaly or if this is somehow unique.</p><div></div>

<p>Looks like the white paint came off. I can see what appears to be a very slight indication of where the paint used to be, a dark shape resembling the numeral "1" in the same font used on the still-visible "1:3.5" marking. It might be more visible under a UV lamp.</p>

<p>Same thing happened to some of my Nikon stuff. In this photo you can see where part of the numeral "5" has come off this Nikon L37c filter.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9731231-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="450" /></p>

<p>I think I see what Lex is talking about. Here in a clip with various things all tweaked over to extremes there seems to be a faint outline of a "1".</p>

<p>On the other hand, lots of people saw the canals on Mars too.... :(</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks fellas.<br /><strong>Lex</strong>- I see your point and I have a number of similar defects with painted on figures, but these numbers are engraved. Now I could be wrong but it seem unlikely that the whole circumference is engraved and only that number is painted. However, It does seem in the realm of possibility that the engraver missed it's mark but the paint for the number was then applied and subsequently wore off or was removed. I don't know much about the production process to say if thats what happened. However that would also explain how it got past QC. To quick examination it would look OK.<br /><strong>JDM</strong>- Nice enhancement. I'm holding it in my hand and, with a 4x loupe, I can't see that. Seeing your enhancement makes me think my theory stated above may be close to the mark.</p>

<p>The proposition, previously stated, that perhaps this was purposely "filled in" doesn't ring true to me. In the first place one has to ask why. There is no way anyone would mistake this for the real 6mm which looks completely different. Secondly, JDM's enhancement does show something of a number 1 there, which may be consistant with removed paint, however close macro inspection of the metal shows the original milling lines to be intact in that area. To fake a patch in this area would take a level of micro metal mastery beyond anything I've ever seen. Again to go to such extremes one would have to ask why. I am even more now in the belief this was a factory engraving error of a very rare kind.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If the engraving was done by hand from a "Leroy"-like template, it would have been easy to have missed a character or so. On the other hand, a robot probably wouldn't skip. All my Nikkors definitely have (shallow) engraving under the "f=xx" markings on the outside of the lens.</p>

<p>If the engraving were by hand, and the 1 skipped in the engraving, then the white is probably put on and wiped, so the the "1" might be just like the Martian canals, created in Lex's and my minds out of random specks.</p>

<p>If you don't see it with a loupe, it may not be there. On the other hand, I tried similar enhancing on a picture of a VLC Praktica front detail that I know once had a "VLC" on it, but could produce no sign of the letters at all.</p>

<p>If you ever sell it, I'd play this up. "It couldn't hoit" :P</p>

 

<p>jeeze I haven't heard "leroy template" in 10 years lol (civil engineer)</p>

<p>i think it was a lunch break error, one engraver took over in the afternoon, goofed up the "5" in the "3.5" and got discouraged and forgto about the 1 in 16 lol. I thought I saw lex's "1" then i didnt then i did..</p>

<p>Where's the "JCII Passed" sticker?<br>

Clearly, this (lack of) engraving error should have resulted in the lens being rejected!</p>

<p>As I pointed out ealrier, there is clearly a gap where that digit 1 should have been. This is a pre AI lens that must be well over 30 years old. Most likely the digit just wore off over time or perhaps there was an error during manufacturing.</p>

<p>It is kind of amusing that we have such a long discussion out of essentially nothing.</p>

<p>The 16mm F3.5 Fisheye Nikkor here is a 28000X; its fstop ring is different; no scalops; plus it was non factory AI's by me. 280001 started the K type 16mm F3.5 in Dec 1975 by the New Zealand site.</p>

<p><br />The 16mm here has alot of useage; Its used at times on a Nikon F or F2; etc. Its used on my Epson RD-1 /s with the Novoflex Nikon F to Leica M mount adapter; that took the last shot 1/13 second handheld at F3.5 iso of 1600. This adapter focuses to infinity; one uses scale focus.<br>

<br />My lens appears more warn than Louis's lens; thus the *1* on his probbaly was never engraved; and not work off. If worn off a microscope would show something.<br>

<br />The last image is of a 50 megapixel scan back on a 4x5 Speed Graphic; a weird mixture of technologies; one gets a 6400 by 8000 pixel image.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/16mm%20Nikkor/16mmNikkorEpsonRD-1.jpg?t=1260723745" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/16mm%20Nikkor/16mmNikkorEpsonRD-1window.jpg?t=1260723927" alt="" /><br /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/16mm%20Nikkor/16MMPOWERPHASE4X5SPEED.jpg?t=1260724008" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey, this is getting into some serious camera porn here.</p>

<p>Somebody warn the children!</p>

<p>For <em>Leroy</em> , those who are mystified, see <a href="http://www.prc68.com/I/Leroy.shtml">link</a> . Of course there are people who appear to collect these, but what mystifies me, is why aren't they collecting old cameras instead?</p>

<p>It must be a fake Nikkor lens! Send it to me and I will dispose it for you. What the heck, I'll throw in the P&P costs for you :-)</p>