Nikon 16/2.8 AIS Fish or Tokina 10-17/3.5-4.5 Fish Zoom?

<p>Well, I was unsuccessful in my attempt to get a 16/3.5 AI fisheye form e-bay (waaay too expensive), but I still have the ability to buy an excellent condition 16/2.8 AIS Nikon fisheye for $500. However, in my quest for something wide (~14mm rectilinear equivalent on DX), small, and lightweight I came across the Tokina 10-17/3.5-4.5 fisheye zoom for ~$580.<br /> Anyone have any opinions on the sharpness/IQ of the Tokina vs. the Nikkor at 16mm FL? The Nikkor had some flare and PF from some quick tests I was able to do, but from what I've been able to gather the Tokina has some as well.<br /> Again I'm looking for something that after a small amount of de-fishing can get me the wideness of 14mm rectilinear (20mm on FX).<br /> Anyone had both or either?<br /> Thanks - John</p>

<p>PS - The Tokina 11-16/2.8 is on my wish list, but it's just to big and bulky for many of the things I want to do (as are the other wide zooms from Tokina, Nikon, Sigma, etc.)</p>

<p>I don't think your going to get what you want out of a fishyeye lens. After de-fishing, your not likely to get the equivalent of a 14MM lens and image quality will suffer. <br>

Why not just by the Tokina 12-24MM. It has a very good reputation and is well within your budget.</p>

<p>Anthony</p>

 

<p>The Nikon is not going to give you the angle of view that you want/need on a cropped camera, so why bother w/it's single focal length limitation? Do what Anthony said.</p>

<p>Thanks -<br>

The problem with the Tokina 12-24 or 11-16 or the the Nikkon 10-24 or 12-24, etc. is the size. That's why I'm interested in the small fish-eyes. The 16mm Nikon has much less of a fish effect on the DX sensor, which is just fine with me. The Tokina 10-17 is meant for DX, but is only 180 deg. at 10mm - the FOV is around 100 deg. at 17mm and has moderate distortion. I just don't know how the Center/corner IQ of the Tokina is compared to the 16mm Nikon - hence my question.<br>

If the lens is too big it stays home - this is meant to take backpacking/climbing where space and weight are very real issues. I will as some point buy a 11-16 Tokina, but that will be for times when the size/weight are not a problem.<br>

John</p>

<p>Thanks -<br>

The problem with the Tokina 12-24 or 11-16 or the the Nikkon 10-24 or 12-24, etc. is the size. That's why I'm interested in the small fish-eyes. The 16mm Nikon has much less of a fish effect on the DX sensor, which is just fine with me. The Tokina 10-17 is meant for DX, but is only 180 deg. at 10mm - the FOV is around 100 deg. at 17mm and has moderate distortion. I just don't know how the Center/corner IQ of the Tokina is compared to the 16mm Nikon - hence my question.<br>

If the lens is too big it stays home - this is meant to take backpacking/climbing where space and weight are very real issues. I will as some point buy a 11-16 Tokina, but that will be for times when the size/weight are not a problem.<br>

John</p>

<p>I have the 16MM and its a good, sharp lens. I almost never use it on my D300 though. It sees use on the F6 when I want to get that distorted effect. I see your dilemma. Weight on a backpacking trip is a real issue.<br>

I'm not sure the 16MM is your answer still. For one thing, it does not take filters, other than color filters for B/W.<br>

On my backpack trips I usually take a film camera. They are rugged and simple. And, you get great results with slide film or Ektar. At your price point you could buy a body and a 20MM lens. You'll end up with a nice entry to film and get the wide angles you need without all the hassle of batteries and bulky Dslrs.<br>

Just food for thought.<br>

Anthony</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Anthony -<br>

I have a N70 and a 20mm/2.8 AF-D (sold my FM3A a while ago), so that is an option, but I've not time to shoot slides anymore (mostly the scanning part, not the post-processing). Plus I don't get the quality from my slides that I get from my D300 or D80.<br>

The other option I'm weighing is getting a Panasonic GF-1 or GH-1 and putting the 7-14mm/4 Zuiko on it. Quite pricey (~$2K), but it's pretty darn small and gives rectilinear output. I can also put my AIS Nikkors on it with an adapter to cover the long end. Yet another option is a D5000, but it won't meter with my AIS lenses (Damn you Nikon!).<br>

Still trying to figure out what to do for something small and wide.<br>

John</p>

<p>You could use the AIS lenses on some of those cameras, like a D5000, or D40, but you have to use stop-down metering and the histogram.<br>

A D40 and a Tokina 12-24 is not that heavy of a package.<br>

Anthony</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi John, I have the 16mm Nikkor Fisheye, you get a rectilinear image with 180° from corner to corner - so watch your feet :) - it is an excellent lens and I use it on FX DSLR's. It is also a light dinky piece of glass yet built like a tank. Put it on a D700 and you have a great combination for backpacking. The nearest lens I have to it in the zoom variety is the 12-24 DG Sigma, like its Nikkor counterpart the 14-24 (I have this as well) they are ton weights in comparison also they have no filter rings on the front. I use quite a few filters so I also use an old 17-35 f2.8. For IQ though you cannot beat the AFS 14-24 f2.8. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I just now went ahead and bought the 16/2.8 AIS for $450.<br>

Last night I reviewed some of the test shots that I took last week and they looked quite sharp on my D300 when stopped down just a bit - very light sharpening of the RAW file was needed. Wide open the center was still very sharp, but the corners were not quite so sharp and there was some PF in high contrast areas - this is typical of every fast lens I have.<br>

Flare will be an issue if not careful. It definitely depends on where the sun is in the frame - some places it doesn't cause much of a problem while in other places it makes a huge flair mark. Fortunately you can see this in the viewfinder before taking the picture.<br>

I tried some basic de-fishing in NX2 - the results were quite acceptable. On the DX sensor the amount of de-fishing is not very much so the resulting image is pretty good. Would I blow it up to huge sizes ? Probably not, but for 8x10 or 13x19 sized prints it's more than acceptable. Plus I don't have to always de-fish it. Damn it's small - that's a good thing.<br>

- John</p>