Nikon 16mm Fish-Eye, 14mm SW. AF.? Why?

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Why we need an Auto-Focus on a 16mm Fish-Eye lends, when most of the time or all of the time the lens is on infinity or very rarely need to focus. And so is a super wide angle prime, like the 14mm or "13mm", better to have manual focusing for the rare occasion. I have an old 16mm f3.5 Fish Eye and a new 16/2.8 AF, and I like to use more of the older, non AF version. So is my 14-24/2.8, most of the time on 14, and I don't need any focusing at all.</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>You dont need to have AF on...</p>

<p>Nikon do it because it would look wrong if they didnt make it AF.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>The question was not, having the AF "on" or "off". I don't even using AF on, on my other lenses either. Only in a critical, situation, when photographing moving subject or such. And for macro photography, AF is just in the way. AF is a gimmick on 16 and below, and add more expenses to produce those lenses, and also, weakening the physical strength of the lens.</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>There is no scientific evidence to suggest that an AF lens is any weaker than a MF one. <br /> <br /> Should you not want AF, or think you don’t need it, here are some other options for you…<br /> <br /> Nikon 13mm f5.6<br /> Nikon 15mm f5.6<br /> Nikon 15mm f3.5<br /> <br /> And that’s rectilinear ones. Not going to mention the fish-eye lenses. <br /> <br /> And you don’t even need to stick to Nikon <br /> <br /></p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Also, its quite likely that some of the AF components can be shared among different lenses. So maybe its cheaper to make an AF wide-angle as opposed to a MF one.</p>

<p>And from memory the MF wide-angles (when Nikon UK were still selling MF lenses) were quite a lot more expensive than the AF ones. This could be down to supply/demand, but still.</p>

<p>But I do know that you mean, there is no real need for AF at extreme FOV's.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Some of the most interesting fisheye photos I've seen during the past several years were all taken at less than 10 feet from the subject, some much closer, including extreme sports (skateboards and bikes literally in your face). The least interesting fisheye photos I've seen were of distant subjects, such as landscapes and buildings. So, sure, plenty of photographers use them at near focus rather than infinity and AF helps. And stopping down for maximum DOF isn't always possible or desirable.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Your needs are not everyone else's needs, and that is why there are those features are on those lenses.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<blockquote>

<p>If you photograph something large and use small apertures, you can get away with setting the focus at infinity. For objects only a short distance away, or at f/2,8, this won't give optimal sharpness. Why AF? Because people like a consistent way of using all their lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>From a marketing prospective folks wants AF lens; thus thats why I could buy a used manual focus 16mm F3.5; 105mm F2.5; 35mm F2 and 50mm F2 on Ebay for 199 bucks; three are multicoated; I have AI rings for the 16mm and 105mm too.<br>

<br /> Yesterday a man brought in some 35mm film C41 strips to scan; the local C41 places could not print it because the film sprocket holes were all chewed up and torn out.<br>

When I asked what camera he had he said an extremely VERY old Canon.<br>

Thus In my mind I am thinking a 1960 Canon R reflex; a 1950's Canon Rf; maybe a 1960's Canon RF.<br>

It was a late 1990's Rebel; being tagged as OLD because it was a manual focus camera; and ONE HAD TO REWIND WITH A HAND CRANK!</p>

[luis_g]

<p> You can always set your fisheyes to MF and pretend the AF doesn't exist.</p>

[vincent_peri]

<p>"It was a late 1990's Rebel; being tagged as OLD because it was a manual focus camera; and ONE HAD TO REWIND WITH A HAND CRANK!"<br>

Man, I'd better never get arthritis in my right hand...</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>I have a Nikon 14mm f2.8 that I always use on manual focus and I absolutely agree that likely for the same price they could have made it a robust manual focus lens. The manual focus mechanism on this lens feels very cheap due to the lightness required for the autofocus motors. I had to buy a 14 AF lens since Nikon never made a manual focus one. It is the price we pay, as individuals, for technological advancement, whether we need it or not. </p>

<p>My other 5 lenses are all manual focus! </p>

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

<p>FWIW, the AF 16mm is built very robustly, almost on par with the best Ais lenses.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I agree strongly with you John! And I'm glad, you mentioned the 14/2.8 Those, whom using extreme wide know very much the unnecessary AF on those lenses. 13-14-18mm lenses don't really need an AF. And don't really need to be 2.8 either. As some of you pointed out, it is only a gimmick, a something, the makers has to do, because otherwise it don't looks good if it is not AF. This subject is hard to understand for those folks whom widest lens is 35 or max 24. I have manual and AF lenses, but many time I just switch-off the AF on certain occasion. And my most beloved lenses, the AIS 16, 50, 85, 105,135, 200s</p>