john_hinkey

My 600/5.6 ED-IF AIS does just fine on my D800. It may not have the contrast that the 200-500VR Nikkor has, but I bet it has better off-center sharpness. My copy is pretty darned good across the frame at 36MP. It might suffer a bit at higher pixel densities, but not that much.

<p>Personally I'm not-so-patiently waiting for a A7RII competitor from Nikon - doesn't even need to be that small of a body - just give me a mirrorless D810 - I'd even take a new mount that was fully compatible with current AI, AF-D, AF-S, E lenses via adapters. I've been sitting on the Nikon sidelines with my well-worn D800, selling my AF Nikkors, and spending my $$ on Sony A7RII and micro four-thirds gear. <br> Nikon really needs to get into the FX mirrorless game - they have the technology, but I fear the conservative leadership is paralyzed into incremental improvements of their DX/FX DSLR offerings. Don't drop their DSLR offerings, just offer something like the Sony A7 series line that allows the use of current Nikon lenses, but also allows for use of adapted non-Nikon glass (that would be a bitter pill for Nikon to swallow, but I think it's key to their success).</p>

<p>My 16/3.5 AI Nikkor is very very good wide open - much much better than the 16/2.8 AIS or AF-D. Kind of hard to find, but it's the best Nikkor fisheye. I was not impressed with the 15/2.8 Sigma . . .</p>

<p>This lens is no slouch, it's just a bit slow at times. I use mine wide open w/o hesitation. Yes it has some CA, but that's totally fixable. It serves up excellent images on my D800 when a stable tripod and atmospherics allow.</p>

<p>Go over to here:<br> http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4069.0.html<br> for comparisons between all three Nikon 16mm fisheyes.<br> <br />Personally I've owned:<br> 1x 16/2.8 AIS<br> 1x 16/3.5 AI converted<br> 3x 16/3.5 AI (true AI versions)<br> and tested against:<br> 16/2.8D<br> Sigma 15/2.8.<br> The 16/3.5 AI comes out the sharpness winner over all of them.</p>

<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>No, fisheye's don't have huge DOF as some suggest - it all depends on how large you are viewing the image.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is universally true about depth of field, but the point is that any given part of a fisheye image is <em>actually viewed at a very small scale in relation to the whole field -- thus everything from near to far will look sharp enough to a human eye. </em><br /> I have some fisheye-type lenses that have no focusing ring at all, given the (apparent) depth of field.</p> </blockquote> <p>It all depends on the size of the viewed image and the viewing distance. Do a little cropping and you'll quickly find that parts of the image will no longer look sharp. Yes some fisheye units don't have focusing at all, but with today's high MP sensors the non-critical sharpness will quickly become apparent if you are printing/displaying large and are viewing up close. Film was just not that demanding so you could get away with a less-sharp lens and still get a nice image.<br> But it is true that at small apertures, appropriate focusing, and viewed small just about everything in a 16mm fish will be apparently in focus.</p>

<p>No, fisheye's don't have huge DOF as some suggest - it all depends on how large you are viewing the image.<br> Unfortunately, the 16/2.8 AIS is just not that good of a lens (as well as the AF-D version). Yes right from f/2.8 it's super sharp in the center, but never really obtains good sharpness on today's high MP sensors. The 16/3.5 AI is a far far better lens for sharpness right from f/3.5 on up. Get a 16/3.5 AI if you can find one - you won't be disappointed unless you really need f/2.8.</p>

<p>Chuck -<br> There are nominally three Nikon 16mm fisheye models:<br> 16/3.5 non-AI, AI: Has built-in internal filters<br> 16/2.8 AIS: Rear-mounted filters (must have one installed)<br> 16/2.8 AF-D: Rear-mounted filters (must have one installed)<br> Obviously none of them have front filter threads so they can't take standard filters.</p>

<p>Once I solved the slide jamming problem of my SF-210 I could easily scan a 4-5 rolls in a 24 hour period - it really does go fast when everything is working well. But, like I said, with my D800 and PB/PS-6 I could do a roll in 15 minutes or so with practice. 4x36 images an hour is not bad spread out over a week or two. What put me over the edge was the flare issues and lower dynamic range of the 5000ED compared to the D800. I compared it to my D700 and the 5000ED won for DR, but flare was still an issue.</p>

<p>A dedicated slide scanner (like a CoolScan5000ED) makes sense over a recent vintage DSLR + various slide illumination and holding options when:<br> - You have dirty scratched slides that the automated dust and dirt and scratch removal capability can do wonders on<br> - You have many hundreds if not thousands of slides and you don't have time for manual loading & DSLR operation<br> I used to own the 5000ED, but when I got my D800 and PS/PB-6 belows the D800 (+ 55/3.5 Macro) produced better images FOR SLIDES THAT WERE NOT DIRTY OR SCRATCHED, which for me was my more recent and well cared for slides. I could image a box of 36 slides in about 15 minutes (or less) when it was all set up. The D800 had better dynamic range, far less flare issues, and had better white balance, etc. If dust, dirt, scratches were minor then Photoshop worked OK.<br> That being said, negatives are a completely different story.<br> <br />My 2 cents.</p>

<p>I would think that with the right adhesive that it could be back to 90% strength and potentially with the addition of some well placed small screws it could be back to full strength depending on the crack. Post a picture of what it looks like.<br> Also, from time to time you can get a PB-6 that's in bad shape and use it for parts.</p>

<p>I've owned a couple copies of this lens (fine at 12MP, not so sharp at 36MP) and the zoom mechanism is very fragile - one of my copies fell off a log about 6" high onto some soft pine needs and it bent one of the internal mechanisms and then displayed something similar to what you've described. I had it fixed by one of the local repair for something like $50. If you own it and if something is broke it's not worth it, but if something is bent/fixable then it might be worth it to get it fixed. If under warranty send it back.</p>

<p>My copy of the 500/4 AI-P I found to be quite good on my D800 (right from wide open and only minor improvements stopped down) and the only issue I have is that it does not do that well with TCs (well, at least the TC14EII). I've never tried the newer 500/4 AF versions - too expensive.<br> My 500/4P is actually for sale right now - prices are incredibly low - not due to unhappiness with it optically, but I have a 400mm and 600mm and 500mm is not really needed for what I do since I have the other two teles.<br> I have seen samples from some copies that I considered not that great - not sure if it was poor user technique or the optics - so I think this lens can sometimes get a not so great reputation.</p>

<p>Having owned the 135DC, and still own the 135/2 AIS and 135/2 Zeiss APO I would say that certainly the Zeiss is in its own league compared the the two Nikons, but if you have a choice between the DC and the 135/2 AIS go with the AIS for landscapes as it's:<br> - Optically equal if not slightly better at far distances<br> - Much cheaper<br> - The AF of the DC is not all that reliable and for landscapes you'd likely use live view anyways<br> - Neither of these three 135/2 lenses is all that great for flare/ghosting when pointed into the sun, so that's not a consideration (the Zeiss is in fact NOT perfect!).<br> The AIS and Zeiss when stopped down a bit are actually not that far apart when accurately focused at landscape-type distances.</p>

<p>The dynamic range of my D800 (and the D810) are miles ahead of the D700, especially if you have to lift shadows at all. Even a marginal lens at 12MP (+AA filter) benefits from 36MP, but don't expect miracles. Even though roughly speaking that when using the same lens shot with the D700 and D800/D810 and viewed at low resolution they will look the same, the D800/D810 will allow a better final image due to being able to have a better sharpening process and being able to crop a lot if needed, which a 12MP image is not so capable of.</p>

<p>For me I experienced the same thing regarding flatness - the sensors in the D8XX models have such high DR that the default images are rather flat looking. But with some standard post processing they become alive and even better than my previous cameras (D700, D300, D80) by a wide margin.<br> Now 36MP demand a lot of a lens, AF system, and camera operator if you are inspecting the your images at 100% viewing. After a while with my D800 I was able to eek out excellent sharpness from my lenses that were capable of it and those that were marginal at 12MP became even more marginal at 36MP.</p>

<p>IF you are going to get a fisheye, try to get the 16/3.5 AI Nikkor - it's the best performing fisheye I've found. Much sharper than the 16/2.8 Nikkor as well as the Sigma (which is significantly less sharp than either). Also has fantastic flare/ghost control (the f/2.8 Nikkor is also great too).<br> The 16/3.5 is just about as sharp as the 16/2.8 AIS or 16/2.8 AF-D in the center, but it's far far sharper once you get a bit off center at all apertures (especially so wide open) than the f/2.8.<br> They can be a little hard to find, but they pop up on Ebay, etc. every month.<br> John</p>

<p>Head on over to here and you'll be in MF Nikkor heaven:<br> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/929565/5471#lastmessage</p>

<blockquote> <p>The sigma 15 fisheye is a superior fisheye lens. Samyang/rokinon make a ff fisheye as well but imo its overpeiced and mf online</p> </blockquote> <p>The one copy of the Sigma 15 that I tried was clearly not that great - perhaps I just got a bad copy.</p>

<p>I first owned a 16/3.5 AI and used it on my D300 as a light weight ~20mm FX FOV lens (with heavy distortion correction) since there was no small 20mm FX FOV equivalent lens for DX at that time.<br> I then got my D700 and fully utilized the fisheye capabilities. I bought the 16/2.8 AIS and tested a copy of the 16/2.8AF-D against it and found them both inferior to the f/3.5 in regards to off-center sharpness. The AI-S got sold and I now own three copies of the 16/3.5 AI - they all three are almost indistinguishable (sp?) in sharpness, etc. The only thing I found is that these lenses are sensitive to internal dust/haze/etc. which shows up as degraded flare performance. The 16/3.5 K or AI'd does have a slightly different light baffle design internally and thus has slightly less great flare/ghosting than the true AI version.<br> The 16/3.5 is one of my most used and cherished lenses.</p>

<p>I can assume you are talking about the 16/2.8AF-D. There were also the manual focus 16/2.8 AIS and 16/3.5 AI (also the K version). The 16/2.8 AIS is supposedly the same optically as the AF-D (and that's what I found).<br> Both the AF-D and AI-S are OK - they never get truly sharp off center on an FX sensor even when stopped down when using today's high MP FX Nikon DSLR bodies (I could easily see this at 12MP on my D700).<br> The 16/3.5 is way better in off-center sharpness at all apertures while the AFD/AIS is slightly sharper in the center wide open, but this advantage goes away a few stops down - I've owned and/or tried them all. Any of the three versions are extremely flare/ghosting resistant with the AI being better with bright sources in the frame while the AF-D/AIS being better when bright sources are just out of the frame.<br> Find a 16/3.5 AI'd or native AI (there are some slight differences) and you'll have the best fisheye you can get in Nikon mount.</p>

<p>Hard to tell what that is from the terrible picture - likely could just be dust. If it is dust these lenses are easy to have them cleaned as they come apart so easy to gain access to the internal elements.<br> <br />That being said, there are many 300/4.5 manual focus Nikkors. As others have said, get the ones with the ED designation as these will be significantly better optically than the non-ED versions.<br> See: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#300<br> Of the ED versions, the non-IF ED versions are the best, but also much more rare and more expensive and heavier than the ED-IF versions. I have the 300/4.5 ED AI (non-IF) and it is a very very good lens on my D800 or A7RII - a bit better than the 300/4 AFS (at least the one copy I compared it to).<br> I've owned the 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS and it was an OK lens - not bad, but not particularly great. This lens had a lot of dust inside and I had a local camera shop completely clean the inside elements for $150 or something like that, so if you have access to a good repair shop (or send it in somewhere) don't be afraid of dust. Fungus is a completely different issue - it may clean up perfectly or it may have permanently damaged the optical coating - hard to tell until you pull the lens apart.<br> Good luck.<br> John</p>

<blockquote> <p>The slide film's density range, when diffusely illuminated(the ES-1 has a diffuser), does not challenge the D810. The slides are not "too contrasty".</p> </blockquote> <p>As others and I have stated, the density range of the <em><strong>recorded</strong></em> image on slide film can have a huge dynamic range and, depending on the image, can indeed challenge a D810.<br> When on my slide table I can clearly see details in the deep deep shadows that cannot be captured in one exposure on a D8XX camera while also getting the bright highlights. The only way I've found to get all there is out of a slide that has highlights and deep shadows is to combine multiple exposures.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I have found the camera to be much "smarter" than the average scanner, not to mention 10x as fast. RAW <a id="itxthook8" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dT9o?start=20" rel="nofollow">files<img id="itxthook8icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> leave ample room for further adjustments in Lightroom.</p> </blockquote> <p>+1<br> I got far better colors, exposure, etc. using my D800 than with the CS5000ED, though the 5000ED excelled at dust and scratch removal!</p>

<p>I use a small light table rotated vertically and placed behind my PS-6 slide holder of my PB-6 belows to copy slides. Yes, the light source can make a difference. Also, the image on the slide has huge dynamic range, which is a much different thing that the dynamic range that the slide film can capture of a scene.<br> Some time ago I did some comparisons of my CoolScan 5000ED slide scanner and D700 - the slide scanner won out for dynamic range, but lost due to flare at high contrast transitions. When I got my D800 I scanned the same slide (that had a huge dynamic range in the recorded image) and the D800 was slightly better than the CoolScan for dynamic range and had no flare issues. <br> I don't recall, however, ever seeing more dynamic range in the LCD than I did in the final image - perhaps because of my continuous light source that was the same during both preview and image capture. Never did use a flash for the very reason of the inability to accurately pre-view the image w/o actually recording it.</p>