We love our manual focus Nikkor lenses!
- Thread starter COBALT
- Start date
Dx,distortion control in Capture NX2.
Another AIS 16mm f2.8 fisheye.
I treat it as UWA,about 11mm in Dx format,plus light weight.
Bali 風情
mogwai said:
No.
First, fisheye lens field of view (fov) is calculated differently from rectilinear lenses. From Nikkor lens catalogue 10-24mm fov 109-61 degrees; 10.5mm fisheye fov 180 degrees.
Also from Nikkor lens catalogue 16mm fov FX 180 degrees, DX 107 degrees. So on DX the 16mm lens is really behaving like 11mm, DX, almost. When one defish a shot, however, one loses some fov. Not sure how much, though.
So, the 11mm DX is like 16mm FX. From Nikkor catalogue 16-35mm fov 107-63 degrees.
Reason I asked the question is I see little distortion and wondered about defishing for FX at 180 degrees. The 2 shots above are defished from 107 degrees. Or defishing DX 10.5mm, the same situation. Also, when I use my Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom at 16mm DX there is already little distortion.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
nikkor-S 35/2.8 @ 5.6?
found another old but stellar lens. wide open its fantastic except for the corners, stopped down abit its quite breath taking. i use it mostly for environmental portraits where 2.8 gives a nice DOF to give some texture. don't have any portraits i can put up yet though, so here's one i took at LAX a couple days back. see the link for more detail ^^
hashbr0wn on deviantART
found another old but stellar lens. wide open its fantastic except for the corners, stopped down abit its quite breath taking. i use it mostly for environmental portraits where 2.8 gives a nice DOF to give some texture. don't have any portraits i can put up yet though, so here's one i took at LAX a couple days back. see the link for more detail ^^
hashbr0wn on deviantART
Totally agree.
Actually I still can minimise some more distortion,but will be loss some angles.
diediealsomustdive said:
Yea, you had me at "First, fisheye lens field of view (fov) is calculated differently from rectilinear lenses".
I'm not an engineer or mathematician, so I will just use that as rule of thumb. The calculation bit I will just leave to you guys.
mogwai said:
Then just accept that for the same mm marking fish eye lens have wider view than ultra wide angles. And use the data from the lens cat to work out the angles.
Last edited:
Decide to bump up this thread since it seems quite dead haha. Got my hands on a full box 45mm f2.8 ai-p in mint condition from whom I believe was a collector just weeks ago and it was one of the more exciting lenses I've used so far. Its about the thickness of 2 stacked body caps, and since I like shooting the D600 with the vertical grip, it looks quite weird. Colour and contrast is superb, the MF feel is one of the nicest but got to get used to the thin MF ring. Bokeh is distinctive, looks quite "structured" IMO, if I could call it that.
First 3 shots wide open, last 2 at 5.6. Straight from camera, converted to jpeg in viewNX.
First 3 shots wide open, last 2 at 5.6. Straight from camera, converted to jpeg in viewNX.
Cool! if its a black one its quite sought after.. I've been looking to try this lens for quite awhile now; I use a CZ 45/2.8 Tessar converted from C/Y mount, wondering how they stack up against each other. Its one of the lens i use quite often but i cant post the shot on this thread cos its not nikkor >< the compact size really allows you to get away unnoticed, and the one-finger focus ring should be fun to use after awhile. if the 45P is anything like the CZ you should get punchy shots with quite some character, esp wide open. have fun and share more!
the 45mm f2.8 ai-p is one sweet lens. it's a lens that grows on you. agree that you got to get used to the thin mf ring. i've got the silver version and have increasingly been using it on the olympus ep l5
Nope, gotten the silver version. From my limited knowledge, the black version cost quite alot more than the sliver one. But silver lens on a black body looks quite cool though, but not as stealthy as the black one for street. Hence, I'll usually shoot without the hood as the front of the lens is black and wont attract that much attention. Haha I think posting one or two shot from the CZ wont hurt, not much ppl will notice anyway. But since both are of tessar design, they should render quite similarly, only that the T* coating of the zeiss might make the difference. Post more photos of the CZ and maybe we can do a small shoot-out? But my D600's currently at NSC for sensor cleaning so photos will take a while.
I think I prefer to use it in its native 45mm FL as my M4/3 cameras crop it too tight for my liking. But truth to be told, I have not extensively shot with that combination yet so I'm not ruling it out. Just that I really dislike composing from the rear LCD of compared to the OVF of DSLRs. Awkward much.
yup, know what you mean. think you'll enjoy it on your d600 when you get it back. i too had fun using it on my fm2n and fe2
