> > > > > > > > > B&H offers these two lenses, I'm not sure wich one to buy for my Canon EOS. Sigma 24mm f/2.8 -- $178.00 Vivitar 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Series 1 -- $189.95 Everybody keeps telling me fixed focal length lenses are always better than zoom lenses; I want to have a wide angle and not pay a lot for it, so the vivitar zoom seems nice (19mm). But if the loss in quality is big when compared to the other one, I guess I should get the Sigma fixed length.
I have used both lenses that you are considering. if the Vivitar is the same manual focus lens that I'm thinking of. Personally, I thought the Vivitar was a "fun" lens, but I wouldn't have used it for anything serious. It produced decent pictures overall, but there was quite a bit of distortion and noticeable light
falloff at the corners. But, the image appeared to be pretty sharp all the way across. then again, I usually used it at 19mm at f8 or so and it's hard to tell if your image is a little out of focus with those settings. I'm currently using the Sigma 24mm lens and have generally been happy with the results. The distortion is minimal and overall image quality (IMO) is much better than that produced by the Vivitar. I just think that Sigma should have made the lens hood able to reverse-clip onto the lens. or allow the lens cap to be attached when using the lens hood. It's a pain having them separated in my camera bag! I'd say that your decision should depend on your intended use for the lens. If you are a hobbyist and just want to take nice shots for your personal photo album, you could probably make do with the Vivitar. the zoom range does give you some options that the Sigma can't provide. If you're serious about photography, and image quality is important (maybe you want to make big prints or you want to try for stock photo?) then you're probably better off with the Sigma. -Kevin From: joe-b@dircon.co.uk.com (Joe Berenbaum) Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Subject: Re: 8mm T-mount fisheye Sigma/Spiratone/Acura users query Date: Tue, 26 May 1998
rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote: >Greetings, >I have just bought a 12mm f/8 sigma T-mount fisheye - an oldie obviously, >and decided I would also be interested in its sister lens - an 8mm >T-mount lens, sometimes called a 7.5mm f5.6 fisheye lens, under the >sigma, spiratone, acura or similar brand names. These lenses were only >$100-200 new, and seem to be running the same used. >Has anyone used this lens, and can they report on its qualities - optical >and mechanical? I would also be interested in anyone who has one they >want to get rid of that is gathering dust ;-) >The T-mount is a major benefit to these unique fisheyes, allowing you to >swap fisheye easily and cheaply. With auto-aperture cameras, and given >huge depth of field of fisheye, lack of automation isn't such a big problem. >thanks again to anyone who can share their experience with this >interesting fisheye lens - regards bobm >* Robert Monaghan

rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: spam-abuse@worldnet.att.net (Tom) [1] Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye) Date: Wed Jan 20 10:17:51 CST 1999 I bought the Sigma 14 a month ago, and I immediately ran some tests. Your comments reflect exactly what I would say about this lens except that you omitted the fact that it vignettes pretty badly at 2.8. You must stop down to around 5.6 to eliminate this effect (or do a quasi-fix after the fact in Photoshop). Tom Washington, DC From Nikon Digest: Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 From: Rolland Elliott rolland_elliott@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 HSM lens [v04.n210/15] Someone asked about this lens, so here's my opinion: I've had the Sigma 14mm lens for about two months now, and I'd have to say that I really like the angle of view it offers. It is very well built, but rather heavy for such a small looking lens. The front glass element is HUGE, and there 's no way you can filter it. The front element makes it look like a fish eye lens. However you can slip gel's in the back of the lens to get some filtration. As far as optical quality goes, I really haven't done any tests and have nothing to compare it to since this is the first ultrawide angel lens I have ever used. One thing is very obvious though, it has a great deal of distortion. Objects at the edge of the frame are stretched out and distorted looking. (especially noticible with pictures of people) This lens does however keep verticle lines straight (such as buildings) at the edges of the frame as long as the camera is level. If you don't hold the camera level you will get extreme CONVERGENCE of verticle lines. However, I've read that this is typical of most ultrawide angel lenses. Flare is a very big problem. If you shoot into the sun or bright light source you will get flare 9 times out of 10. Using your hand to block the light is a possible solution, but because the angle of view of this lens is so large it is hard to block the light without getting your hand in the image. Using a smaller aperature will help reduce the flare also. The AFS motor is smooth, quiet, and absolutely unecessary! Who needs fast focusing with an ultrawide lens? The depth of field is so great you can basically forget about focusing, as long as your subject isn't extremely close to you. The instant manual override is only useful in singel servo mode. If you try to manually touch up the AF in continuous mode the Nikon camera will constantly try to correct your manual adjustments! Sigma should incorporate AFS technology into their 300mmf/4 and 400mmf/5.6 lenses, not ultrawide angles. The price is definetely right, I got mine for $690 US, which is cheap compared to other brand name ultrawide angles. Canon's 14mm f.28 lens is twice this cost. Even though this lens has flare and distortion problems, it is fun to use. The angle of view is just amazing. The best thing about this lens is that it has an extremely small minimum focusing distance. Objects as close as 2 inches away from the lens can be focused upon. By using a small aperature one can get everything is focus along with a really unique perspective. Foreground

>Any experience out there with the Vivitar Series One 19-35 Ultra Wide Macro >Zoom.seems very inexpensive for this range. Wondering if it is any good?
rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: mddeskey@aol.com (MDDESKEY) [1] Re: Sigma 24mm 2.8 comments Date: Sun Feb 14 01:35:40 CST 1999 my experience with Sigma has been good, especially with their 14mm From: spam-abuse@worldnet.att.net (Tom) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye) Date: 24 Jan 1999
>How do you find the flare when you shoot into lights or the sun with this lens? > >Peter
Below is a review of the lens I recently wrote for another newsgroup. I hope it answers your question. ===================================================
With respect to your bottom line question of how do I like the lens, the short answer is I voted with my credit card and kept it (grin). Below is my review of this lens. Immediately after getting the lens, I ran a series of tests. One test involved shooting pix inside a darkened church, directly on axis on the center isle, and shooting directly into a stained glass window which at this time of year, the sun is directly behind. This test was primarily to look for diffuse veiling flare (large angle scattering) and also would show up any geometric distortion. Other tests included shootin outside, directly into the sun at various stops (to look at aperature diffraction / small angle scattering effects), and some real-world interior architectural shots. I didn't have another ultra wide with me to do direct comparisons, but I duplicated all shots with a reaslnably new Nikon 20 f/2.8 AF-D. To summarize the flare results, under the conditions of my tests, which were designed to bring out the worst in a lens, the Sigma 14 f/2.9 lens had noticably more small angle scattering (localized flare around small individual light sources) AND more large angle scattering (diffuse veiling flare) than the Nikon at corresponding angles, contrast conditions, and aperatures. It's hard to be quantitative in such informal tests but I would note that these differences in flare could not be seen under less extreme contrast situations, ie normal interior shots. Small angle diffraction (aperature "star-bursts") and flair improved somewhat as you go from 2.8 to about 5.6, but then gets worse as you keep on stopping down. This is clearly a lens where the old rule that the optimum aperature is 1-2 stops down from wide open is correct. Ghost images were troubling. They were *much* worse than those of the Nikkor, and could occasionally be seen in conventional shots (ie, non extreme tests). Thus one has to be be careful to scan the frame for ghosts, and take appropriate measures to avoid them. In outdoor shots, if the sun is outside the frame, but at certain angles in front of the camera you get ghosts galore. The newly introduced "Flair-buster" that slides into the hot shoe is made for this lens. I did not do a lot of work to seek out Geometric distortion. Its obviously fairly small and certainly was not objectionable in any of the test shots or real-world shots I have taken. With respect to light fall-off, most of my shots are done stopped down so this is not an issue, but focussing and viewing at 2.8 is certainly welcome. In a few cases where I did have to shoot wide open because it was a fast moving, available light situation, strongly uneven lighting also existed and tended to mask the lens fall-off, so I simply overexposed a bit (on neg film) to ensure adequate exposure in the corners and in the shadows, and fixed the overall unevenness in Photoshop. Thus, having 2.8 available when needed is a real blessing. Finally, I should point out that the large, bulbous front element seems to be a magnet for dirt and is about as vulnerable as they get. I did a shoot inside a farm house, and had to keep blowing off the front element every 15 minutes. I would never use this lens around kids or animals that might decide to thumbprint it or lick it (grin). After these tests, because of the ghost, flair and light fall-off problems, I considered returning the lens. However, after I started using the lens for real world shooting situations, I decided to keep it and work within its limitations. It gives pictures that simply couldn't be taken otherwise for the same amount of money, as conveniently, at relatively low light levels, etc. All in all, I like it and will definitely keep it.

Feedback on my pix taken with this lens has been positive. I've taken a couple of very tight interior shots that subjects have said made their farm house look like examples in "Better Homes and Gardens". Hope this helps. Tom Washington, DC From: spam-abuse@worldnet.att.net (Tom) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye) Date: 22 Jan 1999 The previous two posters on this thread are absolutely correct to worry about softness in the corners potentially could go along with light falloff via a design tradeoff. They were also correct to point out that very good lens designs that require radial ND filters are available but they seriously reduce the effective, on-axis f number of the lens. With respect to the Sigma 14 f/ 2.8, one of the things that attracted me to this lens is that even wide open, the corner sharpness is adequate (albeit somewhat dim), whereas stopped down, corner sharpness improves to the point where any sofness that remains would hardly ever be an issue for my purposes. I would also contend that for my purposes, I would rather have f/2.8 available (say rather than a minimum effective aperature of f/5.6 to f/11 (perhaps due to use of the radial ND filter) and either stop down the Sigma (in situations that this is possible), or shoot wide open just to get the shot, and then correct the radial fall-off afterwards in Photoshop. My experience is that with ultra-wides not used in the studio, you almost always have strong nonuniformities in lighting across the large field of view, and that you almost always have to smooth things out in Photoshop anyway, even if you had an ultrawide with absolutely no light fall-off. Because of the combination of speed and short FL, this lens can make some really unique available light / photojournalistic pictures. People just are not used to being able to see "the whole room" in an obviously available light, hand-held shot, and they seem to subconsciously respond to this novelty in a very positive manner. A couple of people have likened shots taken with this lens to pictures taken in the studio or taken on-location with a full lighting and camera rig (so that lenses like the f/11 Hologon could be employed). My real concern about using this lens in these on-location situations is damage to the front element. As I said earlier, the lens coating seems to promote buildup of a static charge that attracts dirt like a magnet. However, since the DOF is so great, you absolutely MUST keep the front element pristene, and really don't want to be cleaning it over and over. Hence I now keep the (rather large) cap on it until the moment I shoot. d Just my $0.02. Tom Washington, DC

From NikonMF Mailing List: Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 From: Rich Lahrson tripspud@wenet.net Subject: Re: Russian 17mm f/2.8 Bob Scott wrote:
> This lens has no auto diaphragm. You must stop down meter > with it. It has a third ring between the focus and aperture rings to > quickly and conveniently stop down the lens.
Hi Bob! Thanks for the comments on the Russian 17mm fisheye. I was not aware that it lacked an auto diaphragm. That partly explains the price break compared to the Nikkor. Cheers, Rich Lahrson tripspud@wenet.net From NikonMF Mailing List: Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 From: Piotr Keplicz keplicz@bigfoot.com Subject: Re: Russian 17mm f/2.8 Rich Lahrson tripspud@wenet.net:
: Thanks for the comments on the Russian 17mm fisheye. I was not : aware that it lacked an auto diaphragm. That partly explains the : price break compared to the Nikkor.
No, *it* doesn't :-) Zenitar 16/2.8 has a Nikon AI mount with auto diaphragm and lists at the same price as Peleng here in Poland (about a hundred bucks). Kalimex wants $260, tho'. From Nikon Mailing List: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net Subject: Re: Ultra wides
>It's not quite as simple as that. All lenses at that particular focal >length will display some sort of distortions, usually in the form of bent >lines and also in most cases light fall off. Fish-eyes just tend to do this >to a much greater extent. Don't expect perfectly straight images from any >ultra wide!
Not entirely true. There are rectilinear ultra-wides. At least one ultrawide Nikkor is a rectilinear. They tend to be very expensive, a couple thousand dollars. Geometric light fall-off is not a distortion, per se. It's due to inverse square law and the ratio of distances from the nodal point to the center of the frame vs nodal point to the corner of the frame.
The Voigtlander Heliar Aspheric 15mm f/4.5 lens is a rectilinear ultra-wide. It's a Leica Thread mount lens. The Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 T* is another, in Contax G mount. The Heliar is remarkably inexpensive ($450), the Hologon is pretty pricey ($2400). Neither of these lenses can be used on an SLR camera as they sit well into where the mirror box would be. Rectilinear ultrawides do demonstrate some distortion, even the best of them. Not distortion of straight lines. that's the point of their rectilinear design, but distortions of 3 dimensional objects off center frame and keystone distortion due to the subject plane and the film plane not being parallel. It takes some careful framing to eliminate these natural optical effects. The Heliar 15 has about 110 degrees coverage across the diagonal and does not bend straight lines. I'm no big fan of the fisheye lens as the curvilinear distortion doesn't fit the kind of photographs I tend to be interested in. It's useful for photographic hemispherical things, like celestial photography, if you're looking for a "realistic" representation, or for extreme effects photographs, but these represent areas of endeavor which have no bearing on my photography.

I bought a Sigma a few weeks ago, thinking that I'd trade it in for the Nikon when they become available. After shooting with the Sigma, I've decided to keep the lens -- and the extra $1000. I have some sample images on my web page at http://members2.clubphoto.com/les101933 Look under "recent photos" and "Nature pictures" for some sample images taken with the Sigma and scanned on a Nikon LS-30. Hope this helps. --Les From Hasselblad Mailing List: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com Subject: Re: Why not wider than 40mm? Steve, I happen to have an elaborate set of tables on view angles. This question is a confusing one, as different formats and print sizes come into play, as has been pointed out. If we look at the diagonals, a 40mm MF lens has a coverage of 93 degrees or so. A 21mm lens on a 35mm has a similar diagonal angle of view. If we look at the horizontal angle, or wider aspect of the rectangular 35mm format, the MF 40mm has about 74 degrees, and the matching 35mm lens would be roughly a 24mm. If we look at the vertical angle, the MF 40mm has an angle of 74 degrees, still, as it is square, but the 35mm lens would have to be a 16mm to achieve the same angle of view. On practical terms, this says that the Hasselblad is at its best taking pictures of square objects, in which case a 40mm MF lens is as wide as a 16mm lens on a 35mm cam. For a wide subject, the 40mm MF lens is only as wide as a 24mm on a 35mm camera. Math aside, in practice, the 40mm gives an expansive view. The early 40mm has more distortion. The SWC has very low distortion, and has worked well in all models. Peter. From Hasselblad Mailing List: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com Subject: Re: Why not wider than 40mm? Bernard, I refined the calculations a bit, and include a summary, the calculations and the source for the calculator. Summary follows:
I appreciate your concern over why I came up with "93 degrees or so" when you say "88mm." Of course I am thinking you meant "88 degrees," and see your point that it does make a difference. The first calculation I sent you was based on a 60mm x 60mm usable negative size. I adjusted this to 57mm x 57mm frame size, and came up with a view angle of 90.44, about halfway between 93 and 88. Hasselblad's data may be based on the real focal length longer than 40mm, which may be something other than 40mm, or using a negative size smaller than 57mm square. Refining the calculation, I still get a diagonal equiv to a 21.5mm lens on a 35mm camera. You were right that 93 degrees was an overestimate; 90.44 is closer, by calculation, if not observation. For the 40mm, I get a vertical and horizontal of 70.94, again more than 67. For 35mm equivs, I get 25mm on the wider aspect, 17mm on the narrow, reading from the chart below. I include view angles for other Hasselblad lenses. Peter Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 From: Bob Scott desmobob@capital.net To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu Subject: Re: Ultra wide angle lens options

> > > > > > > > > I'd be interested in posting any lens reviews based on your experiences etc., or make links to your pages. I have promoted the low cost benefits of the kiev lenses (see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/cameras.html for links andpages and kiev buying guide and other related postings.). see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/broncameratest.html on lens testing tips in any case, good luck with both your Kiev and russian lenses, and hope you have some good news to share. bobm
Bob, It is a dismal, rainy day here in upstate NY. The lighting was terrible outside, so I shot a roll of TMAX 400 inside and souped it in T-MAX developer to quickly get an idea of how the lens does. I am very satisfied, so far. -- This was my first use of T-MAX film and developer. I souped the negs for 7 minutes at 68 degrees. The shots look a little low in contrast. I don't know if it's the film/developer/temp/time, the lens, or the lighting [SB-24 off the ceiling]. I put up a.TIF and.JPG on the web. The.TIF is shot at f/11; the.JPG, wide open (f/2.8). The.TIF file is 900KB, the.JPG is 64 KB. TIF: http://www.capital.net/users/desmobob/peleng17.tif JPG: http://www.capital.net/users/desmobob/pelengwo.jpg For $140.00, I think the lens is fantastic! It does lack an auto diaphragm, but is has a convenient stop-down ring between the focus and aperture rings, making it easy to stop down the lens before exposure -- if I remember to do it. The way I look at it from a hobby viewpoint, this will probably be the least-used lens in my bag. My Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AIS gets used a lot, but I would NOT consider spending several hundred on a nice Nikkor fisheye for occasional use. I am very happy with the performance of this lens,considering the price. Not having an auto diaphragm is not a big deal to me. I'll have some color negs and more applicable test shots soon.
Good shooting, Bob Scott Whitehall, NY From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kalimex Ordering Oh, you're talking 35mm, not medium format. Saul Kaminsky at Kiev USA has those fisheye lenses. He showed them to me in NYC at the end of October. I don't know what price he has on them, but his stuff does go through his own QC. There are two fisheyes that he sells, one a circular type like the old Nikon ones, and a more modern full frame one which looks like it might be copied from the Zeiss one. I assume that the full frame one is the 17mm. He was going to send me one of each to try out and I forgot about it. He probably did too. I'll have to remind him. As I recall they were available in Nikon mount and M-42 screw mount. Bob. Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 From: "W Scott Elliot" selliot@direct.ca Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc Subject: Re: Sigma 17-35 EX HSM The June issue of Practical Photography, a British magazine, compares 14 wide angle zoom lenses from various manufacturers. The Sigma 17-35 EX receives quite good ratings of 8 out of 10 on handling, auto focus, performance and overall. The 17-35L gets 9 out of 10 on handling and auto focus and 8 out of 10 on performance and overall. The surprise is the Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM. It rates 9 out of 10 on all four ratings. This is actually the highest number of 9's of any of the lenses rated and the magazine recommends that this is the Canon lens to go for. This is a good deal considering that the 20-35 is the cheapest of the three lenses. This may not be a fair comparison, because the wide open measurements for the 17-35 lenses are at bigger apertures than the 20-35 so you would expect slightly poorer performance on equal quality lenses. If you just compare the charts for the f/8 settings, the lenses seem to be quite comparable. I have the 20-35 USM and can vouch that it is a sharp lens. I don't find the lack of a 2.8 aperture to be much of a disadvantage. Most photos taken with this lens have some object in the foreground and I want the background in focus too so I use a smaller aperture. (If I want to blur the back ground, I use a telephoto lens.) I find the 20mm to be quite wide. I don't know how often I would need the 17mm. The widest lens I had before was a 28mm so it is taking me a while to work out good compositions with the 20mm, it quite different. See if you can give the 20-35 a trial run before you put out the money for one of the 17-35's.

Hope this is of some interest. Roland From Panoramic Mailing List; Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 From: Glenn Barry glenn@acay.com.au To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: the exact focal length of Tokina 17mm Manual focus. Cheap non OEM extension tubes are also really good for lens mounts, and a lot sturdier than rear lens caps. I have had no guilt cannabalising them in the past. Glenn Sofjan@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 99-09-01 20:34:40 EDT, you write: As I was Executive Editor at Popular Photography from 1971 to 1986, I can tell you that all lens makers lie on the short side. I would guess that the Tokina 17 is actually 17.8mm If it were 18, they'd say 18. Ed Meyers Actually lens manufacture produce lens either in the longer side or shorter side depending on how convinient it is or how easier it is to produced. most wide angle will be longer and most tele will be shorter. i remember at one time people are debating wheter most 70-210 f2.8 zoom should be label 80-200 because the tele end is mostly 195-199 mm. 8^) Okay back to 360'er. So if i cut the roller for 18mm and then reduce the dia,meter bit by bit. do i have to shift the position of the roller or do i let the Oring take up the slack. I really need to get of my behind and start this project because it has took me so long without any result. Maybe today or tommorow i'll try to find the airplane modeler here locally that has a mini lathe to make the roller for me and mount the motor and place the bearing for the roller shaft. Okay one last call for opinion before i buy the tokina 17mm (non atx) Here is my situation i have Contax and maxxum camera. i have a 20mm f2.8 for maxxum but i can't use it for 36 larscan sice it doesn't have manual aperture tabs. i want to buy a manual 17mm with contax mount and mount on larscan via the rear lens cap that way i can still use the lens daily. at first i have two choice either Tokina 17mm (non ATX) $229 from B&H or Tamron 17mm SP $369 plus 39 dollars for the adaptal mounts. but with tamron i could use with my maxxum albeit with extra adaptall mount.right now i'm set on the Tokina since i could get any info stating that tamron is superior than the Tokina. that plus the price pretty much set me up. what you guys think ? On the side bar ! yesterday while flipping over this month shutterbug i saw an advertisement for Yashica 15mm in one of the used camera dealer. it is advertise for $295 dollars or some thing like that. i don't know exactly how much it is advertise for since i was leaping out of my seat to grab the phone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Unfortunately(you guys must have guess it) the lens already been sold. and the guy told me over the phone that he could have sold at least fifty of them by the phone call he got. Bummer. i know yashica 15mm is hard to come by. He offer me Zeiss 18mm f4 or 16mm but i couldnt afford to get it.(at $1100 and *1800 respectively) I truly wish i got the yashica 15mm though. it is hard to comeby and most likely the quality is better than either tokina or tamron. plus the advertise price is so low. from the tone of the seller at ken Mar (used camera dealer) He actually regret selling it at $295. I bet next time he got the same lenses he won't let it go that cheap anymore. But maybe there might not be next time. Thanks.

> > > > > > > > > Hi, Does anyone have any (serious) comments about this lens? I'm thinking of buying one for my N90s and I would like to know if they are compatible/won't screw with the Nikon electronics. Thanks in advance, Mike
It is a totally manual lens, so there is no electronic bus at all. Peleng is a preset lens, i.e. lacks the automatic aperture but instead has a ring which allows quick opening and closing of the aperture
to the preset value. I have never used it on anything autofocus, though, but the Nikon mount worked fine on a F3, and a M42x1 screw mount worked fine (with a FD mounting ring) on my Canon F1N. IMO Peleng isn't a serious lens (rather soft in my experience, prone to flare and with very poor contrast) but then again how many "serious" applications are there for a circular fisheye.? It is fun to use if you like the effect, but it gets old pretty quickly. My Peleng was rather difficult to dismount from the camera as the entire front of the lens would unscrew itself from the rest every now and then. It could have been my sample, because the factory has no quality control in the western meaning on this word, i.e. they seem to work on the principle that "if it looks like a lens, it is a lens. Ship it!" Test the very lens you are buying before committing your money (or get a firm money-back guarantee from the seller.) If you are paying for it more than 140-150 US dollars - including the mount - you are overpaying, IMO. I bought mine in Poland for approx. 80 dollars. Apparently it costs approx. 240 bucks - including s/h directly imported to the US from the Ukraine, but some places ask much more than that. Michael [Ed. note: you don't often hear of a vivitar ultrawide zoom beating Canon primes.] From Panoramic Mailing List: Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 From: Andjo andjo@quail.net.au To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: 2 suggestions from a canon user - try to find a Vivitar 17-28mm zoom - cheap and sharp - at lease 5 times sharpers than the Canon 17 (or even the 20 for that matter). The 14 is fabulous - I still regret selling mine. And did you know voightlander now makes a 12mm rectiliniar lens???????????? Andrew ----- Original Message ----From: Rudolf KLEIN To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 9:26 AM Dear Mr. Wulff! I need your advice. I am an architectural historian. I have a Linhof 4 x5" that I seldom use. I need mainly 35 mm slides for my lectures and recently my publishers are looking for visual material submitted on CD. Having a Nikon 2000 slide scanner I use mainly my Canon F1N that I adore. My Canon FD 17mm lens was recently stolen. 24mm is not enough. Now what should I do? Buy a second hand canon FD 14MM lens, or opt for the Cosina Voigtlander Heliar 15mm? (THe Canon 17mm lens was not great.) In terms of weight and price it comes to the same. Only measuring light will be a nightmare with the Bessa and putting to the floor I would not enjoy the detachable prism of the F1N. IN addition to that having a Bessa and some other 100 gramm lenses my shoulders would be relived. Of course, my Sonnars adopted to Canon are unavoidable for tele shots. For interiors,

-Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK From Panoramic Mailing List; Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 From: Marco Pauck pauck@wmd.de Subject: Re: lens test, advice
> Rudolf KLEIN wrote: > > Is there any test results for the Heliar 12mm? > Is the Heliar 15mm lens good in terms of distorsio? I am an architect >and this is a crucial feature.
Both lenses were tested by the German Foto Magazin: - 4.5/15mm in issue 4/1999 - 5.6/12mm in issue 12/2000 For both the overall results were quite good, however both suffer from significant vignetting even when stopped down: about 2 f-stops for the 15mm and about 3 f-stops for the 12mm. Distortion isn't a big issue (0.3/0.4% for the 15mm and 0.3/1.6% for the 12mm). Marco Marco Pauck -- marco@pauck.de -- http://www.pauck.de/marco/ From Panoramic Mailing List: Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 From: Rod Sage rsage@bouldernews.infi.net To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: lens test, advice Rudolf KLEIN wrote:
> > > > > Is there any test results for the Heliar 12mm?Is the Heliar 15mm lens good in terms of distorsio? I am an architect and this is a crucial feature. I would appreciate very much if you could answer my question. Prof. Rudolf KLEIN
Regarding the 12mm Heliar. The Dec. Shutterbug has a good article and rates it very well. They do say that the lens is sharpest wide open at f/5.6 or f/8 and should be stopped down only when neccesary for more depth of field, which would be rare. They also mention that there is inevitably true wide angle distortion, where solid objects near the edge of the picture are pulled out of shape and the camera should be leveled carefully. Rod S. Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Lisa's Gallery of Rogues. "John G. Silver" jonsil@tpgi.com.au wrote:
> I'll just dump the WA I used and am ordering a Cosina/Vivitar 19-35 zoom. > saw a good report on this in a Practical Photography magazine. I
I hope it's not too late to stop you, but this lens is a gamble at best. Unless you are extremely fortunate and find a good example, you would be far better buying the new Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5. This is a well made lens with non-rotating filter ring and a very good optical design. The Tokina is not in the same league as a Nikkor AF-S, Canon L or Minolta G, but it is a sharp and contrasty lens with less distortion than the Cosina.
> Does anyone know who makes these lenses and is it available with different > names?

> > > > > Any users who can share impressions of this lens that is now being 'closed out' - sharpness, quality at f/5.6 and wider and stopped down, build and ergonomics? I am thinking about the MD version, would like one ultra-wide for interiors, star trails, landscapes - Thanks,
I have this lens in Canon EOS. Very well built, lots of metal. DoF is huge, of course. A bit prone to flare as you might expect. It was bought specifically for indoor architecture photographer (virtual reality) and is excellent for getting floor-to-ceiling shots in vertical format. Excellent value for money. Only niggles: focus ring is very loose in manual focus; doesn't lock into place when I mount it on my EOS1n (!). Chris. -http://met.open.ac.uk/met_vr/ From Sigma Lens Mailing List: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 From: christophercalabro@yahoo.com Subject: Sigma 20 mm 1.8 AF DG Wanted to pass along a few early thoughts on the new Sigma 20mm 1.8 lens. I picked up this lens in a Canon mount and have shot it with an Eos 1-V. The lens is extremely sharp and has excellent contrast. The build quality is the same as all the other EX lenses, which is to say very good. I am not a huge fan of the plastic body and that is further complicated by my extreme dislike of the
stardust speckled finish Sigma uses on the Ex lenses. So it is not the most attractive or professional looking lens in my bag. That aside it is a fast autofocus lens(rear focus) and it is smooth and quiet in the AF mode. It has a puch ring for fast af-manual mode change. It is this actuation which I would list as my second dislike about the lens. There is a AF/Manual switch as well but the ring shift was a little rough and not as silky smooth as the lens focus actuation. Perhaps one of the biggest real world problems with this lens is the 82mm filter size. Granted the lens has a great 94.5 degree angle of view Sigma could have fit this into a 77mm size at worse. Many of their competitors are achieving the same great results with 72mm filter sizes. I make this a point because if you pay $330 for the lens a slim hi enf filter make run you 1/3 the cost of the filter. And that is for a UV. Forget about adding a circle. The 1.8 speed is very nice for interior shooting. In a nutshell I would highly recommend the lens based on performance lone. If the finish is not an issue for you and you either have 82mm filters or do not intend to use more than 1 filter I would make this a solid buy. You will save perhaps 20-25% off the name brand versions and get solid performance in return. The price you pay is on the resale side (longterm) and in the filters (shortterm). From Sigma Lenses Mailing List: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 From: "Leo" whywhyz@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Sigma 20 mm 1.8 AF DG I almost bought this lens, and ultimately went with the Canon 20/2.8 due to te filter size. I shoot mostly lanscapes with it and the extra 1.5 f/stops werent a big issues, as I stop down most of the time. But it does look like a nice piece of hardware. From Nikon Mailing List: Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 From: ken rockwell kenrockwell@kenrockwell.com Subject: [NIKON] Nikon 15mmF3.5 Manual Focus OR 14mmF2.8 AutoFocus I owned the 15 for a few years and tried the 14 once. The 15 required that you have a decent staff of assistants to gobo the lighting, because the 15 has a horrendous flare and ghosting problem if any light hits the lens. I did eventually make a 12" x 18" matte box for it that helped. It is not a lens for casual outdoor photography. I tried the 14 once for a few shots. It seems to share the 15's unique lack of geometric distortion common to almost all Nikkor wide angles, and also seems to lack the flare problems. I wasn't able to get a sharp image out of it, however that may have been because I was shooting indoors at 1/4 sec which I usually can pull off with those lenses. So, go try the 14 and make sure it's sharp and free from flare and ghosts. If it is it is superior to the 15. What looks like a built in hood on both of these lenses is not. Those are front element protectors in case you put the lens down on a table or concrete. They are way to small to prevent out-ofimage light from hitting the bulbous front element. The problem with the 15 is that once any light

Sigma Tokina Minolta Minolta Minolta Sigma 24/2.8 19[20]-35 24/2.8 24-50 20-35 17-35 $ 150/. 150/200 250/350 250/350./450./450 (used/new)
Hmm. I've looked it through again and realized that performance goes probably the opposite order! Actually Tokina is very tempting, or old Minolta zoom although it's not 'true' WA. No, I can't decide yet. Thanks anyway, Alex. From Minolta Mailing List; Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 From: "Kent Gittings" kent@ism.com Subject: RE: Re: affordable wide-angles I think the old Tokina AT-X II 20-35/3.5-4.5 is better than the Sigma 18-35. The Sigma has major barrel distortion at 18mm while the Tokina no measurable amount of distortion through out the range. and a used Tokina can usually be picked up for something in the $200 or so range. If you went just by the Photodo rating the best wide zoom is the Tamron 20-40/2.7-3.5. Better than the Minoltas even. However it has some distortion right at the 20mm range. Mainly it is pretty sharp for a wide zoom. Kent Gittings From Rangefinder Mailing List: Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 From: "Stephen William FOYLE" swf46@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: [RF List]Robert Frank 1950's SuperWides These are the introduction dates for 1950's SuperWides
195? Carl Zeiss Jenna 25f4 Topogon Contax Mount Nikon 25f4 W-Nikkor Contax/Nikon Mount Angenieux 28f3.5 R11 Retrofocus Exakta Mount Carl Zeiss Oberkochen 21f4.5 Biogon Contax Mount Angenieux 24f3.5 R51 Retrofocus Exakta Mount Leitz 21f4 Super-Angulon LTM and M Mounts (Schneider Design) Isco 24f4 Westrogon Retrofocus Exakta Mount Nikon 21f4 Nikkor-O Contax/Nikon Mount Leitz 28f5.6 DoNotRememberName) LTM Mount
Best regards, Stephen William Foyle [Ed. note: another user's view, and a warning on sample variations.] Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Cosina 19-35mm lens - opinion, anyone? "Vlad P" pvlad@bigfoot.com wrote:
> I have 19-35 Vivitar > I bought a couple of month ago for Nikon mount. > >snip >

> > > >

I am just a beginner, so my quality "threshould" may not be that high, I also do not have more expensive lenses/cameras -- therefore my comparasings may not be up to the standards of other people.
It's a pity you didn't make this statement at the beginning of your posting. To those who are interested in this Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix lens, it is junk. It has appalling build quality and huge sample variation. If you are lucky enough to get a good one the lousy build quality may mean it doesn't stay good for long. The best examples of this lens can produce acceptably sharp results when stopped down to f/8 or so, however the barrel distortion at 19mm, and the pincushion distortion at 35mm, are appalling. The distortion at the wide end is so bad that it makes you think you just bought the world's first zoom fisheye lens. For only about 20% more $ you can buy the latest Tokina Model AF193 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens which is well made, has minimal sample variation, produces consistently sharp and contrasty results and has well controlled distortion. There is still some distortion, and it is noticeable if you do architectural photography or compose with straight lines near the edges of the frame, but it is very well controlled compared to that of the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix product. The choice between the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix and the Tokina AF193 is a no-brainer. Go with the Tokina AF193, unless you only shoot for 4"x6" prints from a minilab, when you may not be able to tell the difference. But I know I will. I have tested four examples of the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix lens and two of the Tokina, and on the basis of the results I bought the Tokina without any hesitation. -Tony Polson Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 From: retoricus@hotmail.com (Vagabond) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Opinion about Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 "Marko B." marko.b@-REMOVE-altavista.net wrote:

>Any on line reviews of this lens? How is the distortion at 19 and 20?
Heavy. It is not a lens for shooting straight lines or buildings with at this end. But neither is the 10x more expensive Nikkor 17-35/f2.8. It is a difference of degrees - no wide zooms are without distortion.
>For that money i'm not expecting any miracles.
The Tokina AF193 is a small miracle when it comes to sharpness and contrast, though, esp. if you consider the affordable price. It is also well built. Vagabond
From Nikon MF Mailing List: Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 From: famlak@hem2.passagen.se Subject: Nikkor 18 mm/3.5 AIS Hi Roberto, Look at this site - I have published some pictures taken with this lens. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/files/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%2 9+/ (please copy and paste all of this long URL! ) I find the 18/3.5 rather extreme.Quite sharp if stopped down 1-2 steps. Beware of the vignetting full open! For my kind of shooting I like more the 20/3.5 - extremely good for shooting in the sun! My 20/2.8 is bulkier,heavier, more expensive but I do not need the high speed 2.8 - I do like my 20/3.5 better! Picture quality is about the same but I have not got the experiences of comparing lenses as some of the giants on this wonderful list. :-) Summary: I would go for 20 mm/3.5 if I had not won a fortune on lottery. Kindest regards Gunnar berg in Ronneby Sweden Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: vivitar or sigma "db1" dvdbrm1@yahoo.com wrote:
> hi all, > i am considering buying a 19-35mm lens for my Pentax SF-1, either a > or a Sigma. Any thoughts and or opinions? Vivitar
The Vivitar is junk, or worse. It has appalling build quality and sample variation is huge. It also appears under the Cosina, Soligor and Phoenix brands, so make sure you avoid all of these. It briefly appeared, a few years ago now, as a Tokina. However Tokina dropped it from their range when they made their own 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, which is an excellent performer for not much more money than Vivitar. The Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 was discontinued late in 2000 and the replacement is a 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 which is optically near-identical, but has a polycarbonate barrel to save weight. The 2035mm f/3.5-4.5 had metal construction, and in my opinion it is a slightly better buy. The 20-35mm and 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Tokinas have excellent sharpness and contrast. Whilst there is some barrel/pincushion distortion (not uncommon in super-wide fixed focal length lenses but particularly common in zooms) it is far better than the Vivitar, whose distortion must be one of the worst of any modern lens. The Tokina costs 20% more than the Vivitar. It is worth every penny.

L N C A TF RNK N E S H R O IO
F r io D 0 s D x D 0D 0 /6 , D 0D 0 e F jS P o o Nk n , 2 , 4 /4 xD 0 D 0 , 7 /7 s t ui 2 r

TP 1 YE

TYPE 1 FOR NIKON
For Nikon D300s, D2x, D40x, D70/D70s, D100 & Fuji S2 Pro
6" dome port lens Chart (#18409)

Camera Lens

Nikon AF 10,5mm f/2,8 G ED DX Nikon AF 16mm f/2.8 D Nikon AF 20mm f/2.8 Nikon AF 24mm f/2.8 D Nikon AF 28mm f/2.8 D Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR DX (*1) Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR DX II (*1) Nikon AF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II Nikon AF 18-70mm f/:3,5-4,5 G ED (*1) Sigma 4.5mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Circular Fisheye Sigma 8mm F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Sigma 15mm f/2.8 FISHEYE Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO HSM Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO HSM (OS) Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO Tokina AT-X 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AF DX fisheye Tokina AT-X 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AF DX Fisheye + 1.4x converter NR = This lens not recommended for use with this port (*1) +4 diopter needed EXTENSION Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required 18453 Not Required 18453 Dome Shade Not Required Not Required GEAR Zoom (Z) or Focus (F) (F)18699 (F)18689 (F)18674 (F)18686 (F)18686 (Z) 18696 (Z) 18729 (Z) 18721 (Z) 18718 (Z)18696
(Z)18770 (Z)18698 (F)18715 (Z)18719 (Z)18719 (Z)18716 (Z)18717 (Z) 18731
4" dome port lens chart (# 18410)
Camera Lens EXTENSION Dome Shade Nikon AF 10,5mm f/2,8 G ED DX Fisheye Not Required Built in Nikon AF-D 16mm f/2,8 Fisheye (*2) Sigma 10mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye (*1) Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye (*1) Tokina AT-X 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AF DX Fisheye Not Required Built in (Z) 18717 Tokina AT-X 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AF DX Fisheye + 1.4x converter 18453 Built in (Z) 18731 (*1) Due to the length of the lens shade, it is impossible to use this lens with the # 18410 dome port (*2) Due to the minimum focusing distance being to far, it is impossible to use this lens with the # 18410 dome port Zoom (Z) Focus (F) GEAR (F) 18699

Updated January 31, 2011

For Nikon D300s, D2x, D40/D40x, D70/D70s, D100 & Fuji S2 Pro
8" dome port lens chart (# 18405)
Camera Lens Nikon AF 10,5mm f/2,8 G ED DX Nikon AF 14mm f/2.8D ED Nikon AF 16mm f/2.8 D Nikon AF 18mm f/2.8 Nikon AF 20mm f/2.8 Nikon AF 24mm f/2.8 D Nikon AF 28mm f/2.8 D Nikon AF-S 10-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX Nikon AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED NIKKOR (*2) Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR DX Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR DX (*1) Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR DX II (*1) Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2,8D IF-ED Nikon AF-S 17-55MM f/2.8 ED-IF Nikon AF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II Nikon AF 18-70mm f/:3,5-4,5 G ED (*1) Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (*1) Nikon AF 20-35mm f/2.8 D (*1) Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 D (*1) Sigma 4.5mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Circular Fisheye Sigma 8mm F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Sigma 14mm f/2.8 EX ASPHERICAL HSM Sigma 15mm f/2.8 FISHEYE Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO HSM Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO HSM (OS) Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO Tokina AT-X 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AF DX fisheye Tokina AT-X 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AF DX Fisheye + 1.4x converter Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 AF PRO DX Tokina AT-X 12-24mm f/4 AF PRO DX NR = This lens not recommended for use with this port (*1) +3 diopter needed for 8" dome port (*2) Older pre 2008 port may not fit due to the oversized nature of this lens. Updated December 20, 2010 EXTENSION Not Required 18456 Not Required 18456 Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required 18453 Dome Shade Not Required Not Required 18480 Zoom (Z) or Focus (F) GEAR (F) 18699 (F) 18693 (F) 18689 (F) 18680 (F) 18674 (F) 18686 (F) 18686 (F)18695/(Z)18696 (F)18695/(Z)18696 (Z) 18722 (Z) 18728 (Z) 18696 (Z) 18729 (Z) 18690 (Z) 18711 (Z) 18721 (Z) 18718 (Z) 18696 (Z) 18727 (Z) 18675 (Z) 18722 (Z) 18723
(Z) 18770 (Z) 18698 (F) 18697 (F) 18715 (Z) 18719 (Z) 18719 (Z) 18716 (Z) 18717 (Z) 18731 (Z) 18722 (Z) 18722
9.25" dome port lens chart (# 18407)
BK-7 coated mineral glass GEAR Zoom (Z) or Focus (F) (F)18699 (F)18693 (F)18689 (F)18680 (F)18674 (F)18686 (F)18686 (F)18695/(Z)18696 (F)18695/(Z)18696 (Z) 18722 (Z) 18728 (Z) 18696 (Z) 18729 (Z) 18690 (Z) 18711 (Z) 18721 (Z) 18718 (Z) 18696 (Z) 18727 (Z) 18675 (Z) 18722 (Z) 18723 (Z) 18770 (Z) 18698 (F) 18697 (F) 18715 (Z) 18698 (Z) 18719 (Z) 18719 (Z) 18716 (Z) 18717 (Z) 18731 (Z) 18722 (Z) 18722
Nikon AF 10,5mm f/2,8 G ED DX Nikon AF 14mm f/2.8D ED Nikon AF 16mm f/2.8 D Nikon AF 18mm f/2.8 Nikon AF 20mm f/2.8 Nikon AF 24mm f/2.8 D Nikon AF 28mm f/2.8 D Nikon AF-S 10-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX Nikon AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED NIKKOR (*2) Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR DX Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR DX (*1) Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR DX II (*1) Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2,8D IF-ED Nikon AF-S 17-55MM f/2.8 ED-IF Nikon AF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II Nikon AF 18-70mm f/:3,5-4,5 G ED (*1) Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (*1) Nikon AF 20-35mm f/2.8 D (*1) Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 D (*1) Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Sigma 14mm f/2.8 EX ASPHERICAL HSM Sigma 15mm f/2.8 FISHEYE Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX DG Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO HSM Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO HSM (OS) Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC MACRO Tokina AT-X 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AF DX fisheye Tokina AT-X 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AF DX Fisheye + 1.4x converter Tokina AT-X 12-24mm f/4 AF PRO DX Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 AF PRO DX NR = This lens not recommended for use with this port (*1) +3 diopter needed for 9.25" dome port (*2) Older pre 2008 port may not fit due to the oversized nature of this lens. Updated December 20, 2010

EXTENSION Not Required 18453 Not Required 18456 Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required 18453 18453
Dome Shade Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in
Macro port lens chart (# 18426 & 18428)
The 18426 AF/MF Macro Port is equipped with a focus knob that allows manual focusing when combined with a focus gear on the lens The 18428 AF Macro port was designed to be operated in Autofocus mode 18428 & EXTENSION GEAR Nikon AF Micro 60mm F2.8 (*3) Not Required (F)18670/(*3)18682 Nikon AF-S Micro 60mm f/2.8G ED NEW Not Required (F) 18728 Nikon AF-S Micro 85mm f/3.5 G ED VR NEW Not Required (F) 18728 Nikon AF Micro 105mm F2.8 (*4) 18453 (F)18679/(*4)18683 Nikon AF-S Micro 105MM f/2.8 G ED-IF VR, NEW 18453 (F)18712.1 Nikon AF Micro 200mm F/4 D 18454 (F)18656 Nikon AF Micro 70-180 mm f/4.5-5. 6D ED 18454 (F)18691/(Z)18692 Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX MACRO Not Required (F)18701 (*3) Auto/manual focus selector available # 18682, (*4) Auto/manual focus selector available # 18683 Camera Lens 18428 GEAR Use in AF only Use in AF only Use in AF only Use in AF only Use in AF only Use in AF only Use in AF only Use in AF only
Updated December 20, 2010