Nikon, Type 1 LENS PORT/ GEAR CHART
or Nikon D2x, D40x, D100, D70/s & Fuji S2 pro NIKON LENS PORTS 10,5 mm f/2,8 G Ed AF DX 18405 14mm f/2.8D ED AF 18405 16mm F2.8 D AF 18405 18mm F2.8 AF 18405 20mm F2.8 AF 18405 24mm F2.8 D AF 18405 28mm F2.8 D AF 18405 60mm F2.8 AF (*1) 18426 105mm F2.8 AF (*2) 18426 105MM f/2.8 G ED-1F AF-S VR, NEW 18426 200mm F4 D AF 18426 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED AF-S DX 18405 17-35mm f/2,8D IF-ED AF-S 18405 17-55MM f/2.8 ED-IF 18405 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 D IF ED AF 18405 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II 18405 18-70 mm 1:3,5-4,5 G ED (*3) 18405 20-35mm FR2.8 D AF (*3) 18405 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 D AF (*3) 18405 28-85mm F3.5-4.5 AF (*3) 18405 24-50mm F3.3-4.5 D AF (*3) 18405 70-180 mm f/4.5-5. 6D ED AF 18426 (*1) Auto/manual focus selector available 18682 (*2) Auto/manual focus selector available 18683 (*3) +3 diopter needed SIGMA & TOKINA LENS Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Sigma 14mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL HSM Sigma 15mm F2.8 FISHEYE Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX DG Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX MACRO Tokina 10-17/3.5-4.5 DX fisheye zoom PORTS 18405 Port EXTENSION Dome Shade 18482 FOCUS & ZOOM GEAR (F)18699 (F)18693 (F)18689 (F)18680 (F)18674 (F)18686 (F)18686 (F)18670/(Z)18682 (F)18679/(Z)18683 (F)18712 (F)18656 (F)18695/(Z)18696 (Z)18690 (Z)18711 (Z)18694 (Z) 18718 (Z)18696 (Z)18675 (Z)18673 (Z)18675 (Z)18673 (F)18691/(Z)18692

18455 18454

18482 18482

Port EXTENSION 18456

Dome Shade 18480
FOCUS & ZOOM GEAR (Z)18698 (F)18697 (F)18715 (Z)18698 (Z)18716 (F)18701 (Z)18717
Nikon Type 2 LENS PORT/ GEAR CHART
For Nikon D300, D200 & D80 Camera Lens
Nikon 10,5mm f/2,8 G Ed AF DX Nikon 14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikon 16mm f/2.8 D AF Nikon 18mm f/2.8 AF Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF Nikon 24mm f/2.8 D AF Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D AF Nikon 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED AF-S DX Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S NIKKOR (*2) Nikon 17-35mm f/2,8D IF-ED AF-S Nikon 17-55MM f/2.8 ED-IF Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 D IF ED AF Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II Nikon 18-70mm f/:3,5-4,5 G ED (*1) Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 D AF (*1) Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 D AF (*1) Nikon 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF (*1) Nikon 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5 D AF (*1) Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Sigma 14mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL HSM Sigma 15mm F2.8 FISHEYE Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX DG Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO HSM Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO Tokina AT-X 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 AF DX fisheye Tokina AT-X 12-24mm F4 AF PRO DX NR = This lens not recommended for use with this port (*1) +3 diopter needed for 8" dome port & a +4 diopter needed for 6" dome port (*2) Older pre 2008 port may not fit due to the oversized nature of this lens. 18407 9.25" dome EXTENSION Not required 18462 Not needed 18456 Not needed Not needed Not needed Not needed 8" dome Port EXTENSION Dome Shade Not required 18456 Not needed 18456 Not needed Not needed Not needed Not needed 18409 6" dome port EXTENSION Dome Shade eq Not required NR Not needed NR Not needed Not needed Not needed NR NR NR NR 18453 NR Not needed NR 18463 NR Zoom (Z) or Focus (F) GEAR (F)18699 (F)18693 (F)18689 (F)18680 (F)18674 (F)18686 (F)18686 (F)18695/(Z)18696 (Z) 18722 (Z)18690 (Z)18711 (Z)18694 (Z) 18721 (Z) 18718 (Z)18696 (Z)18675 (Z)18673 (Z)18675 (Z)18673 (Z)18698 (F)18697 (F)18715 (Z)18698 (Z)18719 (Z)18716 (Z)18717 (Z)18422

Macro lenses

60mm F2.8 AF (*3) 105mm F2.8 AF (*4) 105MM f/2.8 G ED-1F AF-S VR, 200mm F4 D AF 70-180 mm f/4.5-5. 6D ED AF Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX MACRO (*3) Auto/manual focus selector available 18682 (*4) Auto/manual focus selector available 18683 NEW
Port 18428 Auto Focus only Not needed Not needed
Port 18426 Auto & manual focus Not needed Not needed
For use with port 18426 only (F)18670/(*3)18682 (F)18679/(*4)18683 (F)18712 (F)18656 (F)18691/(Z)18692 (F)18701
Nikon Type 3 LENS PORT/ GEAR CHART
For Nikon D3 Full Frame camera Camera lens
14mm f/2.8D ED AF 16mm f/2.8 D AF 18mm f/2.8 AF 20mm f/2.8 AF 24mm f/2.8 D AF 28mm f/2.8 D AF 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S NIKKOR (*2) 17-35mm f/2,8D IF-ED AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 D IF ED AF 18-70mm f/:3,5-4,5 G ED (*1) 20-35mm f/2.8 D AF (*1) 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 D AF (*1) 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF (*1) 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5 D AF (*1) Sigma 14mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL HSM Sigma 15mm F2.8 FISHEYE Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX DG NR = This lens not recommended for use with this port (*1) +3 diopter needed for 8" dome port & a +4 diopter needed for 6" dome port (*2) Older pre 2008 port may not fit due to the oversized nature of this lens. 18407 9.25" dome EXTENSION 18462 Not needed 18456 Not needed Not needed Not needed 18462 Not needed 8" dome Port EXTENSION Dome Shade 18456 Not needed 18456 Not needed Not needed Not needed 18462 Not needed 18409 6" dome port EXTENSION Dome Shade NR Not needed NR Not needed Not needed Not needed NR NR NR Not needed NR Zoom (Z) or Focus (F) GEAR (F)18693 (F)18689 (F)18680 (F)18674 (F)18686 (F)18686 (Z) 18722 (Z)18690 (Z)18694 (Z)18696 (Z)18675 (Z)18673 (Z)18675 (Z)18673 (F)18697 (F)18715 (Z)18698

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 16:37:45 From: "Rai, Rajendra" Rajendra.Rai@bc-nepal.wlink.com.np Subject: Lens Tests - contd Further to my email earlier today, here is the second part of the posting which appeared in the EOS digest on lens tests. Rajendra Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 From: "Klaus Schroiff" kschroiff@BauNetz.de To: EOS eos@avocado.pc.helsinki.fi Subject: EOS: Lens Tests (Part II)
Ok, here's part two of my previous mail. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------Fix-focals 14-20mm Canon EF 2.8 20mm Nikkor AF 2.8 20mm Nikkor AF 2.8 18mm D Tokina AF 3.5 17mm AT-X Pentax SMC-FA 2.8 20mm Minolta AF 2.8 20mm New Optical Quality (4) = good (3) = good (2) = good (3) = average (3) = average (3) = average
3.72 3.63 3.45 3.13 3.06 2.94
Canon EF 2.8 14mm USM L Sigma AF 3.5 14mm Sigma AF 3.5 18mm
2.92 (3) = average 2.20 (4) = poor 1.98 (3) = poor
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------Fix-focals 24-35mm Pentax SMC-F(A) 2.8 28mm Nikkor AF 1.4 28mm D Canon EF 2.8 28mm Canon EF 2.8 24mm Nikkor AF 2.8 24mm Canon EF 1.8 28mm USM Canon EF 1.4 24mm USM L Minolta AF 2.0 28mm Pentax SMC-FA 2.0 24mm AL (IF) Sigma AF 2.8 24mm Nikkor AF 2.8 28mm Minolta AF 2.8 24mm new Minolta AF 2.8 28mm Sigma AF 1.8 28mm ASL II Optical Quality (3) = very-good (3) = very-good (4) = very-good (3) = good (3) = good (3) = good (3) = good (3) = good (4) = good (4) = average (3) = average (3) = average (3) = average (2) = average
4.07 4.01 3.80 3.72 3.71 3.66 3.59 3.44 3.30 3.23 3.22 3.21 2.95 2.94
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------35mm Lenses Nikkor AF 2.0 35mm Minolta AF 2.0 35mm Minolta AF 1.4 35mm G Canon EF 2.0 35mm Nikkor AI-S 1.4 35mm Optical Quality = very good = very-good = good = good = good

4.02 3.80 3.60 3.48 3.43

(4) (4) (4) (4) (3)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Std. Lenses 50mm (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm Minolta AF 1.4 50mm Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm Leica Summilux R 1.4 50mm Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm Canon EF 1.8 50mm II Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM Minolta AF 1.7 50mm Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro
4.62 4.55 4.35 4.25 4.19 4.13 4.00 3.97 3.89 3.86 3.65 3.60 3.55 2.70
(4) (3) (3) (4) (4) (3) (4) (4) (3) (3) (2) (3) (3) (2)
Optical Quality = outstanding! = outstanding! = excellent = excellent = very-good = very-good = very-good = very-good = very-good = very-good = good = good = good = sub-average

On the plus side, the name game makes it possible for some third party lenses to be sold at a discount over higher markup lenses by discounters and may get around some fair trade laws in various countries etc. hope this helps - bobm From: Degui Gu degui@geophys.washington.edu Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace Subject: FS: 18mm/3.2 lens by Soiratone $120/obo Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 The lens is in excellent plus condition, glass perfect, focusing ring smooth. It is a T-mount lens, and with proper adapter, you can use it on most of the manual focus cameras. An adapter to minolta MD mount is included, and it is readily useable if you have such a camera. $120/obo plus shipping. From: wlac@cs.rmit.edu.au (Wai Lun Alan Chan) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Which Wide Angle Zoom -- Tokina vs ? Date: 21 Oct 1998 johnchap@erols.com writes:
>Because the Nikon 20-35/2.8 is prohibitively expensive, I just bought a new >widely touted Tokina ATX Pro 20-35/2.8. I have since burned up about 6 >rolls running tests at different distances, focal lengths and apertures. To >my chagrin I have discovered that my carbonate bodied $160 variable aperture >wide angle zoom optically (resolution and distortion) equals or exceeds the >$700 Tokina at virtually every focal length/fstop/distance combination ->particularly at the edges/corners. Additionally, the cheap zoom actually has >a few mm of additional wide angle coverage. >The Tokina is truly of professional caliber in terms of construction, but >does not quite live up to this standard or its price optically. The question >is whether I should keep the Tokina with its better construction and near one >stop faster speed, although this 2.8 comes at a cost of marginally >[un]acceptable edges/corners, or send the Tokina back and stick with the >cheap one, or, given the possibility that this particular Tokina sample is >defective, exchange the Tokina for another one and test that one. >In typical field test slides, it is unlikely the Tokina would look bad. >However, for $700 I guess I believe I am entitled to better than that. >Since I have to return the lens immediately, if I am going to, your timely >thoughts and input would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance for any >comments and thoughts.
AFAIK, the reputation of Tokina comes from the famous 28-70mm f2.6-2.8 which was originally designed by Angenieux which is excellent on zoom lens design. Other than that, Tokina has never been the best on producing super sharp lenses compared to Sigma and Tamron, let alone camera brand lenses. I strongly believe many people overrate other Tokina lenses by the fact that they have excellent built quality, and the greatly successful 28-70mm zoom. =========================================================== === regards, http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~wlac/ === === Alan Chan wlac@cs.rmit.edu.au ===

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

From: Evan Miller evrmiller@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye) Date: 22 Jan 1999 Jay Lichtman wrote:
> > > > > Is this lens any good? I was playing with it while waiting in line at B&H yesterday, and the image was nice and bright and crisp. Does anyone have real results to report? -Jay
I had a chance to shoot some photos through this lens at the Sigma booth at the photo show last October in the Jacob Javits convention center in NYC. I shot on Fuji 800 print film at all apertures to f8. The indoor lighting was very irregular, bright displays, arc lights on the ceiling and dark shadows all over the place. My examination of the negatives shows very fine detail right to the corners, even at f2.8, better than the f3.5 lens I had and sold a couple of months ago. There is some darkening in the corners, without much change after f4, so it's hard to determine how much vignetting there is vs. the lighting effects. There is a carpet strip near the bottom of the frame that shows slight barrel distortion, probably real but could have been a mislaid carpet strip at the show. The old lens had zero distortion, it was perfect for architectural work. The f2.8 shows some flare around the bright ceiling lights, but no large blotches of flare that the old lens was prone to. Overall I get the impression the f2.8 is sharper and less flare, but maybe the same level of vignetting and not as good for linear distortion. I still plan to get one, I had the f3.5 but sold it a couple of months ago. Evan Miller rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: "J Jones" jdj56@hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc [1] Re: Cheap ultra-wide for EOS Date: Mon Mar 15 15:01:15 CST 1999 I have the Vivitar 19-35, and have been quite pleased. As with any lens, you get what you pay for, so yes there is a bit of softness in the outer regions of the frame, but for my style of photography it has performed finely. To see an example of this lens and my style, click here: http://home.talkcity.com/PicassoPl/d_moriarty/creative.html The photo titled "Limberlost" was taken with the Vivitar @ 19mm. Jason Jones Rogue's Hollow Fine Art Photography http://home.talkcity.com/PicassoPl/d_moriarty/home.html rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether) [1] Re: Advice please: fixed wide angle lenses Date: Wed Mar 17 22:32:40 CST 1999

: 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 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.

Scott Carlton wrote in message.
>Hi, has anyone used the Sigma 17-35 EX HSM lens to comment on it? I'm not much >of a Sigma fan but for the price compared to a Canon 17-35L lens, makes it all >the more attractive. > >Thanks!
From Nikon MF Mailing List: Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 From: "Roland Vink" roland.vink@aut.ac.nz Subject: Re: Lens Tests - 16mm fisheye A while ago there was a discuttion on the 16mm fisheye. I recently did a test of some wide angle lenses, which you may be interested in. I tested the AIS 16/2.8, 20/2.8 and AIS 20/3.5. The 16/2.8 has some marks on the barrel and a dent which indicates a heavy impact. The retaining ring shows signs the lens has been adjusted in the past, so my lens may not be the best sample. Otherwise it is in good condition, with clean glass. The AIS 20/2.8 and 20/3.5 are both in near mint condition. The test: I used an FE2, mounted on a tripod, with Fuji Velvia film. Each lens was shot at f4, f5.6, f8 and f11. At smaller apertures I figure diffraction will equalise these lenses. I never shoot ultrawide angles wide open because they are usually soft and I prefer greater DOF with these lenses. The lenses were focused at infinity. I shot a scene of a bay with a power line running across it - the power pylon and thin lines across the frame provide an excellent test for sharpness, and the clear blue sky gives useful information on illumination. Slides were viewed on a Leica P150 projector with the Hector 85/2.8 lens (not the best way to critique slides, but it's all I have.) AIS 20/2.8: slight light fall-off at f4, gone by f5.6. A little soft and lacking contrast at f4, very good out to the corners at f5.6 and really crisp at f8. An excellent wideangle lens. It shows slight barrel distortion in the central area which flattens towards the edges - not very noticeable. AIS 20/3.5: At f4 this lens is nearly wide open. There is noticeable light fall-off at the corners, less at f5.6 none at f8. At f4 central sharpness is quite good, the corners show noticable softness. Contrast is quite good. Overall sharpness improves by f5.6 with good central sharpness giving way to slight softness towards the corners. Corner sharpness is good at f8 and f11 although they never seem truely crisp - central sharpness is excellent. I've read that this lens has field curvature which causes softness at the corners when focused at infinity, and it performs better at medium-close range. My experience agrees with this. Barrel distortion is similar to the 20/2.8, perhaps a tad stronger. AIS 16/2.8: sharp in the center at f4, quickly becoming soft towards the corners. It improves with stopping down, and at f8 is quite acceptable. F11 may give best overall sharpness. I'm not very impressed by the this expensive lens at wider apertures - maybe my sample isn't very good? However it is hard to be objective - I probably expect to see more detail with this lens because it gets more scene in the picture. Fisheyes don't suffer from light fall-off like other wideangles.

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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"I tested all full stops from 2.8 to 22. Viewing the projected slides, the images appeared sharp, with accurate colors and good contrast, at all aperture settings. If I were to shuffle the slides, I would not be able to tell which f-stop each was taken at. "There's a Russian-language manual, complete with a signed page that I assume is an inspection certificate. It comes with four rear filters: clear, red, yellow, and green. I'm told that these filters are needed to focus at infinity, so they are integral to the lens. There's a clip-on lens cap, fitted just to this lens, of course. I'm not sure what to do when mine eventually breaks or gets lost. "Verdict: this lens seems very serviceable at a very nice price ($80 in Moscow, $109 in the mail from Moscow, $139 - $219 from dealers here). If I needed a fisheye for serious work I would spend the extra money for a Japanese lens. But I wanted this for inexpensive fun. So far I can recommend it for that. I'm impressed enough to write this review." Joe Tainter From: "anfield" anfield@england.com Newsgroups: aus.photo,rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 Subject: Re: Vivitar 24mm wide angle ok ??? i've used the MF version b4.. it's really worth trying for its low cost while still give u very acceptable quality! but personally i believe u wont find much difference between the 24mm and the 28mm. so i suggest u go something like 20mm or less i've also tried the vivitar 19mm/f3.5 MF, but this lens is quite disappointing in terms of color and contrast. its ok when performing in bright light condition but really disappoints me when the light is dim. so i sold both of them and bought the expensive nikkor 20mm/f2.8. this lens offers better color and contrast with less distortion(but anyway there're still some). to be honest i dont feel it worths 4 times the vivitar.. maybe u can try the tokina 17mm where i havent tested it myself. "Vazquez Chichorro"
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, I've been looking at purchasing an extra wide angle lens for my K1000. I already have a Cosina 28mm/f2.8, 50mm/1.7 & a 70-210mm. I have been using the 28mm alot but really would like something abit wider for those landscape shots that i like to do. I've been looking at the Vivitar Wide Angle 24mm/f2.8 from B&H for ~US$80.00. Has anyone tried this lens, or better still are there any reviews on it? tia

> >From: "j2@cheerful.com" j2@cheerful.com > >Date: 10/9/00 > > > >Nikon 20mm/3.5 Manual. Is this a good lens? > >I have the opportunity to acquire it for US$200. Is this a good price? > > > > Nikon made three versions of lenses with this focal length/aperture combination > - the pre-AI 20mm 3.5 UD, the 20mm 3.5 AI, and the 20mm 3.5 AIS. The pre-AI > lens is physically large, very collectible, and reasonably sharp. It was > Nikon's first lens of this type (super wide angle), so later lenses did improve > somewhat. The 20mm 3.5 AI and AIS lenses are the same optically. They're both > very sharp and compact, much smaller than the pre-AI lens. To give you a feel > for relative size, the pre-AI lens has a 72mm filter while the AI and AIS > lenses take 52mm filters. > > Any of these lenses would be a steal at $200, especially if the lens is in good > shape. The AI and AIS lenses are much better from a user point of view, but > the pre-AI lens is important historically and therefore rates a pretty high > price. > > Rick
From: evanjoe610@aol.com (Evanjoe610) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 12 Oct 2000 Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm/3.5 Manual. Is this a good lens? Jon,
I wasn't following this thread so therefore I will add additional information to what Rick has written below.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Version= 21mmF4.0 Filter 52mm Version= 20mmF3.5 Filter 72mm Version= 20mmF4.0 Filter 52mm Version= 20mmF3.5 Filter 52mm Version= 20mmF2.8 Filter 52mm
Now your version was made in both Ai and AIS mount. Your lens was a redesign of the earlier 20mmF3.5 in 72mm. Both lens had an 11 element group. It is the sharpest of the 20mm lens prior to the 20mmF2.8 version. It doesn't have CRC. (Close Range Correction) Only the 2.8 version used this feature. It is a fine lens I and really won't go for the 2.8 unless you are using it to made money as a professional. Just use it and test it out. I feel you will be more than happy. If your friend allows to test both the 2.8 against the 3.5, then I say go for it and let me know the outcome. Otherwise, enjoy your "cheap and inexpensive" Nikon super wide angle lens. Evan Dong. Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Cosina 12mm tests? Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net writes

From Nikon MF Mailing List: Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 From: "Bob Scott" desmobob@capital.net Subject: Re: Peleng versus Zenitar (v. Nikkor) Result. From: "Gunnar berg" famlak@hem.passagen.se Subject: [NikonMF] Peleng versus Zenitar (v. Nikkor) Result.
> Hi Nikkonians, > I will now keep my promise to compare Peleng 17/2.8 with Zenitar > 16/2.8
Gunnar, Thanks for doing such a nice job showing the test results! I have both lenses, and my informal tests had results similar to yours. My Peleng was noticeably sharper than the Zenitar, but I thought the Zenitar seemed to have an edge in contrast in my TMX test negatives. I may get a chance to do some shooting tomorrow. If so, I'll make sure I shoot a few frames of Provia with both lenses so I can compare color results with yours. Good shooting, Bob Scott Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Recommendations for Nikon ultra wide angle lens gmrogers@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been looking at several options for an ultra wide angle lens either zoom or prime. This would be for a Nikon N80, so MF wouldn't be an option. The lens would be used for landscapes primarily and would be enlarged to 8X12. My budget is $600-$700 max, so the Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 and 17-35 f2.8 would be too pricey. Here's my list: Nikkor 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkor 20mm f2.8 Nikkor 24mm f2.8 less seriously considering Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4.0 Tokina ATX Pro 20-35mm f2.8
The now-discontinued Tokina ATX 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (metal body) and the latest 19-35mm version (polycarbonate body) appear to offer better optical performance than the ATX Pro f/2.8. These are inexpensive lenses ($250) and may be a good way to find out whether a wide angle zoom suits you best, or which fixed focal length lens you might want. Both these lenses have some distortion that renders them unsuitable for architectural photography. However they are ideal for landscapes where their excellent sharpness and contrast will be apparent.
-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.

>See the lens test, click the link. > >http://home.worldnet.att.net/~jriegle/viv19mm.htm >

>Regards, John

From Minolta Mailing List: Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 From: "Alexander Koz" alexanderkoz@excite.com Subject: affordable wide-angles Hi, The last issue of FOTO 7-8/2001 publishes test data on two new WA lenses from Sigma: 24/1.8 and 20/1.8 EX DG. Both are pretty sharp (like Minolta 24/2.8), both show very strong astigmatism (unlike Minolta 24/2.8 or 24-50/4), and both have strong wave-form distortions. They have internal focus and non rotating fronts. They are also large (77mm and 82mm filters, respectively) and heavy (about 500g). I heard Minolta AF 24/2.8 is not distortions free either, and 20/2.8 is too expensive for me. What I used to shoot might be called nature and travel photography and I often feel I need something wider than my Minolta 28/2. What would you suggest? Maybe Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 or Minolta AF 24-50/4? The latter is not very wide but I don't like swithing lens frequently. And it might complement 70-210/4 very well since both accept 55mm filters. Thank you, Alex. From Minolta Mailing List; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 From: "Alex Zabrovsky" alexz@nogatech.co.il Subject: RE: affordable wide-angles What about used Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 II ? Not bad at all optically, sturdy construction (distinguishable for most Tokina designs), very convenient zoom range, but definitely cannot be considered as distortion-free. Very affordable when found used (150-200 $). Alex From Minolta Mailing List; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 From: "Alexander Koz" alexanderkoz@excite.com Subject: Re: affordable wide-angles Thank you all for replies. Here is what's been mentioned, ordered by prices:
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

>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.