Just finished a quick check of my sample of the all new Rokinon 12mm for Nikon. Ymmv...
Having briefly tried the current Nikon 16/2.8AF-D, and currently owning and using the Ais 16/2.8(with D3 and now D800/E) and, way way back the Canon 15/2.8 in the film era, here is what I found with this new Rokinon 12mm:
The Good: The lens appeared to be optically centered---sharpness was even on all sides.
Optically, this is probably the best FF fisheye currently available for Nikon. Maybe slightly better in the center, but much better in the outer zone than my old 16/2.8 Ais and, from memory the 16/2.8AF-D.
Easily corrected lateral color.
Sees wider than the Nikon 16 Ais, but the stereographic projection is subtly different than the equisolid projection more commonly used. Not as big a difference as I had expected.
The Not So Good: Unexplainably caused meter in both D800s to under expose by 1.3 stops across all metering modes(Spot, Matrix, Center-weighted 12mm and average). Both aperture priority and manual.
Aperture ring is both stiff(on and off the camera) and slippery.
Color transmission is slightly greenish compared to the 16/2.8 Ais.
Lens cap, which unique to this lens, feels brittle and as if it could be easily shattered by stepping on it. This feature was not tested.
My personal conclusion: The underexposure thing would be a serious inconvenience for me in field shooting. If I didn't already possess a FF fisheye, this would be an acceptable choice, especially at the price.
Ymmv....
Keith B. wrote:
Just finished a quick check of my sample of the all new Rokinon 12mm for Nikon. Ymmv...
Having briefly tried the current Nikon 16/2.8AF-D, and currently owning and using the Ais 16/2.8(with D3 and now D800/E) and, way way back the Canon 15/2.8 in the film era, here is what I found with this new Rokinon 12mm:
The Good: The lens appeared to be optically centered---sharpness was even on all sides.
Optically, this is probably the best FF fisheye currently available for Nikon. Maybe slightly better in the center, but much better in the outer zone than my old 16/2.8 Ais and, from memory the 16/2.8AF-D.
Easily corrected lateral color.
Sees wider than the Nikon 16 Ais, but the stereographic projection is subtly different than the equisolid projection more commonly used. Not as big a difference as I had expected.
The Not So Good: Unexplainably caused meter in both D800s to under expose by 1.3 stops across all metering modes(Spot, Matrix, Center-weighted 12mm and average). Both aperture priority and manual.
Aperture ring is both stiff(on and off the camera) and slippery.
Color transmission is slightly greenish compared to the 16/2.8 Ais.
Lens cap, which unique to this lens, feels brittle and as if it could be easily shattered by stepping on it. This feature was not tested.
My personal conclusion: The underexposure thing would be a serious inconvenience for me in field shooting. If I didn't already possess a FF fisheye, this would be an acceptable choice, especially at the price.
Ymmv.... ...Show more →
Thanks for the mini-review. Being much better than the 16/2.8 AIS or D is not saying that much, the 16/3.5 AI is much much sharper than the f/2.8 versions off center. This is encouraging.
My big question is how does it handle the bright sun in the frame - how is the ghosting/flare and what do the sun stars look like?
I should also add that here are specs from B&H's site:
Focal Length 12mm
Comparable 35mm Equivalent on APS-C Format Focal Length: 18 mm
Aperture Maximum: f/2.8
Minimum: f/22
Camera Mount Type Nikon F
Format Compatibility Nikon FX/35mm Film
Nikon DX
Angle of View 180°
APS-C Picture Angle: 124.6°
Minimum Focus Distance 7.9" (20.07 cm)
Elements/Groups 12/8
Diaphragm Blades 7
Features
Image Stabilization No
Autofocus No
Tripod Collar No
Physical
Filter Thread None
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.04 x 2.76" (7.72 x 7.01 cm)
Weight 17.64 oz (500 g)
It's kind of heavy vs. ~290 to ~330 gram Nikkors and significantly larger (63 x 57mm (DxL) for the Nikkors).
jhinkey wrote:
Being much better than the 16/2.8 AIS or D is not saying that much,
Very funny, I concur.
I'd really like for Zeiss to make a new fisheye, but I'm afraid that the market would be so small that I doubt they'll ever do it.
No sun pix...I stopped testing after I confirmed the metering thing. Deleted all the boring test shots.
A while back, there was one of those interweb "rumors" that Nikon will issue forth a zoom fisheye in the style of the Canon 8-15mm. That'd be OK....
Keith B. wrote:
Very funny, I concur.
I'd really like for Zeiss to make a new fisheye, but I'm afraid that the market would be so small that I doubt they'll ever do it.
No sun pix...I stopped testing after I confirmed the metering thing. Deleted all the boring test shots.
A while back, there was one of those interweb "rumors" that Nikon will issue forth a zoom fisheye in the style of the Canon 8-15mm. That'd be OK....
Yes, I heard that rumor too about a zoom fisheye - all I want is a 16/2.8G AFS Nikkor that's sharp wide open and has some magic Nano coatings to make it immune to flare/ghosting. I'll enjoy my two copies of the 16/3.5 AI in the mean time . . .
Just got my copy of the Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 and couldn't wait for the Xmas day to open the package
I have taken just a few pictures with it now, but can agree that its a very nice lens overall and definitely for the price. Also my copy seem seem to underexpose on my D810 about 1 EV. Here's some first test shots with the new lens.
Umm interesting. http://optyczne.pl did a test of it (which will soon appear on Lenstip.com if you can't stand Google translate) which suggested it was pretty good in the centre but *terrible* at the edges. Their sample pics confirmed that.
Perhaps it was a dodgy copy? Samyang QC is not that great. Hope so. I'd like an FE fisheye, and use them rarely enough that I don't want to pay a fortune (had the Canon zoom fisheye once, great, but it was too much money crystallised as lens, and as I use FE it would mean a Sony adapter )
DavidBM wrote:
Umm interesting. http://optyczne.pl did a test of it (which will soon appear on Lenstip.com if you can't stand Google translate) which suggested it was pretty good in the centre but *terrible* at the edges. Their sample pics confirmed that.
Perhaps it was a dodgy copy? Samyang QC is not that great. Hope so. I'd like an FE fisheye, and use them rarely enough that I don't want to pay a fortune (had the Canon zoom fisheye once, great, but it was too much money crystallised as lens, and as I use FE it would mean a Sony adapter )
I just checked out the sample pics (thanks for the link) - WOW are they bad in the corners. Not even the 16/2.8D or AIS is nearly that bad. I have to think that they got a bad sample . . .
Matt OHarver wrote:
Am I reading this right on the B&H site? $500 for a manual focus fisheye lens? Seriously?
What, seems to high?
I think it's a decent deal considering that it's a new optical design; the current Nikon AF-D offering---besides being barely able to service the needs of a 12MP sensor--- is about 25 years old.
Of course, you have to factor in that [according to the current folk wisdom]the Samyang lenses are generally not considered repairable---if you bash it up, you throw it away. No parts, no service. For warranty they just replace it.
jhinkey wrote:
Yes, I heard that rumor too about a zoom fisheye - all I want is a 16/2.8G AFS Nikkor that's sharp wide open and has some magic Nano coatings to make it immune to flare/ghosting. I'll enjoy my two copies of the 16/3.5 AI in the mean time . . .
Thanks again for the review!
I'd take to that!
I just ordered a 16/3.5 for a few dollars more than the new Rokinon 12mm. I hope it doesn't need a focus lube job($$$) as so many old Nikon lenses do.
Keith B. wrote:
I'd take to that!
I just ordered a 16/3.5 for a few dollars more than the new Rokinon 12mm. I hope it doesn't need a focus lube job($$$) as so many old Nikon lenses do.
Very cool. It's one of my top 3 sharpest FX lenses that I own (the others being the 135/2 APO Zeiss and the 180/3.4 APO Telyt R) - that's why I have two copies of this lens.
A couple operating notes for the 16/3.5:
- On every copy that I've had my hands on and a few others reported to me the infinity focus is way off - "normal" best infinity focus for this lens seems to be about half-way between the 5 and 2 meter marks. I usually just set infinity focus there, put it at f/8 and I'm good to go. This has freaked out some first time owners.
- Performance can degrade if dust gets inside and especially if it collects behind the front element. This can be serviced/cleaned by a reputable Nikon lens repair shop
- The original non-AI versions that were converted to AI have a slightly different dark light baffle in them that ever so slightly worsens its flare/ghosting performance compared to the later AI version. Slight, but can be seen under extreme circumstances.
- Keep that front element clean! Direct light hitting dust on the front element certainly shows up in images.
- I have many images with my feet, elbow, or toes inadvertently displayed in them.
- If you need it serviced, Nikon likely will not, but APS in Morton Grove IL will - they did a great job on mine.
You may be a seasoned fisheye lens guru, but I thought you might want to know some of the above in case you are not.
Finally, if you ever want to sell your 16/3.5 contact me first . . .
JHinkey....I found an old thread(2013) where you said that you hoped to someday acquire a Sigma 15 to compare with the beloved Nikon 16/3.5. Did you ever make that comparison? Just wondering...
The used Nikkor 16/3.5 arrived and as expected, it needs a lube job on the helicoid. The local guy here will probably charge $150 for that(sound of muted trumpet playing a descending scale: Wa wa wa wa waaahhhhh).
