NikonGear'23

Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Bernard Delley on June 18, 2015, 16:52:08

Title: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on June 18, 2015, 16:52:08
This old short focal lens is occasionally useful for 35mm slide  digitizing.
I have the AI version and recently got a compensating sample too.

 I use the Mac Book Retina screen as my high precision micro-engraved luminescent target for a 1:1  repro size test. The tricolor pixels of the target are at a 115 micro-meter pitch. Each color patch is less than 38 microns wide.

Short summary of my test: I see NO significant difference between the compensating and the non-comp version .

Here are some details: Normal alignment to the screen was done using the mirror image of the macro rail.
For the compensating lens I chose nominal f/8. Because of the compensation the aperture is opened about one stop. Yet since its 1:1 repro ratio the image distance is 2*f makes the actual aperture ratio = 1/11.

This is the result: OOC jpg large medium, picture control neutral.
attachment 1: lower left quadrant of image at 50%  with compensating 55mm lens #271483

The non-compensating lens is set at nominal f/5.6, resulting in an actual aperture ratio of 1/11 at the 1:1 repro ratio. the result is: (please ignore the test structure to the right, it helps to make absolutely sure that I don not accidentally confuse the test shots)
attachment 2: lower left quadrant of image at 50% with non-compensating 55mm lens #1010507

Both lenses appear to have the same longitudinal chromatic aberrations requiring judicious manual LV max mag focus adjustment for about equal sharpness of the three color patches.  There is lateral chromatic aberration clearly skewing the tricolor in the lower right corner.  To the left this works out that the patches partially overlap and the image desaturates, to the right (not shown) the arrangement of the color patches  works out to the worse. This is not a lens decentering!

I really see no significant difference in image quality between the two lens versions.  If the compensating version were optimized for a closer image distance than the later version (Bjørn Rørslett wrote so), this should show up in less aberrations at 1:1 repro ratio.   Or did Nikon change the optimization before abandoning the compensating mechanics - my lens is from the latest compensating series (1968? according to photosynthesis) .
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 18, 2015, 17:19:31
Neither type goes to 1:1 on its own, unless you incidentally used the early '60s 5.5 cm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. So how did you bring the magnification to 1:1 ? Were exposure times identical for your two comparison shots?

Also pay attention to the fact that Nikon optimised these Micro-Nikkors for 1:10 not 1:1.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on June 18, 2015, 17:39:46
sorry, I forgot to mention that I used the 27.5mm M extension tube. As the Micro Nikkor was originally designed for microfiche, optimisation for 1:10 repro ratio is certainly reasonable. 1:1 is far away from optimum, and with the tube we are stretching it.  I actually got the compensating version because your old site seems to indicate that the compensation version was stronger at close range than the later 55mm f/3.5 P-C and AI versions. I do not see this in my comparison. Can you explain how you arrived at that statement? 
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 18, 2015, 17:48:29
Actual observation based upon images from the various Micro-Nikkor 55 lenses at my disposal (4 or 5 over the years)
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Intrepid on June 18, 2015, 17:52:25
They were (5.5cm, 55mm) all optimized for 1:10 AFAIK (and also think that is what Bjørn says/said).  The compensating part is misleading.  It just changes the aperture readout to the camera to compensate for the magnification (this relates to the metering part- quite a neat accomplishment for that era).

The Olympus OM 50/3.5 Macro, for example, OTOH, involved a floating element in the design (in old Nikon speak "CRC") that compensated for aberrations at close ranges much like the latest  Micronikkor 60/2.8.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Roland Vink on June 19, 2015, 02:28:28
I have manuals for compensating and AI 55/3.5 micro lenses. Both state the lens is optimized for 1:10 magnification with performance remaining high through the entire focus range. Optical drawings from old Dealer Sales Manuals do show a very minor change in dimensions between the earlier compensating and the later non-compensating versions. There are many reports that the older version is better at close range but less good at distance, while the later versions sacrifice some macro optimization for better all-round performance. If so, I don't see how both can be optimized at 1:10 unless it's an error and nobody told the copywriter of the manuals...

Since you shot at f/11, diffraction might be masking some differences between the lenses, or it might just happen that you have a "bad" compensating or a "good" non-compensating lens, making them appear equal. It would be interesting to try the same test at medium and far distances.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Asle F on June 19, 2015, 10:52:24
The different optical drawings are to be find at http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/micro/index.htm

I have both a compensation type and a later P.C. I haven't done any comparing of them, I use the compensating lens when using manual exposure with or without flash, and the P.C. when using TTL-metering and aperture priority automatic exposure. For infinity I use the later 55mm/2.8
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on June 24, 2015, 00:35:15
Roland,
The f/11 does not mask the lateral color aberration. The 50% reduced sample just lets you see this when viewed full size. Of course 1:1 is a challenge for this lens. However, I find remarkably little (none! ) sample variation between these two lenses as shown with this lateral color. For me that hints at the same optical construction.  -- The link shows two optical drawings for the 55mm f/3.5, its the same 5lenses in 4 groups construction with the same measures shown, the same that I also found in other places.
When I have the time I will post further such screen test. For sure, at 13.8 reduction, very near the mentionend 1:10, the AI 55mm f/3.5 shows superb performance.  infinity is another matter, I would have to use stars for testing. I noticed that with these manual lenses that the infinity stop may not be that precise. It is a spec leading to sample variation with little connection to the glass.

BTW I would be so curious to see such a computer screen test for the Voigtlander APO Lantaher 125mm f/2.5 at 1:1 repro ratio.
Can somebody here do this? ( I do not have one)
When I get around, I will finalize a similar test at 1:1  1:1.5   1:2  1:3 of Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 versus AI-S 60mm f/2.8. I will try to post 100% samples (jpg basic).
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 24, 2015, 01:23:47
I can already tell you, without any testing, that the APO 125 is not near its peak performance at 1:1. In fact, its otherwise superb chromatic correction starts slowly to break down and one can observe occasional blue fringing.

Testing a lens against a computer monitor is problematic because you cannot conclusively decide whether colour artefacts are caused by the lens or the target. You should find something better suited.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on June 24, 2015, 09:09:17
...Optical drawings from old Dealer Sales Manuals do show a very minor change in dimensions between the earlier compensating and the later non-compensating versions....

I have measured that indeed the dimensions of the optics are different.

I would use another target than a monitor, to my eyes the two images look very different...
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on June 24, 2015, 10:05:18
The outer dimensions of the lenses are obviously different  between  compensation and non-compensating version. I would be impressed if you did succeed measuring some of the glass dimensions, like the curvature of front and back lens or the overall "thickness" of  the glass.

Fortunately I am somewhere out in nature looking for images, no testing for some time.

While doing the computer screen tests, the behavior of the artifacts looks plausible as caused by the optics . Also 1:1 looks very good on the AF-S 60mm f/2.8, except for indications of longitudinal CA -- not lateral.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on June 24, 2015, 10:58:10
The outer dimensions of the lenses are obviously different  between  compensation and non-compensating version. I would be impressed if you did succeed measuring some of the glass dimensions, like the curvature of front and back lens or the overall "thickness" of  the glass.

Fortunately I am somewhere out in nature looking for images, no testing for some time.

While doing the computer screen tests, the behavior of the artifacts looks plausible as caused by the optics . Also 1:1 looks very good on the AF-S 60mm f/2.8, except for indications of longitudinal CA -- not lateral.
I measured the diameter of the lens element.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Asle F on June 24, 2015, 12:08:39
The link shows two optical drawings for the 55mm f/3.5, its the same 5lenses in 4 groups construction with the same measures shown,

I see different measures in the two constructions. The distance between the rear lens and F' is 37.9mm vs 38.3mm. The total lengths from the rear lens to the front lens is 27.8mm vs 27.9mm. And the distance between the front lens and F is 37.9mm vs 37.4mm
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on June 24, 2015, 12:27:47
BTW it's a simple procedure to convert a Compensating Micro-Nikkor to a non compensating aperture. It's just a matter of separating/splitting the compensating aperture guide, reverse the parts and put them back in again.

This was actually the first lens that I chipped for my F4e with a CPU  from an 35-70mm AF lens, shorted at 55mm and f /3.5 so the lens data was correct, on Nikon F5 it also enabled full matrix metering long time ago :)
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 24, 2015, 12:30:37
Nikon were continuously tweaking their Micro-Nikkor designs. The earliest 5.5 cm f/3.5 had very steeply curved rear element, and if memory serves a 5/3 compared to the later 5/4 design, to name one example. This forerunner to the more modern Micro-Nikkors performed poorly reverse-mounted unlike the two later incarnations.

although these lenses do well on digital cameras, one should not forget the optics were developed and optimised in the film era, thus some aspects of the optical performance had low priority and assumed not important with film.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on June 25, 2015, 09:57:09
Interesting, I had not noticed before that different measures were given for the 5/4 design of the Micro Nikkor.  I got the latest series of compensating 55mm and see no significant difference against a late AI version.  I now wonder If there was an optical design change between the compensating sub - versions. What serial number is that lens with different lens diameter?  Bey Eyeballing the comp versus the AI a change in lens diameter was not obvious.
The Nikon 1001 tale 26  alludes to a change between the very early "preset"   5/3 ? version  and the later 5/4 . It mentions that the optical design of the
55mm f/3.5 'without change of the "basic" design since 1963 till the end of the f/3.5 ' .  -- Of course there is a weasel word : "basic"
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 25, 2015, 10:05:50
This might be stated before but bears repetition: Nikon tend to carry out tweaking and polishing the design of their lenses throughout the product life. Usually without making the alterations public. Changes could be modification of coatings or sometimes using a different kind of glass, or adjusting the thickness and spacing of the elements.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on June 25, 2015, 10:45:20
Our friend Roland keeps a very useful site for questions like this:

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#55Micro

Here you can see the major 'types'
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on June 26, 2015, 10:53:28
So there are clear indications that the 5/4 design may have been tweaked, as Roland mentioned first, EriK measured diameter and Asle reminded us that different drawings are up at the mir site.

Roland's  page with serial numbers http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#55Micro  is indicating that there were 4 sub-series of compensating versions with small obvious differences between Mar 1963  and 1968?  The open question is if a tweak to the optices was done between those 4 sub-series. I got a sample from the latest sub-series of compensationg 1968? and the latest AI sub series  Oct 1979. Other than the change in coating I do not see a significant change between these concerning optimization for close range. The aberrations at 1:1 show the same lateral color aberration as the dominant aberration. I try to attach small 100% crops from the lower edge center. The image of the blue patch is shifted up towards the center of the entire image  and the red patch is shifted down away from the center. Remember the full size of the 'Retina' screen pixel is 115micro meter. a1 compensating 1:1 a2 non-comp AI  1:1 and   a3 55mm reverse on bellows 4x  show just a little longitudinal color aberration putting the red slightly out of focus.    My conclusion here its no funny property of the target, there is no significant difference in close-up optimization between my two samples.  Small differences in appearance are due to the difficulty in obtaining precise focus using the PB6 bar as macro rail.

So I see the question now as: can we find evidence that an optical tweak concerning close up optimization was done before the final sub-series of the compensating 55mm f/3.5
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 26, 2015, 11:01:28
First and foremost, these lenses were designed for film. So colour aberrations seen on a digital camera may or may not relate to the original scheme of optimisation. I think it's necessary to stress this basic fact one more time. A lot of the older lenses do exhibit chromatic issues *not* seen on film. A typical example is the fast 24/2 Nikkor.

Secondly, lateral chromatic aberration is easily dealt with in the digital domain. Any issue that is gone by a simple mouse click action is pretty academic and moot to me. What is more of interest is the axial (longitudinal) kind of colour artefacts. These are potentially much more objectionable.

Thirdly, you should repeat your observations using a better target. A LCD screen up close will show lateral issues simply by focusing a tiny bit differently. Shoot some wildlife objects and show us how these lenses behave then.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Roland Vink on June 26, 2015, 11:31:48
It's worth noting the 4 sub-versions of the compensating 55/3.5 micro are largely cosmetic (change from chrome to black) or mechanical (change to aperture ring allowing AI kit 63 to be used). These changes say nothing about internal modifications (which are not visible to the casual observer) or whether any optical changes occurred.

My site groups lenses together with the same optical design (to the best of my knowledge). Lenses with different optics are separated by a thick dark grey line. Minor changes to an existing design are separated by a thin dark grey line. In this case I show a minor change between the compensating and non-compensating versions. This seems to be the logical place for it to occur and it is broadly supported by the documentation I have seen. But it is possible the change occurred at a different point, or there were several changes over the lifetime of the lens of which we know only two.

As for testing, if the earlier version is better at close range and the later version is better at distance, then tests at or near infinity may show differences in performance more clearly.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Roland Vink on June 27, 2015, 11:22:36
Nikon were continuously tweaking their Micro-Nikkor designs. The earliest 5.5 cm f/3.5 had very steeply curved rear element, and if memory serves a 5/3 compared to the later 5/4 design, to name one example.
Maybe you are thinking of the 105/4 micro which has a 5/3 design. The 55/3.5 micro originated with the rangefinder 5cm 1:3.5 micro, which has a 5/4 xenotar (modified gaussian) design - with a steeply curved rear element. When the original F-mount design was being considered, the back focus of the 5cm lens was too short to clear the reflex mirror. The designers more or less scaled the original lens up by 10% to provide sufficient clearance, giving us the familiar 55mm 1:3.5 micro with xenotar 5/4 design and steeply curved rear element. The original 5.5cm preset lens had rather poor handling so was soon replaced by the compensating 55mm micro with automatic aperture, using the same optical system (http://www.nikkor.com/story/0025/).
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 27, 2015, 11:40:04
You might be right, Roland. I haven't taken my 5.5 cm Micro-Nikkor apart. However, it surely is quite different in every aspect from the later 55 mm models succeeding it. It goes to 1:1 directly and has the most awkward user interface ever. The overhang of the aperture ring is thick and extends so far to the rear that it is impossible to focus the lens to infinity on anything else than the original F (or perhaps F2. Haven't tried). Image quality is good up close, but the corners aren't good until the lens is taken down a few stops. The infinity performance is nothing to write home about, provided you can reach infinity at all that is. There are two sets of filter threads, one hidden deep into the front of the lens so can only be reached through a special funnel-shaped adapter that *should* accompany the lens but often has been split off and lost. The other set of threads is in the usual front position. The aperture is clock-stopped but operates without any linkage so has to be closed down manually.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on June 28, 2015, 09:37:16
Bjørn,

Oh, can you tell us the serial number please?

I wrote the stuff below some two days ago, but could not send it, because of poor internet on my trip.

I got this lens hoping for better close-up correction primarily in slide reproduction at 1:1 or 1:1.5 . My test would easily show it, if there was a significant change in close-up correction.  The lateral color is easily quantifiable with this test. The longitudinal color aberration is also seen and experienced dramatically while focusing, but harder to quantify. Sharpness could also be quantified. All these findings hint strongly that there is NO significant change in correction between the late compensating version I got and a much later AI.  I am convinced that two lenses could not look so equal in this test, if they were in fact quite different.
(when back from my travel I may show results for other lenses, if I feel there is interest. It seems, I mostly get dismissal)

For my use, the question is if there is an older 55mm f/3.5 that qualifies as the real thing for close-up as compared to the later 55mm f/3.5 versions. We have your statement and hints in this thread from Eric and Asle that there is a different optical tweak among the compensating 55mm. From my findings and Rolands table on serial numbers  it would have to be with serial number between 188128 and  268251.  My sample, is from the last compensation series # 269089 - 273083 . 

To comment on the points you raised. The film lenses were designed for no optical stack in front of the sensor.  Indeed the about 2mm of transparent material in front of the sensor is most likely considered in current lens designs.  (There are indications that Nikon is not evangelic about using the same thickness in all models)  For highly corrected, high aperture, ultra wide angle lenses this really matters for top performance.  My back of envelope calculation assuming 2mm crown glass, using Snell's law, indicates that aberrations introduced by it for macro stay well below 1 micro meter. This is much less aberration than seen in my test.

I fully agree that lateral color  per se is not that important as it is easily corrected in post. -- To some degree at least it does: I have tried it. One may declare that the AI 55mm f/3.5 is sufficiently good for slide reproduction: it resolves Kodochrome II grain to the edge at nominal f/8. With lateral color correction in PS even better.  However, I use lateral color aberrations as indicator of the correction status of the lens. A lens designed for film with better matched optimization for close-up should be expected to have less lateral color than the sample with less well matched optimization.  The ease of correction in postprocessing for lateral color and distortion may relax the requirements on lateral color a bit for modern lens designs.

To the third point. Anybody who cares to do a similar test on a glossy screen will easily verify that lateral color of that size is not a consequence of the target. It is also the same Snell's law calculation saying that the perhaps 2mm of class over the liquid crystal lead to a less than 1 micrometer effect due to the target.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 28, 2015, 10:08:12
No experience with the glossy screens so  concede I might have been mistaken there. If your interests
are close-up it is understandable infinity testing is less important. In its heydays, the 55/3.5 was denoted 'macro-normal' and saw universal application also for landscapes and suchlike motifs. I used it myself in that manner and never was enamoured by anything beyond the first 1-2 m of shooting reach. The later 55/3.5 AI was smoother and better for intermediate to distant scenes. The 55/2.8 bettered that, but my enthusiasm for that lens quickly waned when I experiences all the troubles a sticky aperture would cause. Had the lens cleaned professionally twice but never could rely on it so threw it away.

My compensating Nikkor 55/3.5 has sustained a damage at the front that makes the first part of the serial number hard to read. Apparently the first 2 digits are 23 or 24. The damage must have occurred 45+ years ago so memory fails me as to what happened to it back then. The lens still works, though, and that's what matters to me.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Roland Vink on June 29, 2015, 11:23:20
Quote
We have your statement and hints in this thread from Eric and Asle that there is a different optical tweak among the compensating 55mm. From my findings and Rolands table on serial numbers  it would have to be with serial number between 188128 and  268251.  My sample, is from the last compensation series # 269089 - 273083 .
That means your compensating lens is very late and has dual focus scales in feet and m. All the earlier lenses have one focus scale in feet only, or sometimes m only. This particular change is purely cosmetic and has no bearing on the optical system, which is likely unchanged. I have an early compensating model with chrome barrel and a later model with black barrel, also a non-compensating micro-Nikkor-P, K and AI models. I can't see any obvious differences in the size or shape of the front or rear elements, apart from improvements in coatings. Any differences are likely to be at sub-mm level or changes to glass materials, so would only be seen with careful measurement.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on June 29, 2015, 11:35:37
........ We have your statement and hints in this thread from Eric and Asle that there is a different optical tweak among the compensating 55mm. ...

No, we are not talking about differences within the Compensating type series. They where cosmetically on the lens barrel as Roland clearly has stated.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on June 30, 2015, 00:08:35
Bjørn,

so you got a sample from the sub-series before my sample.  It is possible that there was a real tweak to the glass. Though Roland contends that the changes look only superficial. Alternatively, the poor performance at distance might come from a particularly poor infinity stop, similar to my AI 200mm f/4 which has impressive sharpness up to maybe  200m distance, but set at the infinity stop only gets sort of hyperfocal blur circles on stars.

I also used my AI 55mm f/3.5 as general lens predominantly for non-macro objects.  With digital landscape  interest for this lens is lost (clearly not as good as other options) but for more extreme macro of still objects it stands its own. Important application is now slide copying onto 36 mpix FX or 24 mpix DX - sometimes landscape images shot with that same lens.

If you already have one of these Apple computers with a screen called ''retina" (If you do not, you really might like the sharpness these can deliver :-) ) it would certainly be a piece of cake for you to a glossy screen test and get to know your comp Micro Nikkor from this side.

For everybody's entertainment I attach a few 100% crops from the left edge  at 1:1.5  the reduction needed for 35mm slide  to 24 mpix DX D7100.   (the center of these images look 'perfect')
First attachment is from the compensating 55mm at nominal f/5.6.  The lateral color pulls the tricolore apart and mostly puts red on top of blue resulting in a magenta patch.
Second, same again for the AI version. Same issue.  The red and blue show up at the 2pix wide black mark I put on the screen.
For comparison, same crop left for the youngest sibling the AFS 60mm f/2.8    (at  f/8 shown on camera and believed to be real).
Her the tricolore survives, albeit somehow compressed with wider black interstitial.  The lateral color goes  in the other direction as with the old Micro Nikkors: blue moves radially out and red moves radially in !
So whats on the right hand edge then for the 60mm lens? 4th attachment shows it. The  right side is  very similar to the old Micro Nikkor's on their left. It is also true vice-versa. The new AFS 60mm f/2.8 has about the same lateral color at 1:1.5 , but with opposite sign, as the old Micro Nikkor's .  It has  kind of an over-corrected lateral color aberration with its very complex new design. As discussed before, lateral color has lost a bit importance among modern design goals because of easy correction in post.  (This test also underlines that this lateral is not due to the test target)

So at 1:1.5  the new Micro Nikkor is not really much better than the 50 years old ancestor !

Well, a 1:1 its a different story. The lateral increases in the old 55mm but the AFS 60mm G is almost perfect: attachment 5.


Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on June 30, 2015, 00:20:50
Not very likely I'll get a Mac with Retinsa display :D
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on June 30, 2015, 10:41:28
..., the poor performance at distance might come from a particularly poor infinity stop, similar to my AI 200mm f/4 which has impressive sharpness up to maybe  200m distance, but set at the infinity stop only gets sort of hyperfocal blur circles on stars....
I know you addressed Bjørn but my answer is:

You are judging the sharpness at distance by turning the lens until it hits the infinity stop...This is a very wrong approach to check how sharp a lens really is.
You will have a hard time evaluating you lenses, most likely they are completely fine! All of them… 
Also infinity is adjustable on all Nikkors – But also remember that infinity is infinity, far far away… not just down the road – especially for the sharp lenses it’s more critical.
Please use live view and a solid tripod/head.
Also, as has been hinted; Find another test target than a retina screen 
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on June 30, 2015, 19:51:42
Erik
you did not get my point. I was saying that I cant get sharp at infinity with a specific lens  because the infinity stop is too early. The stars are as close to infinity as its gets.
I would be interested i how to adjust the infinity on the AI 200mm f/4 without too much disassembly.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on June 30, 2015, 22:02:39
I see. Sorry but I don't have the 200 4
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: RobOK on July 25, 2015, 15:18:26
I am a lens novice compared to you fine gentleman, but bought a 55 f3.5 (serial 1022278) originally for mounting on a Sony Nex-7. Now I am trying it out on my Df. Is it worth getting into this lens for general use (non-macro)? What are its strengths and weaknesses?

Thank you to all the contributors on this site!

Rob
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on July 25, 2015, 15:26:25
There are slightly conflicting reports on the compensating 55 and its performance. Possibly this is caused by Nikon tweaking their optical design of the Micro, something they did a lot in the early days and changes often were not given specific model designations. Thus, the best advice is trying the lens for some subjects you think might benefit by a 'normal' lens.

Close-ups should be ideal, and up to 1:2 requires nothing more than attention to the exposure times so camera shake is reduced. An M/M2 ring, or even a PK-13 tube, is necessary to get to 1:1 (life-size).

For more remote subjects, only practical field tests can tell whether the lens is good enough on the Df. I prefer not to use my various 55 Micros for this kind of photography, but this is partly due to the fact I often regard the focal length too short for landscapes. Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bernard Delley on August 06, 2015, 13:38:01
Rob, you serial no indicates that you got an AI version, non compensating, like this image by Roland  http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ai5535c.jpg.
I used such a lens for many years from closeup to distant objects. As AI lens it mounts without problem to the higher end Nikon DSLR. Instead if chipping the lens, I prefer to deal with it using the non-cpu lens menu.
For me the lens remains useful for closeup images. Otherwise I usually prefer a modern normal lens like the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G. In the overlapping aperture range the G lens is noticeably sharper at distant scenes than the Micro 55 when judged via D8xx .
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Andrew on August 19, 2015, 15:27:51
My "new" 55/3.5 has #271719, few pix attached.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: John Geerts on February 03, 2016, 10:04:08
Interesting thread.

Lucky to obtain the 45th sample in a mint condition of the very first 55/3.5 according to Roland Vink's website were the serialnumbers start with 188101. The scale is notated in cm. 

My observations are it's extremely sharp and crisp close up.  But also a good performer at distances due to the same sharpness and crispness.  Two examples unsharpened and uncropped. (on the Df as the lens is original and not Ai'd)

Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: ArendV on February 03, 2016, 14:15:04
I happily use mine wide open in close-ups,

both om my Nikon DX camera (here D300)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6012/5989667325_85fbbedf50_o.jpg)

and my Sony A7
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/757/22080689352_45d9dc7ba1_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: richardHaw on February 05, 2016, 04:24:11
Hi, this is my first post. I saw this thread while searching for info on the 55mm f/3.5 as this is my favourite Nikkor. I know that I might be too late into this discussion but I would like to share the fact that I have dismantled the 5.5cm and if anybody has any questions on the internals (I read a reference to it in one of the posts) please feel free to ask. I am also going to add the 5.5cm into my lens tear down and maintenance site along with the numerous 55mm that I have serviced for my own collection (I usually buy junks and restore them myself). Thanks and I hope that I can be a productive part of the community! Rick.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on February 05, 2016, 08:19:59
Always nice to have more people here with knowledge about the inside of the lenses!
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: richardHaw on February 05, 2016, 08:21:27
Always nice to have more people here with knowledge about the inside of the lenses!

thank you, Erik!!! unfortunately, i do not have much knowledge, just sharing what ever i have in my notes  :o :o :o

by the way, i got this to go all the way to infinity and tried adjusting the objective from inside but there was not much room for me to do it without extensive modification by adding a threaded spacer so yes, you can now rotate the focus ring all the way to infinity but the focus is off by 1-2mm and you cannot focus to infinity

in the picture, this is one of the places that will allow you to adjust the position of the objective, i have already reached the limit on mine...
another point is in the rear of the lens. i do not want to modify it since the ring that holds the rear element groups is also responsible for keeping the helicoids and objectives together...
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: richardHaw on February 05, 2016, 08:38:02
some members of my micro gang  :o :o :o

from testing my samples, the sharpest 3.5 that i have seems to the PC version, but to be honest, they all look the same to me as far as results at 1:1 goes.

mid ground (3m~), the PC and later ones lead the way.

the 5.5cm just has too much field curvature to be useful in 1:1 and the results are not very good as well. but bear in my that i got my sample as a junk lens that I cleaned and fixed (it came with an M42 mount).
there will be 2 big camera bazaars here in tokyo this month and i am going to look for another 5.5cm  ::)

you just cannot own too many of the 55mm's!!! i love them so much!
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: JKoerner007 on October 16, 2017, 07:32:53
This is a very interesting thread topic.

I am in the process of determining 'which' of the multitude of 55mm Micro-Nikkors to use to replace my 50mm f/2 AI-S.

I have heard the horror stories of the 55 f/2.8 Micro having oily blades, but Coin Imaging (http://coinimaging.com/nikon_55microais.html) rates it as the best of the bunch. (According to them, the 3.5 AI (http://coinimaging.com/n55-35.html) is just okay and has stronger color fringing).

I may wind up getting the newer f/2.8 for macro, and (as Bjørn suggested (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,224.msg3257.html#msg3257)), "Nikon tend to carry out tweaking and polishing the design of their lenses throughout the product life. Usually without making the alterations public. Changes could be modification of coatings or sometimes using a different kind of glass, or adjusting the thickness and spacing of the elements." I believe this to be true as well, and I don't think the f/2.8 versions have an oil problem any longer.

Trouble is, I am starting to fall in love with the older, non-AI, Nikkor lenses ... the ones with the scalloped, all-metal rings :D

This leaves me with a choice of the compensating aperture, pre-Ai, or the non-compensating aperture, pre-Ai. Namely, the topic of this thread.

I have always read the compensating "C" version of the Micro-Nikkor 55 f/3.5 was the better version ... until I read this article from Thomas Pindelski (http://pindelski.org/Photography/2013/10/21/55mm-f3-5-micro-nikkor/). He says,


Would like to hear some thoughts about this. Macro will be my primary use, less than 3'. Rather than get an extender, I will simply reverse for 1:1.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: richardHaw on October 16, 2017, 07:36:02
they all perform roughly the same :o :o :o
until you pixel-peep ::)

the f/2.8 is more useful because your finder wont get dark
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on October 16, 2017, 09:59:13
I own all versions of the f/3.5 (commencing with the 1:1 capable 5.5 cm design form the early '60s), and while it is true the f/2.8 successor might be delivering a tad better and more even performance all over its focusing range, the contrast and 'pop' of the f/3.5 models are not to be overlooked. Besides, I have had too many shots ruined (mainly in the film days, admittedly) by the unpredictable sticking aperture of the f/2.8.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: John Geerts on October 16, 2017, 10:02:48
On the Df I never had problems with my compensating 55/3.5 from 1963.   On close range 'much' crisper than the 55/2.8  (to my view). Best lens for macro in the 55mm range.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: JKoerner007 on October 16, 2017, 16:16:33
they all perform roughly the same :o :o :o
until you pixel-peep ::)

With extreme macro, you're definitely pixel-peeping ;)


the f/2.8 is more useful because your finder wont get dark

I think you're right, especially if I use the lens reversed. It's considered one of the best for larger coins, with less CA and greater resolution.

In fact, in the package insert for the Nikon PB-6 bellows, the literature recommends the 55mm Micro-Nikkor f/2.8, in particular,  for "critical close-ups."

However, when used as a general lens, as Bjørn and John point out, the 3/5 iteration (non-AI) was actually optimized for its closest distance ... whereas the 2.8 is more of a "catch-all" ... better at infinity ... with the 3.5 being better at the close-end.

Fortunately, they're all pretty cheap, so it makes sense to get two (or more), just because.

I am wanting to replace all my AI-S lenses with the older, non-AI, all-metal Nikkors ... because (in pristine condition) they are simply beautiful.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: JKoerner007 on October 16, 2017, 16:48:57
I own all versions of the f/3.5 (commencing with the 1:1 capable 5.5 cm design form the early '60s), and while it is true the f/2.8 successor might be delivering a tad better and more even performance all over its focusing range, the contrast and 'pop' of the f/3.5 models are not to be overlooked. Besides, I have had too many shots ruined (mainly in the film days, admittedly) by the unpredictable sticking aperture of the f/2.8.

Thanks.

My guess is (as you hinted earlier) Nikon probably changed the oil-type in the f/2.8 version over the years (without telling anyone). I have seen many people complain, as you have, about the sticky oil ... and others swear that never happened with theirs ... likely because Nikon 'continued to tweak the product' ... without telling anyone ;)

Not sure if the pre-AI are any different from the AI, quality-wise, but I will probably wind up with a brand new f/2.8 AI-S (for bellows) and the pre-AI, C or no C, for pleasure.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: JKoerner007 on October 16, 2017, 16:53:29
On the Df I never had problems with my compensating 55/3.5 from 1963.   On close range 'much' crisper than the 55/2.8  (to my view). Best lens for macro in the 55mm range.

Thanks. I assume pre-AI?

I recently saw an incredible image taken with the C version that was rich, sharp as sharp gets, with the "pop" that you and Bjørn describe.

I have other macro lenses in place, but am just not satisfied with the my 50mm AI-S as a field lens (doesn't get close enough) and will supplant it with a 55 micro-nikkor. Also, when reversed, the 50mm AI-S has a lot of CA. It's very clean, in some cases, but I think the 55 f/2.8 will excel here, based on reports, as well as Nikon's own product literature for bellows work.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Asle F on October 16, 2017, 19:34:49
For closeups, I prefer the f/3.5. At least in combination with extension tubes or bellows, because that one do not have close range correction, or should we call it far distance correction.
For general photographing, I prefer fhe f/2.8 because that is the best one for the task. The oily aperture is well known for me, so I have two of them just in case. The one I regulary have to clean the aperture, has higher serial number (250000 higher) than the one that has never had the issue.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: JKoerner007 on October 16, 2017, 20:05:47
For closeups, I prefer the f/3.5.

Hi, which one?

Metal focus barrel, compensating aperture, pre-Ai?
Metal focus barrel, non-compensating aperture, pre-Ai?
Rubber focus barrel, pre-Ai?
Rubber focus barrel, Ai?

Thanks,
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: John Geerts on October 16, 2017, 20:27:53
Thanks. I assume pre-AI?
Yes, Metal focus barrel, compensating aperture, pre-Ai  - according to Roland's site the " F   55/3.5 Micro Auto NKJ   LMIJ   0   compensating, chrome, feet or m   188128 - 209525"  Mine has serial number 188145.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Roland Vink on October 16, 2017, 22:43:45
If you are looking for a standard lens for general use which is capable of the casual close-up, I would pick up the AIS 55/2.8 micro. Get one with a later serial number and you should be free of oily aperture blades - but always check the lens first. I tried using my AI 55/3.5 for the same purpose, it performs very well in this regard but I always had a feeling that f/3.5 was a bit too slow for a standard lens, while f/2.8 is just acceptable.

Shooting a standard lens less at than 3' (0.9m) is in what I would call the "close-up" range. All the 55 micros are perfectly capable here. In fact the AI 50/2 or 50/1.8 also do very well. It's only if you want to shoot closer than 1.5' (0.45m) that 50mm standard lenses stop and you need to consider a 55 micro. In this range the 55 micro is very handy, the shorter focal length compared to the 100mm class of lenses makes it easier to hold steady and frame accurately. However as you approach the close focus limit  (10", 0.25m) you will find the working distance is very short, it may be difficult to approach the subject close enough without putting your shadow across it. If you intend to work more at higher magnification I would recommend something like the AIS 105/4 or AIS 105/2.8 micro to give you more working distance. These are great for general shooting but for higher magnifications you really need to use a tripod for best results. If you want to shoot hand-held, maybe something with VR like like the Tamron 90/2.8 VC would be a better option - but I get the feeling you want a classic lens instead :)

If you have your heart set on a 55/3.5 micro of some sort, it pays to know which is which. All have basically the same 5/4 optical arrangement although there is some suggestion the optics were tweaked and refined along the way, with early models better corrected for macro shooting, while the later ones sacrifice some close range optimisation for better all-round performance.

I wouldn't consider the very early 5.5cm preset models, they are really collector pieces these days, the handling is not so convenient, and no meter or aperture coupling so it is strictly stop-down metering.

Next come the "compensating" versions with the metal scalloped focus ring. The compensating aperture is designed to work with EXTERNAL light meters to ensure the light reaching the film/sensor is constant regardless of the amount of extension/focus distance. If you use one of these lenses on a camera with TTL metering, the exposures will be ok near infinity but become increasingly overexposed at close range. The TTL meter doesn't know about the compensating feature so you need to manually counter-compensate which is not so convenient.

Next comes the Micro-Nikkor-P versions with the diamond pattern grip. This is NOT compensating - by this time cameras with TTL light meters were more common, which automatically compensate for light lost due to extension. At this point it seems the optics were tweaked for better all-round performance at the expense of outright macro performance (although the manuals state it is optimised for 1:10 like the the older versions, which suggests they are the same ??) The same lens continued more or less unchanged with the Micro-Nikkor-P.C with mulicoating, the late pre-AI/K/New-Nikkor version with the modern barrel design, and finally the AI version. For convenience I would go for the AI version since it's compatible with all cameras, and is multicoated.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: David H. Hartman on October 16, 2017, 23:06:26
Hi, which one?

Metal focus barrel, compensating aperture, pre-Ai?
Metal focus barrel, non-compensating aperture, pre-Ai?
Rubber focus barrel, pre-Ai?
Rubber focus barrel, Ai?

Thanks,

My preference is a 55/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor if 1:2 is all one needs. The 55/2.8 has floating elements so use the shortest tube necessary and the greatest helical extension to keep those floating elements at the close-up position when going above 1:2. To do this a PK-12 and PK-13 is an advantage. One might also add a PK-11a.

The 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor (compensating version) is inexpensive. If it's not AI modified (which may mess with your exposure) it will fit any camera with a fixed meter coupling lever if and only if you use the Nikon M or M2 tube. These tubes are beveled at the base and do not cause harm to cameras like the FM2n FE2, F5, D2H, D300s and D800. These are cameras I own or have owned.

The way this plays out I'd prefer the 55/2.8 AIS Micro for infinity to 1:2 and the 55/3.5 Micro (compensating) for 1:2 to 1:1.

Dave Hartman

Please send free time.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: David H. Hartman on October 16, 2017, 23:19:07
Next come the "compensating" versions with the metal scalloped focus ring. The compensating aperture is designed to work with EXTERNAL light meters to ensure the light reaching the film/sensor is constant regardless of the amount of extension/focus distance. If you use one of these lenses on a camera with TTL metering, the exposures will be ok near infinity but become increasingly overexposed at close range. The TTL meter doesn't know about the compensating feature so you need to manually counter-compensate which is not so convenient.

This should not be a problem if the lens is not AI modified. If AI modified the "fork" inside the lens should be switched from a slanted compensating one to a straight one. I don't know if the factory AI kit contained this part. I sorry I don't know the proper name for the part.

The compensating feature doesn't work at f/3.5 as the lens aperture is already wide open and can't be open more to compensate for extention. I don't have time to check even though I own a couple and one is probably in a drawer behind me. The compensation feature is functional at least from f/5.6 and down.

At about $100.00 (USD) I feel a compensation version is well worth owning. For general photography the f/2.8 aperture is my preference.

Dave

---

+1 to all Roland Vink wrote.

The M and M2 tubes only offer Auto Aperture, no meter coupling. If you using TTL then you'd tell the non-CPU data that you were using a 55mm f/11 lens if you were shooting at f/11. As you focus closer the compensating feature opens the iris and keeps the lens at an effective f/11.

Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on October 16, 2017, 23:19:17
"I wouldn't consider the very early 5.5cm preset models"

Apart from the ridiculously inflated asking price of the 5.5 m Micro, it has the severe drawback that on modern cameras it cannot be focused towards infinity. This is caused by a rear flange interfering with the current camera mount.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Roland Vink on October 16, 2017, 23:37:27
As mentioned earlier, the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor (compensating version) is designed for cameras without TTL metering. As such they work relatively well on low-end DSLRs such as the D3xxx and D5xxx. These cameras will accept most pre-AI lenses with no issue since they have no AI tab to get in the way. There is no TTL metering so you either need to use an external meter, or guess, shoot, review and adjust until you get the exposure right - once you have got it right it won't change as you focus due to the compensating feature :o

AI modification of the compensating micro only swapped out the aperture ring. Changing the lens from compensating to non-compensating is more involved and best left to members of the "What the Nerds Do" forum :)
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Roland Vink on October 16, 2017, 23:53:07
This is a very interesting thread topic.

I am in the process of determining 'which' of the multitude of 55mm Micro-Nikkors to use to replace my 50mm f/2 AI-S.
[...]
Trouble is, I am starting to fall in love with the older, non-AI, Nikkor lenses ... the ones with the scalloped, all-metal rings :D
Have you looked at the new Voigtlander 40/2 SLIIS? It has close focusing to 0.25m, giving 1:4 magnifications. That's about mid-way between the 50/2 and 55 micro in terms of close focusing. Should be good enough for most casual closeups, unless you are looking for more serious macro.

It has the faster f/2 aperture, a CPU, plus it has the classic metal scalloped focus ring. Personally I'd prefer the same with a slightly longer focal length but I am tempted... :o
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: David H. Hartman on October 17, 2017, 01:21:17
To use the 55/3.5 compensating aperture version on a D800 with 2D matrix metering here is how it's done...

1) install the lens on a Nikon M tube and both on the camera
2) Set the lens aperture to f/8 and read f/11 on the M tube's alternate aperture scale. This is compensation for the additional 27.5mm of extension.
3) Set the non-CPU data any lens number 1 to 9, set focal length to 55+27.5+13.75=96.25 (100mm) and the maximum aperture to f/11

You are ready to shoot.

This is pretty much the same as I'd do if I were shooting with an enlarging lenses lens such as a 150/5.6 El Nikkor on a PB-4 Bellows. I'd be shooting in full manual and I'd check the tri-color histogram and touch up the exposure as needed. This is not for hand held use. It's for working on a tripod which is slow so it's not as bad as it sounds.

A properly modified lens including changing replacing the fork thing makes more sense if hand holding. I'm sure Bjorn has at least one that been chipped.

I think one can see why I'm going to reach for a 55/2.8 AIS Micro to take on a walk. I'd also prefer my 55/3.5 native AI but it laughs in the cabinet.

I've never shot my 55/3.5 Micro, compensating aperture at infinity. It's reputed to be kind of a puppy at infinity. The 55/2.8 AIS Micro is top rated by a coin collecting group at up to 1:2. There is a link somewhere here at Nikon Gear.

Dave

Truth in Advertising: I own hand held meters and I prefer a flash meter to TTL flash frequently.

---

Neither the 55/2.8 AIS Micro nor the 55/3.5 AI Micro reports it's focal length and effective aperture as you focus closer so metering touch up may be needed. The AF 60/2.8D Micro and AF-S 60/2.8G ED Micro do and would probably be a better choice on a recent Nikon dSLR.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: JKoerner007 on October 17, 2017, 15:46:57
Appreciate all the feedback, thanks.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Asle F on October 17, 2017, 16:08:32
As mentioned earlier, the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor (compensating version) is designed for cameras without TTL metering. As such they work relatively well on low-end DSLRs such as the D3xxx and D5xxx. These cameras will accept most pre-AI lenses with no issue since they have no AI tab to get in the way. There is no TTL metering so you either need to use an external meter, or guess, shoot, review and adjust until you get the exposure right - once you have got it right it won't change as you focus due to the compensating feature :o

For the same reason, tt's also my favorite when doing closeups with manual speedlights.

AI modification of the compensating micro only swapped out the aperture ring. Changing the lens from compensating to non-compensating is more involved and best left to members of the "What the Nerds Do" forum :)

I have done the ai-modification on mine, with a file.
I have tried, but I have don't managed to do the compensation to non-compensation.modification. The problem I have at this, is how I get the last step of disassembly before I get to the fork.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on October 17, 2017, 16:14:23
I believe the fork is accessible from the front of the lens when you have unscrewed the threaded front-filterring and after you slide out the optical cell,,,


https://richardhaw.com/2017/01/18/repair-micro-nikkor-p-55mm-f3-5-auto/


Almost at the end, however as far as I can see from the pictures, this is not the same design as my compensating version,,, the fork was attached by 4 screws,,,
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Asle F on October 17, 2017, 20:12:44
I believe the fork is accessible from the front of the lens when you have unscrewed the threaded front-filterring and after you slide out the optical cell,,,


https://richardhaw.com/2017/01/18/repair-micro-nikkor-p-55mm-f3-5-auto/


Almost at the end, however as far as I can see from the pictures, this is not the same design as my compensating version,,, the fork was attached by 4 screws,,,

After sliding out the optics, inside the barrel, there are a ring that is blocking the screws for the fork. It's that ring, I don't see how to remove.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on October 17, 2017, 20:35:52
Isn’t it a threaded ring? Try and locate it in the images Rick has shown,,,
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: David H. Hartman on October 18, 2017, 04:38:15
The fork assembly is different than any Nikkor I've been in. I haven't been in that many but a few. The slant that does the aperture compensation is easily seen in Richard's second photo above.

I'm thinking now that I've seen the inside the lens might as well be used with a hand held meter or the histogram. I have two. One is a bargain grade and I think I'll take down the edge of the aperture ring without doing an AI conversion, just take it down so it installed on my D800 without a tube so I can use 1/10x to 1x. For science I'm might get around to comparing infinity performance of the 55/3.5 compensating to a native 55/3.5 AI.

Time is a problem. I have so little free time I'm probably dreaming.

Dave Hartman

To see larger images click this link and slide down about 3/4 toward the bottom or better read the complete article...

Repair Micro-Nikkor-P 55mm f3-5 Auto by Richard Haw (https://richardhaw.com/2017/01/18/repair-micro-nikkor-p-55mm-f3-5-auto/)
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: JKoerner007 on October 19, 2017, 18:45:58
Have you looked at the new Voigtlander 40/2 SLIIS? It has close focusing to 0.25m, giving 1:4 magnifications. That's about mid-way between the 50/2 and 55 micro in terms of close focusing. Should be good enough for most casual closeups, unless you are looking for more serious macro.

It has the faster f/2 aperture, a CPU, plus it has the classic metal scalloped focus ring. Personally I'd prefer the same with a slightly longer focal length but I am tempted... :o

I am going to go with this suggestion. Either the 40mm or the 58mm Voigtlander Nokton.

What I am really looking for is a lens to reverse, that's sharp wide-open, with minimal C/A.

I am realizing that none of the 55mm micro-Nikkors can be reversed. My ability to go 1:4 or 1:2 is already covered, The 50mm AI-S is really sharp at f/4, but has lots of CA. The 55 Micro-Nikkor is better-corrected, but cannot be reversed. It also is not as fast for portraiture.

If I get an elder 55 f/1.2 it will likely be the same story as the 50 f/1.2, albeit with a metal-scalloped focus ring.

I have also considered newer Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Milvus, which is very well-corrected, but it is heavier and more expensive, and many prefer the rendering of newer 58mm f/1.4 Voigtlander SL II S Nokton. It is supposed to well-corrected also, has great bokeh, and a copious focus throw. More importantly, the Voigtlander has a 52mm front thread element allowing the BR 2A reverse ring to be directly attached (whereas the Zeiss, in addition to being longer/heavier, also has a non-standard 67 mm front filter thread, requiring an additional step-down ring to reverse).

In fact, I could get the 40mm and 58mm Voigtlanders for about the price of the 50mm Zeiss Milvus. I could reverse the former to ~ 1.6x the latter to around 1x.

The Voigtlander Nokton is the way I am going to go, the 58mm for sure, and maybe both, so good suggestion, thanks.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: David H. Hartman on October 19, 2017, 20:13:22
I am realizing that none of the 55mm micro-Nikkors can be reversed. My ability to go 1:4 or 1:2 is already covered, The 50mm AI-S is really sharp at f/4, but has lots of CA. The 55 Micro-Nikkor is better-corrected, but cannot be reversed. It also is not as fast for portraiture.

Can't be reversed?? Can you explain why you are stating this?

Dave
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on October 19, 2017, 21:11:02
All Micro-Nikkor lenses can in principle be reversed. They are not magically different from other optical designs. I have worked with reversed 55 Micros for decades.

Reversing the longer ones easily defeats the purpose though as it is far from a certainty that one will get any useful magnification out of them in that mode.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Roland Vink on October 19, 2017, 21:44:11
Of course the 55 micros can be reversed, but unless you need greater than 1:1 magnification, there is little need. They all perform extremely well down to 1:2, and with the M tube or PK-13 to 1:1. Since these lenses all have near symmetric optical designs, the performance gain by reversing for magnifications beyond 1:1 is only small. The AIS 55/2.8 on the PN-11 will get to nearly 1.5x life size, with the benefit of automatic aperture and AI metering. However, the working distance with this combination is very small.

My favourite combination for magnifications beyond 1:1 is the AF 105/2.8 micro with the PN-11 tube. This will get to about 1.6x life size with a good amount of working distance. Adding a PK-13 will increase the magnification to 2x. The PN-11 has a built-in tripod mount giving a well balanced and stable setup, and it is easy to change orientation from vertical to horizontal while staying on target. My PN-11 has a Arca-Swiss type quick release plate, I can easily move it forward and back a couple of cm within the clamp (like a short focus rail) to achieve focus once the lens has been set to the correct magnification - very convenient.

I'd only use a reversed lens if I needed to shoot higher magnifications, and then I would choose a shorter focal length otherwise the amount of extension required becomes unwieldy.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: David H. Hartman on October 19, 2017, 22:04:48
My PN-11 has a Arca-Swiss type quick release plate, I can easily move it forward and back a couple of cm within the clamp (like a short focus rail) to achieve focus once the lens has been set to the correct magnification - very convenient.
I use the Wimberley C-30 clamp as a macro slider. It allows more than a few centimeters and the length makes sliding a bit smother. 

(https://static.bhphoto.com/images/images500x500/Wimberley_C_30_C_30_Quick_Release_Clamp_1273095045000_205331.jpg)

Wimberley was going to discontinue the C-30 and wrote and asked them not to discontinue it. I told them I used it as a macro slider and for larger cameras. They replied they would keep it in production. It's now sold by B&H Photo, Adorama and other retailers. The current price is $99.95 (USD).

Below is my setup for the Nikon PN-11. The two pieces of aircraft aluminum are both screwed and expoxied together for safety and stability. I never got around to painting that part. The block allows for the use of the old fat 105/4.0 AI and also has a place for attaching an older Kirkphoto macro flash arm. The Wimberley lens plate also accommodates the Kirk macro flash arm.

Dave Harman Please send FREE time!™

Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on October 19, 2017, 23:03:04
One shouldn't lose sight of other small, neat solutions to getting 1-5X or more in the field. The Olympus special macro lenses 20/2 and 38/2.8 come to mind. They have pretty decent image quality, in particular closed down one to two stops. As they require, by design, at least 14 mm extension before being attached to a camera, converting them to 'F' mount is straightforward: one simply removes the rear mount on an Olympus extension ring (14 mm or longer), and replaces it with an F bayonet. One needs only to drill three new mounting holes for the screws as the Olymus mount is held in a slight different position.

The 38/2.8 being the most versatile of the pair, covers 1.6 to 7X with maximum extension added, and combines nicely with a ring flash for hand-held field use..
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: JKoerner007 on October 20, 2017, 00:12:31
Can't be reversed?? Can you explain why you are stating this?
Dave

Apparently, I was mistaken as to this.

Coin imaging (http://coinimaging.com/nikon_55microais.html) states proper orientation is the best was to position this lens, while they recommend reversing on virtually all other Nikkors.

They don't even rate it (http://coinimaging.com/hall_of_fame.html) at magnifications beyond 1:2, whereas other Nikkors are rated (reversed) on a bellows. (They rate it extremely high at 1:2, however!)

Maybe they discount the lens as a serious reverse-option because the front lens element is so recessed?
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: JKoerner007 on October 20, 2017, 00:35:20
Of course the 55 micros can be reversed, but unless you need greater than 1:1 magnification, there is little need. They all perform extremely well down to 1:2, and with the M tube or PK-13 to 1:1. Since these lenses all have near symmetric optical designs, the performance gain by reversing for magnifications beyond 1:1 is only small. The AIS 55/2.8 on the PN-11 will get to nearly 1.5x life size, with the benefit of automatic aperture and AI metering. However, the working distance with this combination is very small.

For 1:4, I like my Zeiss 135 f/2 Apo Sonnar.

For 1:2 - 1:1, I like my Voigtländer 125 f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar (in fact, the Zeiss usually stays at home, and I just use my CV.



My favourite combination for magnifications beyond 1:1 is the AF 105/2.8 micro with the PN-11 tube. This will get to about 1.6x life size with a good amount of working distance. Adding a PK-13 will increase the magnification to 2x. The PN-11 has a built-in tripod mount giving a well balanced and stable setup, and it is easy to change orientation from vertical to horizontal while staying on target. My PN-11 has a Arca-Swiss type quick release plate, I can easily move it forward and back a couple of cm within the clamp (like a short focus rail) to achieve focus once the lens has been set to the correct magnification - very convenient.

I'd only use a reversed lens if I needed to shoot higher magnifications, and then I would choose a shorter focal length otherwise the amount of extension required becomes unwieldy.

For the field, I'll just crop my Zeiss/CV shots for small increments over 1:1.

For the studio, I was using my 50 f/1.2 AI-S, reversed, for 1:1, which was extremely sharp at f/4 (for stacks), but had tons of CA if the setting was right. It is the 50 AI-S I have replaced with the 58mm f/1.4 Voigtlander SL II S Nokton (ordered/shipped today). If I am not satisfied, I will return and try the Micro-Nikkor.

I have not had much luck with biting-sharp field shots over 4-5:1. I think these higher magnifications are better left for the studio, even with flash.

My favorite high-mag lens, for the field, is the 28-50mm f/3.5 AI-S:

(http://johnkoerner.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/DSC9668-1-1024x683.jpg)

It focuses down to 1:4 properly-oriented, and achieves between 1:1 to an almost 3:1 reproduction ratio reversed.

Here is a recent shot at 1:4, properly-oriented:

(http://nikongear.online/examples/2017/10-2017/_DSC2470-12.jpg)


And here is a shot at ~2:1, with it reversed (this spider could sit on the mantis' forearms):

(http://nikongear.online/examples/2017/10-2017/_DSC0035-2.jpg)

The Zoom-Nikkor 28-50mm f/3.5 AI-S is not quite as clean as my AI-S primes, and certainly not as clean as my Zeiss/CV Apos ... but it is sharp and clean enough to justify its existence ... especially considering how light, versatile, and handy it is in one package. I can go 28-50mm properly-mounted ... to 1:4 ... then flip it and go 1:1 - ~3:1 as a macro.

One of the handiest little lenses I have ever owned, if not the handiest. If you don't feel like carrying a bunch of stuff, it can get a lot accomplished by itself, and a reverse-ring in your pocket.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Erik Lund on October 20, 2017, 08:37:18
Here is an extensive rundown on the optical design of the Micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 Ais and the AF version:


The animation aparently doesnt work but the illustrations show clearly what is going on,,,



http://archive.is/0p2d5



Please note for the nth time; These lenses have CRC, Close Range Correction, so any extension you add will bring them out of optimal optical performance!
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on October 20, 2017, 09:36:04
To elaborate: Image quality of any lens with its own focusing WILL suffer when extension is added.

The possible exception of course being the old-fashioned 'bellows' lenses that basically are just the optics, no focusing, and the required extension is provided by a bellows device or similar. However, even for these designs, you should expect a drop in quality if the amount of extension leads to magnifications outside the designated range.

The assertion of extension being harmless because it "does not add glass, only air" is fundamentally flawed. It's a myth deserving to be laid to rest.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: David H. Hartman on October 20, 2017, 13:59:25
A 150/5.6 EL-Nikkor has a usable range of 2x to 8x per Nikon data. When reversed I would think it should perform well at 2:1 to 8:1 with maybe it's best at 5:1. Foreword I think 1:8 to 1:2 should perform well. Is my thinking correct here?

At what magnification would I want to reverse a 55/3.5 Compensating Micro? a 55/3.5 AI Micro?

Flipping a 55/2.8 AIS Micro should be OK if only the center was important or do I miss understand the purpose of CRC in that lens? I've flipped 55/3.5(s) but never tried a 55/2.8 because of the CRC.

Dave
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on October 20, 2017, 14:54:17
Your thinking is theoretically sound, Dave. The devil, as usual, hides in the practical details. Meaning one might need to add excessive extension in some cases, leading to an unwieldy and impractical setup.

When I shot 4x5", I often added the 4T to my 120 mm f/5.6 AM Nikkor ED to crank up magnification and avoid inserting an extra bellows length. worked very well, but then 4x5" and good technique is pretty tolerant of a slight reduction in quality anyway.

Reversing a 55 Micro would mean one could do 2:1 without too much added extension.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Asle F on October 20, 2017, 17:04:07
Flipping a 55/2.8 AIS Micro should be OK if only the center was important or do I miss understand the purpose of CRC in that lens? I've flipped 55/3.5(s) but never tried a 55/2.8 because of the CRC.

When reversing the lens, just revers the magnification on the focusing ring, and the CRC will be with you. When photograping at 2x, set the focus ring at 1:2. When photographing at 3x, set focusing ring at 1:3…
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Akira on October 20, 2017, 17:11:45
When reversing the lens, just revers the magnification on the focusing ring, and the CRC will be with you. When photograping at 2x, set the focus ring at 1:2. When photographing at 3x, set focusing ring at 1:3…

Asle, all versions of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors are of rack focus type without CRC.  So, you can leave the focus ring set at infinity when reversed.  Or, you can set the focus ring to a closer distance to utilize the rear barrel as a lens hood.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: David H. Hartman on October 21, 2017, 01:00:20
Long ago I saw an early setup for macro with a view camera. Many bellows were used. The whole outfit may have been 2 meters long or longer.

The 150/5.6 El-Nikkor I mentioned above was a bad choice. It would need 450mm from lens to sensor to achive 2:1 (2x life). I might be able to do that by mounting a camera on the back of a Super Technika IV 45. A shorter focal length lens would be far more practical. Even 135/5.6 would need 405mm from lens to sensor to achieve 2:1. The lens I'd like to try is a 50/3.5 Fujinon-EP but it has no attachment thread on the front. The 50/3.5 could get to 2:1 easily on a Nikon PB-4 bellows.

Concerning the 55/2.8 reversed: I can't think what to call the dull black baffle and lens protector on the rear but with the lens focus ring set to 1:3 the rear of the lens (dull black thing) is pushed out approximately 20mm and is maybe 23mm from the rear element. If I were reversing a 55/2.8 I'd leave the focus ring at infinity and hope for the best. :)

For reversing Micro-Nikkors I have several 55/3.5 lenses.

Dave



Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: F2F3F6 on October 21, 2017, 09:14:57
Hello Dave and everybody,

for macro-use I think the best (Micro-Nikkor excepted) lenses are short focal enlarger lenses or better Apo-EL, Apo-Componon, Apo-Rodagon lenses between 28 and 105 mm for more than 1:1 magnification.
I have seen many articles from Dan Fromm,  (here some interesting stuff in english : www.galerie-photo.com/1-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html), but also fromm Bjørn Rørslett (Hello !) and Michael Erlewlne and other contributors...

Seems that for greater magnifications a few 28 or 35mm enlarger lenses (Componon for example) or cine lenses (see Dan  Fromm's articles) are good performers.
Than you can search for the holy grail, the Macro-Nikkors or some Photars (Leitz) or Luminars from 19mm to 35mm...

Around 50mm, Fromm says the Micro-Nikkor (2,8/55 Ais in his case) remains one of the best...but he tested for 6x9cm and film.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on October 21, 2017, 09:36:04
For studio work at say 5 to 10X magnification, using a flat-field infinity corrected APO objective such as those from the Mitutoyo M Plan series in conjunction with a tube lens yields image quality at least as good or very probably better than what any finite-focus lens, even the famous Macro-Nikkors, can deliver.

In these infinity-corrected systems, several additional issues have to be sorted. Firstly there is a need for a quality tube lens of focal length 200 mm. A 200 mm lens with telephoto construction works pretty well; a highly corrected close-up lens such as the Raynox DCR-150 might be at least as good, but much cheaper. Secondly, as there typically is no aperture control, depth of field is very limited thus focus stacking is required in virtually all cases. And thirdly, flare from external light sources can be troublesome unless you carefully shield the front of the objective, or due to the setup for the tube lens, there could be internally generated flare to cope with as well.
Title: Re: Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited
Post by: F2F3F6 on October 21, 2017, 23:44:16
Thank you Bjørn for reminding us this other (cheaper and better) solution ! I had already read about Mitutoyo or Nikon M-Plan lenses for microphotography here on a few posts...