NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: dibyendumajumdar on October 11, 2024, 23:22:47
-
Taking the various 50-60mm micro nikkors in F mount and Z mount, which ones are the best at macro range? Are the latest designs optimized for close up distances or do they compromise performance in an attempt to be more general purpose?
-
I have the Zeiss Macro Planar 50/2 in two versions: ZF2 and Milvus. Their optical formula is said to be the same, but the Milvus is distinctly better (color neutrality, flare) and it is excellent at all apertures and ranges.
-
Do you need 1:1 magnification? If so, that rules out the Zeiss and the Nikon manual focus 55mm macros (unless you also get the PK-13 extension tube). Probably the best is the in this range is the AF-S 60/2,8 macro (I have never tried it myself but it has a very good reputation). In my experience the working distance is a bit short for 1:1 photography with these lenses, I tend to use them as a standard lens which can focus close instead of as a dedicated macro lens.
If 1:2 is sufficient, there is not really a bad lens to choose from. The AI 55/3.5 is a very good lens at distance and close range, it is nice and compact and very cheap. It is a bit slow for general photography and the 6-blade aperture causes hexagonal out of focus blurs which I don't like. The AIS 55/2.8 is possibly even better as it has floating elements so it is well optimised across the entire focus range. The faster f/2.8 aperture makes it more useful as a general purpose standard lens with macro capabilities. It has a nicer 7-blade aperture. The background bokeh can be nervous at medium distances and it flares when shooting into direct light. The Zeiss Macro Planar is a stop faster so it can easily double as a standard lens, but it is significantly bigger and more expensive.
In general I prefer a macro lens which performs well at medium-far distances. For macro photography the lens is usually stopped down to increase the depth of field, so wide open performance is not really that important.
-
The 60mm Micro-Nikkors F-mount are great, but working distance is on the short side. OK if you do studio work shooting straight down, if you can arrange adequate lighting of the scene. For my aquatic macrophyte project, I have used the older AFD 60/2.8 on my Z7 extensively; I opted for this model because I already had it plus it has slightly longer working distance. There is no AF with the AFD Nikkor on the FTZ/FTZ.2 adapter, which is not an issue for close-ups anyway in my opinion.
The ancient 55mm f/3.5 has lower image contrast than newer design, but is very sharp. I never liked the 55/2.8 with its tendency to have oil leaking into the iris mechanism.
-
Is there any reason you're just looking at this focal length?
Have you decided against something nearer 100 mm?
-
For third-party alternatives, look to offerings from Laowa. They have excellent "macro" lenses many (all?) of which go to 1:1 or even to 2X. They are quite cheap too.
-
Thank you for the replies.
I ordered a used 60mm f2.8 AFS.
I have the 200mm f4 AFD but find it very hard to use because of extremely shallow depth of field. I wanted something I can hand hold.
-
I would buy a $50 enlarger lens (50mm el-nikkor) and couple it with extension rings, but that is just me (a cheapskate).
-
I applaud the enlargement lens proosal. jsut make sure that any contraptions for light on the aperture scale does not let ight in the other way. I use an enlarger lens (a Rodenstock apo) on a bellows (Olympus) to digitise sides instead of the slow and fiddlly slide scanner even though the Vuescan program has all the settings one might need to get a good result.
p.