NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: elsid on April 06, 2016, 17:08:56
-
This is a new acquisition. It was converted to AI yesterday in a shop in Athens. This morning mounted the lens on the D810 and went out hunting.
Stopped outside a flower shop, and in front of a house with flowers on the pavement (or sidewalk). Handheld. Seems to me Bjorn is right once more. It is a lens worth keeping in one's arsenal.
-
A couple more
-
Great shots! I have a different version of this lens, and I like it a lot.
-
Thank you Chip. I have the AI version too.
-
There was a time when you could pick these 55mm gems up for around $US50 to $US75. Even though prices have gone up in recent years, their performance to price ratio still makes them an attractive value proposition - as your colouful images already show. Great choice - enjoy!
-
Thank you Hugh. It cost me USD 74.00. The AI version that I, also, have cost me USD 51.00
-
I have seen pre-AI versions of the 55 Micro go for $20 or less.
I prefer the older versions myself so it is well worth the efforts to get it AI-modified. Also an easy lens to CPU-modify if you remove the aperture compensating lever. The latter not necessary for the CPU as such, but the aperture compensating mechanism thwarts the metering results.
-
The color distiction and detail rendering show a great tool in very able hands. Refreshing Pictures.
-
Thank you Bjorn and Frank for your comments. Bjorn, The lens was AI converted. I have to check if there is a shop in Athens that can remove the compensating lever, though I doubt there is one. Do you have a picture you can post of what the aperture compensating lever looks like?
Thank you again.
-
Look inside and it will be obvious.
-
A 55mm Micro-Nikkor for $US20 sounds like a steal - even if it is missing some paint here and there. Ebay and Australian second hand sources don't run that low these days. Great though for those that can still inexpensively source old lenses.
-
German Ebay lists that item in the 150€ zone, some as new versions are listed at 300€
-
Ouch Frank - that is getting expensive. Thanks for posting.
German Ebay lists that item in the 150€ zone, some as new versions are listed at 300€
-
Hugh. The Df ruined the prices. Good for Haves bad for Have-nots...
-
Or the difference between those doing the business early vs those who come last.
I once bought CRT Nikkor-O lenses for 30$ each. The buyer had a crate full of them from his father's estate and was happy I wanted 2 so he covered shipping .... Search eBay for one now under $500 and you are unlikely to come up with any at that price.
-
there is a 55/3.5 P at 65€ and a K at 85€ right now with a local seller.
-
Nice work, El Sid. The rose shows especially fetching details with the 55/3.5.
Can someone please elucidate the differences between the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and the 55/2.8 versions? Thanks.
-
Thank you Andrea for your comment. Roses are among the subjects I like to photograph up close.
-
55/2.8 has CRC, the f/3.5 versions have not.
-
That series of lenses is my favourite, in fact i have around 20 of them :o :o :o
the Df did not ruin the price of the older Nikkors, mirrorless did. specially for the older lenses of other brands...
-
That's how the focusing unit (barrel) looks like when taken apart... :o :o :o
check that ring on the lower corner... ::)
-
the Df did not ruin the price of the older Nikkors, mirrorless did. specially for the older lenses of other brands...
Exactly.
Is the second one to the left really a 'p' version? It looks like the older Micro-Auto NKJ
-
Nice lineup, Richard! Good to see the different types next to one another.
I need to go look and see which one I have. Seems I have not used any of my macros for some time now. Got busy with other shooting I suppose.
-
Can someone please elucidate the differences between the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and the 55/2.8 versions? Thanks.
55/3.5 micro:
- 5/4 elements
- unit focusing
- 6 aperture blades
- pre-AI and AI
55/2.8 micro:
- 6/5 elements
- unit focusing with CRC
- 7 aperture blades
- AIS
Otherwise they are pretty similar. Oh yeah, the 55/2.8 is half a stop faster :). The 55/2.8 was part of my travel kit for years (in combination with an AI 20/3.5 and AIS 135/2.8 ) - the f2.8 speed is just fast enough for it to be used as regular standard lens which happens to focus very close. The 55/3.5 feels just a bit slow to be used as a general purpose lens but I guess with quality high ISO cameras that is less of a problem these days. I also prefer the 7-blade aperture for nicer OOF blurs and diffraction stars. The 55/2.8 is known for getting oil on the blades - mine has gummed up for the second time and the focus ring has become extremely tight (I'll sell it for parts/repair soon as I replaced it with another late serial number lens which has clean aperture blades and delightfully smooth focusing).
Read about the development of the 55 micro here: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0026/
-
The 55/2.8 Micro is 2/3 stop faster in fact ....
-
To be precise: if we start at f/4 and go up in 1/3 stops we get:
4.00 | 3.56 | 3.17 | 2.83 ... which rounds to: 4 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 2.8
Going in 1/2 stops we get:
4.00 | 3.36 | 2.83 ... which rounds to: 4 | 3.4 | 2.8
f/3.5 isn't 1/2 or 2/3 stop different ... more like 3/5 stop slower that f/2.8. It's really an odd aperture. I guess it was popular because it's a "round" number. Some Leica lenses and others use f/3.4 instead, which is probably meant to be exactly half a stop faster than f/4.
-
The 'rounding' of f-numbers follows tradition and are not necessarily mathematically correct, that is why some EXIf readers insist f/5.6 is 5.7 and f/3.5 is 3.6. Likewise, f/11 should be more correctly given as f/11.3 (or f/11.5 if you round to nearest 0.5). Etc.
The 1/3 stops are f/4, f/3.5, f/3.2, f/2.8. The half stops are f/4, f/3.4, f/2.8. (f/3.3 is the true 1/2 stop but one often sees 3.4 in stead, depending on the way round is conducted. f/3.4 is actually +7/12 over f/2.8 ). Like +1/3 over f/5.6 is usually taken as f/6.3, but sometimes the figure f/6.4 is used. The list of ambiguous f-numbers go on and on.
I see more than my allotted share of 1/12 and 1/6 steps when I program CPUs for the Nikkors. Some EXIF readers manage 1/6 steps, nearly none 1/12, and the cameras usually go by 1/3, or by the traditionally used numbers.
-
Exactly.
Is the second one to the left really a 'p' version? It looks like the older Micro-Auto NKJ
Yup! it's a Nikkor-P (metal nose) :o :o :o
these days, manual lenses disappear from the junk box really quick ::)
-
Nice lineup, Richard! Good to see the different types next to one another.
I need to go look and see which one I have. Seems I have not used any of my macros for some time now. Got busy with other shooting I suppose.
Thanks! i should take a picture of them all in a line :o :o :o
-
Hey, guys! dont forget about the rings! :o :o :o
-
Elsid - magnificent photos! I have what Richard labels the New-Nikkor 55/3.5 (it's an Ai or Ais Micro-Nikkor), with the 6-bladed diaphragm. If I remember correctly it was $US89, not much more than you'd pay for a UV filter (!), probably less than a polarizer, though it's a while since I bought one of those. I bought it initially for transferring slides to digital, for which it works flawlessly, but then almost by accident discovered its equally amazing ability at landscape distances. I needed a medium focal-length lens for a vertical 'panorama' in which I wanted to capture foreground detail and background scene in a narrow strip, focusing progressively away from the camera as I raised it. Even just reviewing the pictures on the camera LCD screen I was amazed by the definition, contrast, and crispness of minute details. That was on a D7000. I recently replaced that camera with a D810 and find that the lens loses none of its brilliance. I can also add that in my experience, focusing by the arrow-dot-arrow display in the finder works very reliably with this lens on the camera. It's also focused at infinity when it reaches the infinity stop, with no apparent temperature variability between -25 and + 30C (I've read that infinity settings are omitted nowadays because the infinity focus point changes with the temperature of the lens, but perhaps that's more of a problem with zooms). Very much a favorite lens and very capable at all distances for the kinds of photos I like to take.
Cheers, John
-
The 55/2.8 is known for getting oil on the blades - mine has gummed up for the second time and the focus ring has become extremely tight (I'll sell it for parts/repair soon as I replaced it with another late serial number lens which has clean aperture blades and delightfully smooth focusing).
My first 55/2.8 suddenly developed a completely immovable focus ring after previously working just fine. Is this a common problem? Any ideas on what could cause this?
-
My first 55/2.8 suddenly developed a completely immovable focus ring. Is this a common problem? Any ideas on what could cause this?
Hi, Bill!
http://richardhaw.com/2016/02/22/repair-micro-nikkor-55mm-f2-8-ai-s/
Check this out! instead of selling it for parts just play around with while fixing it as a new hobby :o :o :o
the inner CRC helicoids gets dirty or jammed and that would cause the the focusing to stiffen or seize.
-
OK, i am kind of busy working on a TV commercial these days on camera tracking so i have not touched my blog. 12 hour days have become normal for me now. :o :o :o
if any of you guys are up for it, I can do a complete lens teardown next week of the 55mm 3.5 ::)
i have the following lenses in my repair notes folder:
1: metal nose
2: P
3: K
4: 5.5cm (preset aperture)
-
Thank you john for your comment.
-
For the record of this thread, in the early days of the forum I posted a partial disassembly of the later AI version of 55mm f/3.5:
"55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor photographs its own disassembly."
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,504.0.html (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,504.0.html)
Not a complete tear down, just enough to re-grease it.
-
Re re-posted ;)
Øivind your images are a pleasure, very well layed out, sharp and show nicely all parts!
And again the non compensating slit visible,,,
-
Thank you, Richard!
-
I have seen pre-AI versions of the 55 Micro go for $20 or less.
I prefer the older versions myself so it is well worth the efforts to get it AI-modified. Also an easy lens to CPU-modify if you remove the aperture compensating lever. The latter not necessary for the CPU as such, but the aperture compensating mechanism thwarts the metering results.
Bjørn, take a look at this site and what this guy has to say about the aperture compensation feature of this lens. Is this guy way off base about how to disable the aperture compensation feature of this lens? From your post, it sounds like you have a different idea of how to accomplish this.
http://pindelski.org/Photography/2013/10/21/55mm-f3-5-micro-nikkor/
-
So I took a look inside my compensating lens as well as a non-compensating version I have. It appears that the picture in the link I provided is of the wrong claw/fork. However, on the opposite side of the lens, I notice a similar piece that has a narrow slot in it. This appears to be thelinkage between the aperture ring on the lens and the diaphragm. On the compensating lens, then slot is angled, while its straight on the non-compensating lens. So it appears that making a compensating lens into a non-compensating version involves replacing this piece correct?
-
There are factual errors in the article that makes it difficult to discuss. My Compensating Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 has a later serial number than the lens used by the author to question Roland Vink's listings of the compensating version. The author claims that the arrival of the Photomic head for the Nikon F entailed production of the compensating lens ceased and it became replaced by the non-compensating version, but this is a false conclusion. The TTL finder heads and the compensating 55 co-existed for a good while, something the users of the system, yours truly inclusive, had to learn to live with and master those days. Worth note that the frequency of Photomic-headed Nikon F's was low in those first years, thus Nikon being the conservative company then as later, just soldiered on with the existing designs.
-
I probably should add a note to that page to indicate the compensating version. It is clearly listed on the serial number page though. I'm pretty sure all the 55/3.5 with the metal scalloped focus rings are compensating. This feature was dropped with the Micro-Nikkor-P version with the diamond pattern rubber grip.
-
"This feature was dropped with the Micro-Nikkor-P version with the diamond pattern rubber grip."
That is what my (admittedly vague) recollections from that period tell me as well.
-
Is that also when the optical formula changed to improve performance at infinity at the expense of close up performance?
-
My compensating lens is serial # 203XXX. It doesn't have a P designation at all. It just says Micro-Nikkor Auto. I have located a factory Ai conversion kit for it (Kit type 63), and I wanted to remove the compensating feature when I installed the Ai conversion kit. I'm also considering chipping the lens. However, it looks like removing the compensating feature is not as easy as I thought. Do you have any information about what is involved to convert this lens to a non-compensating lens? Is it something that can realistically be accomplished?
-
It would be much simpler to buy an AI 55/3.5 instead - it's already "AI" and not compensating without having to do any work. They are pretty cheap...
-
It would be much simpler to buy an AI 55/3.5 instead - it's already "AI" and not compensating without having to do any work. They are pretty cheap...
Yes, but at what point did the optical formula change?
-
Nikon tweaked their designs several times over the years and usually not announcing what they did. So it is hard to say. There exist several views according to the remote-distance performance of these early 55/3.5 lenses. some claim they aren't very good, others say they are excellent. Could well be people have used slightly differently designed optics.
As this is way back in time and the Delorean with the Flux Capitor is thin on the ground, we probably never will know for sure. I recommend following Roland's advice and get an AI lens, or a "K" version if you want an earlier version in need of conversion yet not a compensating model.
-
Ok something I'll consider. In the meantime, for this lens, how do I remove the mount & f-stop ring? As you can see, there are no screws in the mount. Do I remove the small screw in the f-stop ring to remove the ring?
-
remove that screw you see on the aperture ring and screw the aperture ring off :o :o :o
i will take awhile ::)
-
all of my metal nosed 3.5's are compensating :o :o :o
FYI...
-
Thank you Richard. Once the aperture ring is off, how do I remove the mount?
-
Oh, I think I see. There are screws embedded in the threads under the f-stop ring correct?
-
yes but be careful removing it. it's finely milled :o :o :o
-
Does it need to be removed to chip the lens, or can you just remove the baffle and work from there?
-
Nikon tweaked their designs several times over the years and usually not announcing what they did. So it is hard to say. There exist several views according to the remote-distance performance of these early 55/3.5 lenses. some claim they aren't very good, others say they are excellent. Could well be people have used slightly differently designed optics.
As this is way back in time and the Delorean with the Flux Capitor is thin on the ground, we probably never will know for sure. I recommend following Roland's advice and get an AI lens, or a "K" version if you want an earlier version in need of conversion yet not a compensating model.
On your old site, you describe the both the compensating version and the later PC version of this lens. From your description there, it appears you can see a (obvious?) difference in performance between these lenses when used close up. Can you suggest a way to tell if a lens has the old formula that is optimized for close up work photographically? That is, can you suggest a subject, f-stop setting & shooting distance where the difference between the older lens and the newer lens is visible and what to look for? As I have both the old and new versions, I'm curious to see the difference in images produced.
Thanks
-
not sure about chipping :o :o :o
haven't done any of it ::)
https://richardhaw.com/2016/01/21/diy-ai-conversion/
if you want to convert this to Ai, this is my process on how I do it on my lens. so far, this has yielded a neat result for me. i will update this post with info on how to put that little tab for D80 and cheaper nikons as was pointed out by eric. i wasnt thinking about those cameras when i did this
-
by the way, i have all if not most of the versions with me. in what i do (bugs) i cannot find any meaningful differences. if there are any it is so small its not even worth losing sleep about. :o :o :o
-
I really wonder how many incarnations of the 55/3.5 exist? For example, I have never seen these versions without bayonet screws. All samples from all the generations have had 3 (AI) or 5 (pre-AI) screws just like any other Nikkor lens. Apparently as seen from the tear-down pictures there are massive differences inside the lens case as well. All my Micro 55 lenses are laid out in the "normal" manner. That includes the weird 5.5 cm model (1:1 directly) for the early '60s as well.
Thus there is a lot of data to pierce together to get an overview of which versions exist even before investigating any optical differences.
-
the internal differences are also many :o :o :o
like screws and the like.
-
I have only used the 5.5 cm model for close-ups as it will not focus to infinity on all current Nikons. It shows the typical lower-contrast rendition from its much simpler coatings of the period. However, when used in reverse I noticed its field flatness was much inferior to my other 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkors. I did this with a large-format camera and while getting frame coverage was no problem, having sharpness to the corners definitively was. I decided to swap to the ordinary 55 instead. The optics of the 1:1 model vs. later lenses must be different.
Later today I plan to shoot a compensating version and an AI at infinity for comparison. Might throw in a 55/2.8 or a 60 Micro too.
-
I really wonder how many incarnations of the 55/3.5 exist? For example, I have never seen these versions without bayonet screws.
They are all listed on my site :)
The early compensating 55 micro with the chrome barrel and finely knurled aperture grip has no screws in the mount. Towards the end of '66 is was replaced with the similar looking version but with black barrel and weakly scalloped aperture ring, 5 screws in the mount.
-
Apparently I thought my compensating 55 Micro was '65, but might have been early '66 instead. It is black nose, chrome barrel, and has 5 screws.
I doubt the first version ever reached our shores, as the brand only got its Norwegian dealership around that time.
-
My compensating 55/3.5 from '63 has no screws.
-
there are even black nosed ones with no screws :o :o :o
mine is an example ::)
let me check, i have several of these its hard to keep track. but i do remember that
-
OK, it my black nosed one did not have screws :o :o :o
just look at page2, my pic there shows it...
i have opened several of these metal nosed ones and the internal differences are hard to keep track, the later ones have more in common with the rubber ring type than the old ones such as the helicoid key athe position of the screws. how you secure the objective is also one and the shape of the cone/hood is also another. even the shapes of the retention rings and the objective's barrel is a little bit different. the same can be said of the Nikkor-S 50 1.4 as i have opened a couple of them. the 2.8cm to 28mm also has many differences internally, the 105mm as well. Nikon is actually pretty loose when it comes to these things...it is also good since we know that they are improving things internally
-
OK, so I am now in a position to verify that the older compensating type indeed has a poorer performance at distance than the subsequent versions, further that the 55/2.8 is even better (at infinity). The old tales hold up to scrutiny. The engineers at the Mothership must have re-tweaked these so-called 'Macro normals' (the inappropriate designation they were given during their first wave of popularity) to function better as a general-purpose lens. The oldest models had been optimised for 1:10 reproduction per Nikon's pamphlets at the time.
Just to even the playing field I mounted these lenses on my Sony A7 and the difference was obvious as the compensating model exhibited a much more pronounced greyish veil due to spherical aberration than the other two lenses. Incidentally, I also experienced how abysmal the EVF of the Sony is when there is sunlight present. I could hardly see anything until I used my jacket as an improvised 'black cloth' and concomitantly engaged the Focus Magnifier.
Have now to spend the day completing my VAT returns, but if there is demand for it will post the evidence later.
-
went to the park for a walk with my daughter and brought my silver nose along with my D7200 and see if the bugs started to come out this season :o :o :o
i am currently really rusty on macro photography. did not bring any flashes so the built-in one was used...
going to shoot next time with proper lighting ::)
-
Here are sections of a remote scene (approx. 1.5 km away) taken with various 55 Micro-Nikkors as specified. The section runs from centre to frame edge. The camera, a Sony A7, was tripod mounted. Focusing by Focus Magnifier.
Sony A7, no processing apart from adding text. The ARW files are run straight through PhotoNinja with no tweaking done. The Sony has a questionable automatic w/b so just ignore that aspect.
It is quite obvious that the compensating version, as "legend" has it, really struggles on distant scenes. There is a decline of sharpness towards the edges, visible traces of spherical aberration, and lower contrast than the other two models can provide. In fact, the greyish veiling due to optical aberrations was distinctly visible already in camera.
It is remarkable that the 55/2.8 AIS already at f/2.8 surpasses the best of the two f/3.5 models.
For close-up photography, the compensating 55/3.5 is the equal or better of them all. It is just optimised according to a different logic by its maker.
-
It is remarkable that the 55/2.8 AIS already at f/2.8 surpasses the best of the two f/3.5 models.
Yes, but for landscape use, stopped down to f/8 the 55/3.5 AI (latest version) is a very sharp lens, in league with the 50mm lenses at that aperture in my experience. My first copy was not good at infinity before f/8, while my last copy is good at f/5.6, and also has better contrast at infinity wide open. Edges suffer at wider apertures at infinity.
-
I just produced tangible evidence for an observation made by me nearly 50 years ago, and that has been questioned ever since. Even though it at the time in fact was backed up by Nikon's own publications.
Most 'normal' lenses stopped down to say f/8 will be more or less similar in performance for the use you describe.
-
So apparently these 55mm Micro-Nikkors are very rare:
https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/131776728239
LOL 😄
I feel bad for the poor sap that gets sucked in by this guys ad.
-
eBay sellers are always on the outlook for gullible buyers. ...
"Very rare" indeed. More than 50,000 made :D
At this bloated yet not astronomical price someone surely will fall into the trap and be ripped off.
-
"Yes, but for landscape use, stopped down to f/8 the 55/3.5 AI (latest version) is a very sharp lens, in league with the 50mm lenses at that aperture in my experience. My first copy was not good at infinity before f/8, while my last copy is good at f/5.6, and also has better contrast at infinity wide open. Edges suffer at wider apertures at infinity."
I just produced tangible evidence for an observation made by me nearly 50 years ago, and that has been questioned ever since. Even though it at the time in fact was backed up by Nikon's own publications.
Most 'normal' lenses stopped down to say f/8 will be more or less similar in performance for the use you describe.
It was just a try to convince myself that I do not need to add the f/2.8 version to my arsenal. ;)
-
On your old site, you describe the both the compensating version and the later PC version of this lens. From your description there, it appears you can see a (obvious?) difference in performance between these lenses when used close up. Can you suggest a way to tell if a lens has the old formula that is optimized for close up work photographically? That is, can you suggest a subject, f-stop setting & shooting distance where the difference between the older lens and the newer lens is visible and what to look for? As I have both the old and new versions, I'm curious to see the difference in images produced.
You can easily spot any difference in closeup performance by imaging a glossy computer screen at 1:1 . I described in a previous subject on this forum the details and showed some pieces of evidence: no significant difference between my sample of compensating Micro-Nikkor and my sample of AI in the close up range. (I cannot find that subject here in the Lens Talk forum anymore. Either I have not seen it, not figured out an effective search -- or it was removed by the NikonGear crew).
I used a fine pitched Mac Retina screen, but there are other glossy screens around with fine pitch, Windows "Surface 3" models for example. Detailed suggestion to judge close up performance: use reduction ratio 1:1 (you could also choose up to 1:4 reduction with less fine screen pixels). See what resolution you can get with appropriate aperture (f/3.5...f/11) across the field of view. In trying to focus, you will also note the effect of longitudinal chromatic aberrations. If there is an obvious difference between you compensation and you AI sample, well then it should be obvious!
I would be interested to see your report.
It is the close up performance that is the focus of interest here, correct?
-
I cannot find that subject here in the Lens Talk forum anymore.
This thread: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,224.msg1511.html#msg1511?
-
This thread: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,224.msg1511.html#msg1511?
thanks a lot !
-
Exactly.
Is the second one to the left really a 'p' version? It looks like the older Micro-Auto NKJ
End of last month, I was pleasantly surprised to find a 55 f3.5 in Cape Town for the equivalent of US$53. Optically perfect, the focusing mechanism superbly smooth, and with expected exterior wear. And it's been AI converted, so working wonderfully on D7200. No phillips screws secure the mounting bracket when viewed face on, just lateral inside the rebates. There's the single screw securing the aperture ring in its side, and 3 secure the focusing ring. All metal construction
With S/N 194305 manufacturinf date is 1963-65. So can anyone tell me if this is an NKJ model please?
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffile%3A%2F%2F%2FF%3A%2FNikon%2F55mm%2520f3.5%25201963%2Fnew-1.JPG&hash=eb0361e71cedd11a10018b8387f729e75e36015a)
(http://)
-
I can't view your picture from where I am, but from the description your lens is early, from 1963-65 as you say.
NKJ is an abbreviation for "Nippon Kogaku Japan", your lens will have this engraving on the name ring inside the filter ring. This engraving is found on Nikon lenses up to about 1970 when NKJ was replaced by "Nikon".
If you really meant to ask if your lens is a compensating model, the answer is yes. You can see this clearly - with the lens focused at infinity and the aperture at f/5.6, look at the aperture blades through the front lens. Now focus the lens all the way out and observe how the aperture blades open, to compensate the the increased extension.
-
I prefer the older versions myself so it is well worth the efforts to get it AI-modified. Also an easy lens to CPU-modify if you remove the aperture compensating lever. The latter not necessary for the CPU as such, but the aperture compensating mechanism thwarts the metering results.
Do I presume I'd just take the aperture compensating lever out and the lens becomes a G-type?
Dave
-
Hugh. The Df ruined the prices. Good for Haves bad for Have-nots...
Yes but some of us like to have a large collection of lenses. Not a petting zoo, just many choices. I've probably stopped collecting manual focus lenses except some special purpose ones.
Dave
-
I can't view your picture from where I am, but from the description your lens is early, from 1963-65 as you say.
NKJ is an abbreviation for "Nippon Kogaku Japan", your lens will have this engraving on the name ring inside the filter ring. This engraving is found on Nikon lenses up to about 1970 when NKJ was replaced by "Nikon".
If you really meant to ask if your lens is a compensating model, the answer is yes. You can see this clearly - with the lens focused at infinity and the aperture at f/5.6, look at the aperture blades through the front lens. Now focus the lens all the way out and observe how the aperture blades open, to compensate the the increased extension.
Sorry, i failed to upload the photo using the menu tool. While I'm probably being dim, it's not clear how to do this on this forum
Yes, the engraving in my 55 f3.5 does indeed identify it as NJK. As you described, I just checked the compensatory action; the contrast in the mechanism stands out beautifully when compared to my 55 f2.8 AIS and 70-180 Micro-Nikkors. Impressive.
Delighted with finding a solid example of this infamous Nikkor at a decent price, and to put a historical gem to work :-) No less an Optical Maestro than Nikon's designer Haruo Sato singled out this 55 f3.5 as standing tall among the early Nikkors that work well with the top FX cameras (not least the D800)
Many Thanks for this clarification
-
Do I presume I'd just take the aperture compensating lever out and the lens becomes a G-type?
Dave
It's a very long fork that runs along the whole lens inside at an angle, you must replace it with a straight slit fork.
Or reuse the fork by cutting it up and switching the two parts.
Better to buy a non compensating type,,,,