NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on March 14, 2018, 06:11:46
-
I've read a lot of websites concerning this lens, its various iterations, and there are many opinions as to which is the best version. Opinions vary.
The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Auto:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/55f.jpg)
Bjørn Rørslett (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html) and Thomas Pindelski (http://pindelski.org/Photography/2013/10/21/55mm-f3-5-micro-nikkor/) favor this, the 2nd Iteration, namely the Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/3.5 Auto (http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_211242.html) featured as Item #3 in Roland Vink's Page (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#55Micro).
The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 P:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/55microp.jpg)
Michael Erlewine, in his eBook (http://dharmagrooves.com/pdf/e-books/cmp_lenses.pdf) (p. 104), seems to favor the 55mm f/3.5 P (Item #4 in Roland's page), but his description (quoting Bjørn Rørslett) of "hill-and-dale focusing and aperture collars," seems to indicate Michael confused this lens with the one up top ... as a "hill-and-dale focusing collar" = a scalloped focus collar, as displayed in the first (not second) image.
The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AI-S:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/d2c574993d3a5622203aa5c955f3c361.png)
This is the current version, still available today, and according to CoinImaging.com (http://coinimaging.com/nikon_55microais.html) this lens has "some of the highest sharpness and resolution measurements that I have ever come across." It should be noted that Coin Imaging compared the f/2.8 above to the f/3.5 AI (older, rubber-ring) version ... not featured ... in which I have absolutely zero interest.
What I don't see anyone talking about is this lens, below, which seems to be a better overall optic for macro than any mentioned thus far.
The Micro-Nikkor 5.5cm f/3.5 F:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/s.jpg)
This is the original version, Item #2 in Roland Vink's Page (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#55Micro).
Unlike every other version of the 55mm f/3.5 (which only have 1:2 reproduction ratios), this version has a 1:1 reproduction ratio.
Unlike every other Micro-Nikkor 55mm, which have ~300° of focus throw, this version has over 600° of focus throw.
I have never heard anyone compare this gem here to the three up top.
(I have also never clarified whether the mount on this particular lens can be converted to modern DSLRs.)
Full disclosure: I have a representation of every single lens, listed above, coming to me within the next week.
I would be grateful for any insight/guidance from any of the forum members here as their experiences in comparing any/all of the above lenses.
Thanks for reading.
-
Not sure why you think the earliest version is the best. Bjorn claims it does not have flat field which I often find useful. You can put an M ring on the later version to get to 1:1 and many of the lenses are sold with one included. It was designed to complete the range from 1:2 through 1:1.
I have the compensating version and find it to be a fine lens.
-
We did visit this type of lens many times ;)
Here is info on 5.5 cm modified for later cameras and infinity focus along with myth busting:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2840.0.html
Here mixed 55mm and 5.5 cm
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,224.msg1511.html#msg1511
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3308.msg48068.html#msg48068
Enjoy
-
I somehow forgot the link to our far-east lens tinker Rick :) Very nice nerdy info!
https://richardhaw.com/2016/05/14/repair-micro-nikkor-5-5cm-f3-5/ (https://richardhaw.com/2016/05/14/repair-micro-nikkor-5-5cm-f3-5/)
https://richardhaw.com/2016/06/12/repair-micro-nikkor-5-5cm-f3-5-22/ (https://richardhaw.com/2016/06/12/repair-micro-nikkor-5-5cm-f3-5-22/)
-
Michael Erlewine, in his eBook (http://dharmagrooves.com/pdf/e-books/cmp_lenses.pdf) (p. 104), seems to favor the 55mm f/3.5 P (Item #4 in Roland's page), but his description (quoting Bjørn Rørslett) of "hill-and-dale focusing and aperture collars," seems to indicate Michael confused this lens with the one up top ... as a "hill-and-dale focusing collar" = a scalloped focus collar, as displayed in the first (not second) image.
Koerner is correct. I mislabeled that lens. I have about six Micro-Nikkor 55mm and probably got confused. Of all these 55mm Nikkors, the one I use most for close-up photography is labeled by Roland in the "55-60 mm Micro" section of his "Lens Serial Numbers" as "55/3.5 Micro Auto NKJ," which is a compensating lens and my serial number is 239094. It has a scalloped focusing ring AND a scalloped aperture ring. For me, it is easiest to identify by the serial number. I do not have the Micro-Nikkor 5.5cm f/3.5 because I did not want the field curvature. I use some of the 55mm Micro-Nikkors for copy work when I need a wider field than the Micro-Nikkor 60mms can provide.
I still maintain a copy stand, this an old Polaroid model.
The 55mm Nikkors that I have are:
Micro-Nikkor 55mm P Auto f/3.5 (Compensating) #258896 (1968?)
Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Compensating #239094 1968?)
Micro-Nikkor 55mm P-Auto f/3.5 #672490 (1971-1973)
Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 P.C Auto #748676 (1973-Mar. 1975)
Nikon Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 P.C. Auto #748575 (1973-Mar. 1975)
Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 # 9833775 (1977-1979)
Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AIS Manual Focus #211346 (Sep. 1986 - Nov. 1989) 62mm-filter
Different, but more useful to me are the CRT Nikkors:
Nikkor “O” 55mm f/1.2 CRT Oscilloscope 721526
Nikkor "O" 55mm f/1.2 CRT Red-Mark 55mm f/1.1 #820236
-
Not sure why you think the earliest version is the best.
As stated, because it goes 1:1 (no adapter) and has twice the focus throw (600°).
Bjorn claims it does not have flat field which I often find useful. You can put an M ring on the later version to get to 1:1 and many of the lenses are sold with one included. It was designed to complete the range from 1:2 through 1:1.
I have the compensating version and find it to be a fine lens.
Didn't realize about the field curvature. After reading the links Eric posted, my desire for the 5.5cm has soured.
Quality-wise, more people seem to prefer this iteration (http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_211242.html) for close-/mid-focus, and this iteration (http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_600033.html) for infinity focus.
This consensus was underscored here (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3338539) as well (scroll to mid-page).
Edit: The top 2 lenses featured on the opening post are the actual examples I am getting and are the two I will likely keep.
-
Of all these 55mm Nikkors, the one I use most for close-up photography is labeled by Roland in the "55-60 mm Micro" section of his "Lens Serial Numbers" as "55/3.5 Micro Auto NKJ," which is a compensating lens and my serial number is 239094. It has a scalloped focusing ring AND a scalloped aperture ring.
I am getting one of this version as well, Serial Number 226417.
Ironically, it is the cheapest one of the 3 I have en route.
As Pindelski put it, "at current market prices it’s almost offensively inexpensive."
His iteration of the same lens has S/N 223675.
-
I have a very old Nippon Kogaku Micro-Nikkor Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, a "silver nose" from about 1963 (sn 189668).
It's in collectors condition and always in the closet.
The second one I use regularly is a Micro-Nikkor-PC Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm from about 1974 (sn 771570).
It has a factory AI-ring and is chipped by Erik.
First one shot with the second lens, second one with the first lens. :) Both with the Df.
-
I have the 'current' Nikkor micro 55mm f2.8, #281115.
I sold my Nikkor micro AF 60mm f2.8 and bought this. Fed up with the 'zoom focus' of the AF 60. Given I never used the AF feature, it was a welcome improvement from the manual over AF of the AF lens.
I have always been happy with the sharpness but don't think it was challenged for resolution with my D1, nor even my D200.
I found it indispensable with the D200's for flowers, but now with the D3, I seem to keep using the Nikkor micro 105mm f4.0 instead.
-
I only have the 55/2.8, and two versions of the Zeiss 50/2 (i.e. ZF2 and Milvus, the latter bought 2nd hand).
Overall, the Zeiss is a better buy if you can get a second hand one. The additional stop is welcome for focussing, and sharpness wide open is outstanding at all distances. Bokeh is also very good in absolute terms (I did not make comparisons with the 55).
The 55/2.8 is a very good lens, but suffers from contrast loss when shot against the light (very diffuse flare) ; otherwise it is a good allrounder - the Milvus, much more so.
For exclusive macro work, it seems that the 50/3.5 is a sound choice, see above. I nevertheless found the 55/2.8 to work quite satisfactorily for macro on OM-D + Novoflex adapter. In particular, I found no disturbing CA or fringing issues.
-
I have (and had) a number of 55mm lenses. I find the 55mm f/3.5 from 1963 the best. (for Macro work)
-
I currently operate a Micro Nikkor 55/3.5 Ai. Wide open, the edges of the 24x36 frame are slightly blurry at infinity. My copy achieves even across-the-frame sharpness (@ infinity) when stopped to about f/8. Once into the intended design range of about 1:10, it's a super lens. Then it loses a small bit of detail at 1:2 and on to 1:1.
It does seem to have a very low amount of flare and ghosts when pointed at the sun, a rare trait for a 50-60mm lens.
-
Edit: The top 2 lenses featured on the opening post are the actual examples I am getting and are the two I will likely keep.
The consensus is that the compensating version (scalloped focus ring) is better for macro but poor at infinity, while the non-compensating versions (rubber focus ring Nikkor-P, P.C, K, AI) is a better all-rounder, sacrificing some close range performance for better distance performance.
The instruction manuals for all these versions say the lens is optimised for 1:10, which suggests they should all perform the same at macro and at distance. These lenses are all unit-focusing so they can only be optimised for one distance. Also, the early versions are only single coated, multi-coating does not appear until the P.C, K and AI versions so they should give better colors and contrast, which should give a better impression of sharpness.
When you receive the lenses maybe you can run some tests on which is better for macro and infinity, and report your findings here.
Note that the compensating version is designed to work on cameras with an external light meter - as you focus close the aperture opens up to compensate for extension (provided you stopped down a little in the first place). If you use the TTL meter on your camera your pictures will be over-exposed due to this feature. This gets progressively worse as you focus away from infinity, unless you happen to shoot wide open.
I use the AI 55/3.5 lens, it is a very nice and compact macro lens, but I don't particularly like the 6-blade aperture and the speed is rather slow for a "standard" lens. The AIS 55/2.8 micro is probably a better all-round lens. The f/2.8 speed makes it more usable as a general purpose lens, and CRC means it maintains good sharpness from infinity to close range. It has a nicer 7 blade aperture although the background rendition can be a little harsh at times, and as Airy said, it flares when shooting into strong light. Make sure you get one with no oil on the aperture blades.
The Zeiss 50/2 might be another option as mentioned already. The extra stop could be useful if you want to use this as a general purpose lens, but it is substantially bigger and heavier than the Nikon 55 micros, although it is still not big in absolute terms.
I'll also add, the two lenses that you are getting are not AI converted, which camera do you plan to use them on?
-
I'll also add, the two lenses that you are getting are not AI converted, which camera do you plan to use them on?
I've used the one with the compensating aperture. It could mount on the body via K1 ring without Ai modification. For the 1:2 to 1:1 magnification, I used M2 ring with its aperture coupling levers removed. So long as you use the working aperture metering and use the lens only for the closeups, you are good to go without the modification.
-
I have the compensating version with Ai modifications, and the Ai, latest 3.5 version.
Have not yes seen the big differences in picture quality, but maybe that just me not good enough in macro photography.
I bought the compensating version for slide copying, due to it should be better close up. Used on a bellow the compensating feature is not a play.
-
still looking for the 5cm 3/5 RF version. the birth of MICRO-NIKKOR :o :o :o
the Macro Tessar 5cm f/3.5 is more affordable so I may get that soon
-
The instruction manuals for all these versions say the lens is optimised for 1:10, which suggests they should all perform the same at macro and at distance. These lenses are all unit-focusing so they can only be optimised for one distance.
Even if both of them are optimised at 1:10, their behavior outside the optimised magnification can differ, so the first one can work better in the close range than the other, and the other can work better at distances then the first one.
My experience is that the compensating lens is not good at distances, and the later one is not bad at distances. The 55mm/2.8 is very good at longer distances. So which one do I prefer? 55mm/2.8 for all longer distances, this one is one of my prefered landscape lenses. It works very good at all distances without extension tubes. The close range correction makes it less good with extensions if the focus ring is set to anything longer than its shortest distances.
So for all usage with magnification bigger than 1:2, I prefer the unit focusing 55mm/3.5. The compensating lens is better for these magnifications, so which one I use has to do with if the compensating does matter or not (I don't think the compesating works right with extensions). On bellows, I focus with the bellows, so the compesating does not matter, then I use the compensating lens. With extension tubes and TTL-metering the non-compensating lens is prefered.
For close ups in the range 1:20 - 1:2 and with manual flash, I use the compensating lens because of the compensating feature.
-
I have never had my hands on the compensating version, but last year I was able to compare a copy of the 55mm f/2.8 AIS micro to one of my two copies of the 55mm f/3.5 AI micro (latest series). I really was not able to see any difference resolution wise between them at the close limit or infinity, if anything the 55 mm f/3.5 AI had better edges at infinity at f/4. However the 55mm f/2.8 AIS had much poorer contrast at all apertures. (These are straight conversions from my D7100 in CNX2, open in new tab to see the 100% crops without re-scaling, about 1350 pix wide):
100% crop center 55mm f/3.5 AI at f/8:
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2783961427.jpg)
100% crop center , 55mm f/2.8 AIS at f/8:
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2783961426.jpg)
100% crop right edge, 55mm f/3.5 AI at f/4:
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2783992618.jpg)
100% crop crop right edge, 55mm f/2.8 AIS at f/4:
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2783992617.jpg)
I briefly inspected internals of the f/2.8 version and could not see any signs of fogging etc. I had long wanted to acquire a good copy of the f/2.8 version without oily diaphragm to compare them, but this test really cured me. (The test lens belongs to a coworker.)
-
Appreciate all of the feedback. (Also the lens porn :) )
I removed my bid from the 5.5cm elder version.
Also received my 55mm f/3.5 P. Am debating whether to send it to John White for AI conversion or use it with the Adapter.
My 55 f/3.5 Auto is due next week.
I has a brand new 55 f/2.8 that I sent beck to to B&H.
I liked it well enough (as sharp as a Zeiss APO 135), but it felt like a toy that I just spend $300 to play with.
Hard to accept buying one of these little guys new, when I can get one for $60-$150 on eBay.
May wind up just getting the Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar. Heaver, but likely just as sharp, with better micro-contrast.
-
Appreciate all of the feedback. (Also the lens porn :) )
I removed my bid from the 5.5cm elder version.
Also received my 55mm f/3.5 P. Am debating whether to send it to John White for AI conversion or use it with the Adapter.
My 55 f/3.5 Auto is due next week.
I has a brand new 55 f/2.8 that I sent beck to to B&H.
I liked it well enough (as sharp as a Zeiss APO 135), but it felt like a toy that I just spend $300 to play with.
Hard to accept buying one of these little guys new, when I can get one for $60-$150 on eBay.
May wind up just getting the Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar. Heaver, but likely just as sharp, with better micro-contrast.
Any pre-AI Micro-Nikkor can be used on a Nikon D2H, D300s or D800 and probably any recent Nikon dSLR when a Nikon M or M2 tube is used. Both the M and M2 tube are beveled and clear the meter coupling lever on these cameras and the Nikon F5 as well.
I had a Nikon PK-11 tube that I removed the meter coupling mechanism if close-up below 1:2 is desired. Foolishly I gave it to a school.
The 55/2.8 AIS was top rated on a coin group. There is a link somewhere in a thread on this board. Maybe someone knows and can add a link in this thread.
Hope this helps,
Dave Hartman
-
The 55/2.8 AIS was top rated on a coin group. There is a link somewhere in a thread on this board. Maybe someone knows and can add a link in this thread.
I put the link in my opening post :)
The author also didn't test the Zeiss, and he was using a D300.
I place zero stock in 10-year-old reviews ...
Also, I noticed Zeiss lenses rate higher in micro-contrast than others in the same focal length.
High resolution + micro-contrast is what produces the 3D effect ... not just resolution.
-
May wind up just getting the Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar. Heaver, but likely just as sharp, with better micro-contrast.
Nice lens but it also has a lot of chromatic aberration. I sold mine because of that. The 100mm is even worse.
-
Nice lens but it also has a lot of chromatic aberration. I sold mine because of that. The 100mm is even worse.
Thanks.
How do you rate the Micro-Nikkor Auto f/3.5 (http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_211242.html) in CA by comparison?
I guess I will find out next week. I only use the 50-55mm lenses for close to mid-distances.
As posted in the other thread (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2840.msg116682.html#msg116682), I just received a mint copy of the Micro-Nikkor P Auto f/3.5 (http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_600033.html), which is better at mid- to longer distances, supposedly.
It feels a little more robust than the current, AI-S, all-plastic f/2.8 version also.
-
As posted in the other thread (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2840.msg116682.html#msg116682), I just received a mint copy of the Micro-Nikkor P Auto f/3.5 (http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_600033.html), which is better at mid- to longer distances, supposedly.
It feels a little more robust than the current, AI-S, all-plastic f/2.8 version also.
Wow, shiny!
Given different uses, different cameras and different subjects, I think you are doing the right thing by testing for yourself. Most of these lenses are so inexpensive that you can test several and sell of the bad ones with little cost.
One thing Michael does well is collect his results and conclusions and posts them. I find that interesting reading and helpful for someone faced with a similar choice.
Oivind’s post is interesting in the way it shows different contrast between 3.5 and 2.8 lenses. The lower contrast of the 2.8 is likely better for coin photography as they have very high contrast due to reflections, but is less suitable for low contrast landscapes (though if you look closely the structure in the clouds comes across better with the 2.8)
“Better” is nearly always conditional.
-
Wow, shiny!
:D
Given different uses, different cameras and different subjects, I think you are doing the right thing by testing for yourself. Most of these lenses are so inexpensive that you can test several and sell of the bad ones with little cost.
So very true ... and well said.
One thing Michael does well is collect his results and conclusions and posts them. I find that interesting reading and helpful for someone faced with a similar choice.
Very helpful indeed. I have spent a lot of time/money buying lenses because of Michael ;D
We have a similar light-preference in our image-making, though often different subjects.
I have often not bought lenses he likes, not because I don't trust his judgement, but because my needs in many cases differ from his, though I get and appreciate his material and descriptions.
Oivind’s post is interesting in the way it shows different contrast between 3.5 and 2.8 lenses. The lower contrast of the 2.8 is likely better for coin photography as they have very high contrast due to reflections, but is less suitable for low contrast landscapes (though if you look closely the structure in the clouds comes across better with the 2.8)
Another good point.
“Better” is nearly always conditional.
At the end of the day, that is all of it.
Another thing to add is ... some people's 'bad reviews' are based on misuse.
I will see some people post images taken in bad light, hand-held, and they will blame 'the lens' rather than their own misuse ... when that same lens, used with a tripod, and taken in optimal light ... will produce exceptional images.
That is another reason simply to buy/test yourself: no one shoot "like you do" ... except yourself ;)
At the end of the day, the only way to rate any lens is to buy a copy of it ... and test that specific lens as "you" like to shoot with it ... and see if it impresses you (or not).
-
However the 55mm f/2.8 AIS had much poorer contrast at all apertures.
In the examples posted the lens is shooting towards a very bright sky. The 55/2.8 is susceptible to flare when shooting into strong light, which could account for the lower contrast. In most other situations the 55/2.8 micro has excellent contrast.
-
In the examples posted the lens is shooting towards a very bright sky. The 55/2.8 is susceptible to flare when shooting into strong light, which could account for the lower contrast. In most other situations the 55/2.8 micro has excellent contrast.
At the time I also performed a test towards a local building with dark clouds behind, and the lower contrast (and warmer color) of the 55 f/2.8 was also noticeable there.* It is not surprising though that the more complicated construction of the f/2.8 version causes lower contrast. It could be interesting though if others have access to both of these lenses and could check if this is reproducible in other copies. Also the very latest copies of the f/2.8 might have gotten SIC coating which probably was not used on the one I tested.
*Edit: Added 100% crops at f/5.6 :
100% crop 55mm f/3.5 AI at f/5.6
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2784851612.jpg)
100% crop 55mm f/2.8 AIS at f/5.6
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2784851615.jpg)
-
',,,,,,,,,,,
It feels a little more robust than the current, AI-S, all-plastic f/2.8 version also.
Plastic?
Zero plastic in the 55mm 2.8 Ais, you must have mixed something up,,,
-
Plastic?
Zero plastic in the 55mm 2.8 Ais, you must have mixed something up,,,
There must have been a little tiny bit somewhere. :D
Maybe the AF 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor was the one that's plastic at least on the outside? Maybe?
OK, I rebel against the plastic statement if this was referring to the AIS.
Dave Hartman
-
The lens caps, but they are technically not a part of the lens,,, ;)
-
You beat me to it!
I just examined mine, that was all I could find too.
-
the 5.5cm has plastic helicoid keys :o :o :o
https://richardhaw.com/2016/06/12/repair-micro-nikkor-5-5cm-f3-5-22/
-
Nice lens but it also has a lot of chromatic aberration. I sold mine because of that. The 100mm is even worse.
I think it would be useful to distinguish between lateral CA and axial CA. The lateral type, being *usually* easily corrected by common software, has become a more trivial issue in recent years.
Axial CA, of course, is less-easily correctable in software and, yes...the Zeiss 100/2 Makro is famous for having it. Very disappointing considering what Zeiss charges for the 100/2.
I enthusiastically recommend the Zeiss 50/2 as a general purpose, very-close focusing 50mm.
-
At the time I also performed a test towards a local building with dark clouds behind, and the lower contrast (and warmer color) of the 55 f/2.8 was also noticeable there.* It is not surprising though that the more complicated construction of the f/2.8 version causes lower contrast. It could be interesting though if others have access to both of these lenses and could check if this is reproducible in other copies. Also the very latest copies of the f/2.8 might have gotten SIC coating which probably was not used on the one I tested.
The 55/3.5 has 5 elements in 4 groups, the 55/2.8 has 6 elements in 5 groups, so one extra lens. I don't think that is significant, it still has a very low number of air-glass surfaces compared to lenses such as the 70-200 VR. Lower contrast could be due more to the general design than the extra element, some designs tend to send reflections to the sensor more than others. My copy has SIC and it's still susceptible to flare.
On my screens, due to the angle of view, pictures towards the top of the screen appear to have higher contrast than pictures at the bottom. The 55/3.5 images shown here are on top so they seem to have better contrast than the 55/2.8 images below ... I'd need to see them side by side before coming to any conclusions.
-
The 55/3.5 has 5 elements in 4 groups, the 55/2.8 has 6 elements in 5 groups, so one extra lens. I don't think that is significant, it still has a very low number of air-glass surfaces compared to lenses such as the 70-200 VR. Lower contrast could be due more to the general design than the extra element, some designs tend to send reflections to the sensor more than others. My copy has SIC and it's still susceptible to flare.
On my screens, due to the angle of view, pictures towards the top of the screen appear to have higher contrast than pictures at the bottom. The 55/3.5 images shown here are on top so they seem to have better contrast than the 55/2.8 images below ... I'd need to see them side by side before coming to any conclusions.
You are likely right that 5 vs 6 elements is pretty insignificant.
Whatever caused it, the effect was there though - to see it independently of each other, right click and open each of the additional captures I posted in the quoted post in a new tab and flip between them. I was rather surprised by this difference, and still think it would be interesting to see if this can be reproduced in other copies of the two different lenses.
(My two copies of the 55mm f/3.5 AI, both of the same latest vintage, have pretty consistent performance with respect to contrast and resolution, except that edges on the one that was used for this test are slightly better at large apertures at infinity than the other one.)
-
At the time I also performed a test towards a local building with dark clouds behind, and the lower contrast (and warmer color) of the 55 f/2.8 was also noticeable there.*
What I'm seeing is the lower 55/2.8 crop is lighter over all and not that the shadow areas are lighter as I'd expect if there a difference in flare. I'll guess that the 55/2.8 received more exposure than the 55/3.5.
Dave Hartman
-
I have two 55/2.8, and one definitely exposes brighter than other. When setting the aperture ring to f/4, the aperture blades on one only close down half as much as the other, so it's probably more like f/3.5 than f/4. It's like that all the way through the aperture scale. Probably needs adjusting...
-
I have two 55/2.8, and one definitely exposes brighter than other. When setting the aperture ring to f/4, the aperture blades on one only close down half as much as the other, so it's probably more like f/3.5 than f/4. It's like that all the way through the aperture scale. Probably needs adjusting...
Accurate aperture on these lenses seems tricky. I particularly had problems with my older copy of the 55mm f/3.5. To that comes chipped vs. non-chipped lenses, and how the aperture is controlled, on the body or the lens. Although my chipped 55mm f/3.5 is not supposed to have a linear aperture, I have been able to adjust the aperture actuator to an accuracy within 1/3 stop when controlled from the body up to and including f/11. (I wonder if your 55mm f/2.8 could allow a similar adjustment?). Beyond that it goes completely haywire, stopping down two stops by f/16. My coworkers 55mm f/2.8 which did not have a chip, was controlled from the lens of course, setting lens data on the body. As I used aperture priority mode, shutter speed was 1/3 EV shorter on the 55mm f/3.5. When trying to equalize in post (see below), the correction was 0.15 stop different at the f/5.6 exposure, so I would say the two lenses gave apertures very close to each other if not exactly the same.
What I'm seeing is the lower 55/2.8 crop is lighter over all and not that the shadow areas are lighter as I'd expect if there a difference in flare. I'll guess that the 55/2.8 received more exposure than the 55/3.5.
To remove any doubt I created two new crops where I tried both to compensate for differences in color balance and exposure (references on the grey panels of the building). I also made the crops exactly the same. If you are still not convinced, download the files and flip between them. The difference is very clear.
100% crop 55mm f/3.5 AI at f/5.6
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2786886823.jpg)
100% crop 55mm f/2.8 AIS at f/5.6
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2786886822.jpg)
-
Here are two quick shots with no artistic merit, the first taken with an AI 55/3.5 micro, the second with an AIS 55/2.8 micro, both at f/8, no filters used, camera set to aperture priority.
I used stop-down metering to ensure consistent exposures. I partially mounted the lens, so the aperture stop-down lever and the AI coupling tab were dis-engaged - the lens stops down to the aperture setting and the camera meters as-is.. Any possible discrepancy between the setting on the aperture ring (which was f/8) and the actual aperture opening (which might be f/7.2 or f/8.5 or ...), is compensated by the camera meter which adjusts the shutter speed to ensure the exposure is identical between the two. The aim here is to purely assess the lens performance, not the stop-down mechanism :). The color and contrast look pretty much identical to me:
-
Thanks Roland, I agree; not much difference in your images if opened in separate tabs and flipping between them. (It is funny how the brain gets tricked to think that the top image is slightly darker when viewed on the original page). So either there is the difference with the SIC coating on your f/2.8 version or there is an issue with the lens I tried out. I might try to get back to my coworker and see if he still has the lens for closer inspection. It had an issue with a somewhat slow diaphragm as I recall, but worked fine in stop down mode in live view.
A third possibility is differences in the vintage (and coatings) of the 55mm f/3.5 AI versions, which seems less likely. What series does the copy you used belong to?
A forth possibility is that the difference only shows up when focused near infinity (the hypothesis would be that different positions of CRC elements cause different flare characteristics). I had a hard time seeing any difference in contrast and resolution at close range in the copies here, but the comparison was difficult as I was not careful enough and the focus plane ended up at slightly different locations.
-
I have also used Ais 55/2.8 Micro. I haven't compared it with CA 55/3.5, but I haven't noticed any disadvantages in terms of the flare, ghosts or the color rendition of 55/3.5 due to its single coating. CA 55/3.5 was a really excellent lens.
-
Thanks Roland, I agree; not much difference in your images if opened in separate tabs and flipping between them. (It is funny how the brain gets tricked to think that the top image is slightly darker when viewed on the original page). So either there is the difference with the SIC coating on your f/2.8 version or there is an issue with the lens I tried out. I might try to get back to my coworker and see if he still has the lens for closer inspection. It had an issue with a somewhat slow diaphragm as I recall, but worked fine in stop down mode in live view.
A third possibility is differences in the vintage (and coatings) of the 55mm f/3.5 AI versions, which seems less likely. What series does the copy you used belong to?
A forth possibility is that the difference only shows up when focused near infinity (the hypothesis would be that different positions of CRC elements cause different flare characteristics). I had a hard time seeing any difference in contrast and resolution at close range in the copies here, but the comparison was difficult as I was not careful enough and the focus plane ended up at slightly different locations.
Your brain is not being "tricked". When viewing a screen I am sure you will have noticed changes in brightness when viewing from the side at extreme angles. Screens seem to be designed to permit wide viewing angles from side to side, but not so much up and down. You will see how the brightness changes you tilt your screen up and down...
The 55/2.8 micro that I tested was the one with NIC coating. SIC is an improved multi-layer coating but NIC was already very good, I am not sure how much difference it really makes (maybe something else to test one day).
If the lens you tried had a slow diaphragm, it probably had oil on the aperture blades (a common problem with the AIS 55 micro). This will cause exposure errors, especially at fast shutter speeds and small apertures. It's possible some oil also evaporated and deposited on the lens, which could explain the lower contract. Did the lens have a filter attached?
The AI 55/3.5 I used was relatively late, serial number 101xxxxx, but I don't think coatings changed much from at least 1977 when AI lenses were introduced, all the way through the AI-S and AF series up to about year 2000 when SIC was introduced. So I don't think the AI version somehow had better or more effective coatings than the AI-S.
I could repeat the tests at infinity or other distances, but I strongly suspect my results will be similar.
-
Your brain is not being "tricked". When viewing a screen I am sure you will have noticed changes in brightness when viewing from the side at extreme angles. Screens seem to be designed to permit wide viewing angles from side to side, but not so much up and down. You will see how the brightness changes you tilt your screen up and down...
The 55/2.8 micro that I tested was the one with NIC coating. SIC is an improved multi-layer coating but NIC was already very good, I am not sure how much difference it really makes (maybe something else to test one day).
If the lens you tried had a slow diaphragm, it probably had oil on the aperture blades (a common problem with the AIS 55 micro). This will cause exposure errors, especially at fast shutter speeds and small apertures. It's possible some oil also evaporated and deposited on the lens, which could explain the lower contract. Did the lens have a filter attached?
The AI 55/3.5 I used was relatively late, serial number 101xxxxx, but I don't think coatings changed much from at least 1977 when AI lenses were introduced, all the way through the AI-S and AF series up to about year 2000 when SIC was introduced. So I don't think the AI version somehow had better or more effective coatings than the AI-S.
I could repeat the tests at infinity or other distances, but I strongly suspect my results will be similar.
Thanks again, Roland. Your 55mm f/3.5 is also of the latest series, so agree that it is likely similar to my copies. It would be interesting with an infinity test too. I agree that oily residues could have been an undetected issue on the f/2.8 version I tested. No filter was attached, of course. My coworker still has his lens; he had it serviced in the mean time and will bring it in to work later in the week so that I can get to examine it again.
BTW, I think the effect of different apparent brightness is at least partly due to a physiological phenomenon called lateral inhibition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_inhibition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_inhibition), check visual inhibition down on the page for informaton. (I have an IPS screen with very wide viewing angles). Technically it occurs already in the neural network at the retinal levels but there could also be interpretation at higher levels contributing in this case. It is a little like a sharpening effect or rather a clarity slider. It usually occurs along contrasting edges, but I think that when the the bright upper part of the lower image is compared to the close by darker lower part of the upper image it might appear brighter.
-
The 55/2.8 micro that I tested was the one with NIC coating. SIC is an improved multi-layer coating but NIC was already very good, I am not sure how much difference it really makes (maybe something else to test one day).
One may find that lenses that Super Integrated Coating produce paler or more pastel ghost compared to the older Nikon Integrated Coating. The only lens where I have two copies, one with SIC and one with NIC are a pair of 28/2.0 AIS Nikkors. I'm not sure if one can produce ghost patterns with those lenses.
Dave Hartman
-
Well, I just received the 55mm Auto ... and there was oil in the lens barrel when extended (it almost dripped out).
It was clearly a junker that someone bought cheap, re-furbished, and tried to pass for a 'mint' version. (Should have known by the smaller pictures than usual.)
One interesting thing came out ... it felt a little lighter, and less sturdy, than the 55m-P-Auto ... which came out later.
Anyway, I may wind up keeping the P-Auto because it is such a clean copy and they're cheap enough.
I typically don't keep anything I won't bring with me 70% of the time though, as I am not a collector.
This will be a good, lightweight choice to bring with me to work as an investigator, as many times I have to photograph wounds, or material damage, and don't need to bring the CV 125, and don't need bokeh, but would like very sharp resolution.
-
Thanks again, Roland. Your 55mm f/3.5 is also of the latest series, so agree that it is likely similar to my copies. It would be interesting with an infinity test too. I agree that oily residues could have been an undetected issue on the f/2.8 version I tested. No filter was attached, of course. My coworker still has his lens; he had it serviced in the mean time and will bring it in to work later in the week so that I can get to examine it again.
I had the 55mm f/2.8 for inspection again today, and opposed to the saying above I am not sure it had been serviced; the helicoids were still very stiff, and the aperture started acting up towards the end outside at about 0°C. However no oil was visible on either side of a fully closed diaphragm. Serial no is in the first series, 433xxx.
This time it was hard to see much difference in contrast; if any it is very subtle. It is possible that the conditions contributed, but it is also possible that the lens was cleaner one way or the other than last time. What was consistent with last test was that the 55mm f/2.8 was leaning towards being warm/green vs. colder/blue-magenta for the 55mm f/3.5. Due to trouble with consistent focus (too bright to use live view for accurate focus) it was hard to detect any difference in resolution near infinity.
100% crop 55mm f/3.5 AI at f/8
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2794673192.jpg)
100% crop 55mm f/2.8 AI at f/8
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2794673193.jpg)
The lens looked reasonably clear, although with a little blue shimmer internally that I could not quite figure out.
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2794673173.jpg)
-
Hi all.
I have the MF 55 f/3.5 micro factory Ai'd. Or so it was sold to me as. Since we seem to have a panel of experts here perhaps someone could tell me the likely mfg date. I am guessing 1967. It was shipped to me in the most interesting plastic enclosure (they should do all their lenses this way). It didn't occur to me to use it for landscape photography since I have so many other lenses for that but I shot a few quick test shots today and it was not bad. Here are some pictures in case anyone can help me to identify the lens for certain. All but the box were shot with the 105 AFD Micro on my D810 at f/32. This is a compensating lens.
JIM
-
Just in case Roland Vink hasn't yet noticed this, here's a link everyone should have handy:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
According to that it's probably 1968
-
Hi Mathew.
Thanks, that seems to be the one.
JIM
-
I have the MF 55 f/3.5 micro factory Ai'd. Or so it was sold to me as.
I do believe yours was factory AI'd.
The original aperture ring was scalloped (as your focus ring is scalloped), the look of which I prefer quite frankly.
Your aperture ring is now the 'checkered' look of AI/S lenses, which is not the original (preferred, imo) appearance.