Advice Needed on a UMN 55mm Lens

[Macro_Cosmos]

Hi!

I have the opportunity to purchase an Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2 lens.

The lens is optically clean, free from the detrimental weird problems. The filter thread is bent which I can easily repair with a thread spanner. Can't test for decentering before receiving it. No box or documents are included.

It is an E-line lens suitable for visible light, I'm looking to have one for general close-ups. It has a 1:4 reproduction ratio and 4:1 when reversed. I'm going to be using it on a D810.


I do have several questions:
1. Does it offer any definitive advantage over modern optics, such as the 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar by Zeiss? The 50mm MP goes to 1:2, has the same aperture of f/2, allows electronic coupling, and has a focusing ring. The 45mm f/2.8 PC-E lens is also a good candidate.

2. What about its performance outside of 1:4? I used to own the 65 and 100 macro-nikkors, the performance of those outside of their range is pretty poor. It's poor even within the range by my standards, being easily outperformed by line scanner lenses and apochromatic enlarger lenses.

3. Does 1:4 cover FX? My 28/1.8 UMN only covers FX when mounted in reverse, which gives a 10:1. The objective lens I have easily outperformed it, so I sold it.

Although it is cheaper than those $2000 prices on fleabay, it's still not $200 kind of cheap. Maybe I could get it, repair it, have a play, and then sell it for a higher price? I did that with the umn 28mm I used to own.

Any suggestions is appreciated, thanks!

[Birna Rørslett]

In my view, these UMN lenses are industrial designs and thus have mostly a historical importance. Sometimes it is fun to play with them on modern cameras, cannot deny that though.

Specifically the 55/2 UMN will *not* cover FX. It does OK on the DX format.

[Macro_Cosmos]

In my view, these UMN lenses are industrial designs and thus have mostly a historical importance. Sometimes it is fun to play with them on modern cameras, cannot deny that though.

Specifically the 55/2 UMN will *not* cover FX. It does OK on the DX format.

Yeah, I would agree with that. It's more about the collector's aspect, which frankly I personally don't really worry too much about. The lens doesn't come with its neat dedicated little box and certificate, which greatly reduces the value to be honest.

[bobfriedman]

image areas are listed in this page.. http://www.nicovandijk.net/ultranikkors.htm

[Birna Rørslett]

The values appear a little conservative? Thus I have successfully used the 55/2 UMN on DX cameras. The image circle is just sufficient but nothing more.

[Akira]

The values appear a little conservative? Thus I have successfully used the 55/2 UMN on DX cameras. The image circle is just sufficient but nothing more.

The image circle may refer to the area where the indicated resolution is guaranteed.

[Birna Rørslett]

That seems a likely explanation.

A few examples with the UMN 55/2. No vignetting on a DX format.

[richardHaw]

looks like an overly-corrected lens

certainly made for industrial use in mind.

my experience with them is that they are usually sealed, with epoxy even! Nikon doesn't want people to mess with these I think.

[Macro_Cosmos]

looks like an overly-corrected lens

certainly made for industrial use in mind.

my experience with them is that they are usually sealed, with epoxy even! Nikon doesn't want people to mess with these I think.

Yeah, they certainly didn't wanted people messing with it. There's actually a Chinese one with the same focal length and reproduction correction ratio, it is insanely sharp, and believed to be a clone.