Compensating MIcro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 revisited

[Bernard Delley]

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.

[Erik Lund]

I see. Sorry but I don't have the 200 4

[RobOK]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Bernard Delley]

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 .

[Andrew]

My "new" 55/3.5 has #271719, few pix attached.

[John Geerts]

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)

[ArendV]

I happily use mine wide open in close-ups,

both om my Nikon DX camera (here D300)


and my Sony A7

[richardHaw]

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.

[Erik Lund]

Always nice to have more people here with knowledge about the inside of the lenses!

[richardHaw]

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 

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...

[richardHaw]

some members of my micro gang 

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!

[JKoerner007]

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 rates it as the best of the bunch. (According to them, the 3.5 AI is just okay and has stronger color fringing).

I may wind up getting the newer f/2.8 for macro, and (as Bjørn suggested), "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

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. He says,

• "The modern DSLR user most definitely does not want the compensating version as the DSLR’s through-the-lens metering automatically detects the light fall off at close distances, so the duplicate correction resulting from the compensating aperture mechanism will result in over exposure at close distance."

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.

[richardHaw]

they all perform roughly the same
until you pixel-peep

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.