The 55mm Micro-Nikkor family

[Øivind Tøien]

Oeivind,

pardon me, which exactly version of the af 60mm micro nikkor are you talking about, there some of them out there?

This is the screw drive AF 60mm /f.2.8 so not the AFS 60mm. My version is the non-D, but the D-version of the same lens was similar.

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/afn6028.jpg

[Birna Rørslett]

Birna,

thank you so much for the input :-)

This "optimised for 1:10" info I see all the time, but do you happen to know the original source for that? :-)

I beg your pardon, but I recall Bjoern Roerslett saying on his magnificient website (which I cannot find anymore, BTW) that some iterations of this lens were better suited for 1:1 copy work than others.

But did someone actually tested different gen. lenses against each other, 1:1 macro and corner resolution?

Source for the '1:10' statement was all over Nikon literature at the time.

.... his magnificient website (which I cannot find anymore, BTW)

It's at http://naturfotograf.com like it always has been

Some browser balk at going there because it is not https, but the site is safety itsef so just ignore any warning. I keep it only as a legacy site and won't bother adding https
 

[Birna Rørslett]

This is the screw drive AF 60mm /f.2.8 so not the AFS 60mm. My version is the non-D, but the D-version of the same lens was similar.

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/afn6028.jpg

I  have used the AF 60 for loads of close-ups in my lab. The quality for 1:1 is good, however lack of ED glass makes it somewhat prone to exhibit chromatic aberrations.

Another option not mentioned so far is using a scanning lens from say a 400ED scanner. These tend to be offered at moderate prices and can be very high quality. Drawbacks are mainly they need to mounted in a suitable clamp, and have no aperture. My clamp was ordered from RAFCamera.

[pluton]

There is a <Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 1:4 F=75mm M1:1>.  It has a 39mm thread and needs to be used on bellows or maybe a helicoid.  Intended for 1:1 RR.  I have it mounted on a PB-4 bellows with a simple M39 to Nikon F adapter.  It works well but if it is intended for absolutely flat field as I suspect, the lack of film flatness of mounted slides and some negatives mean it may be overkill, and a convenient 55mm or 60mm Micro-Nikkor might give just as good an end result. 

[triglav]

Some browser balk at going there because it is not https, but the site is safety itsef so just ignore any warning. I keep it only as a legacy site and won't bother adding https

Right are you, that was my prob :-)

[triglav]

There is a <Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 1:4 F=75mm M1:1>.  It has a 39mm thread and needs to be used on bellows or maybe a helicoid.  Intended for 1:1 RR.  I have it mounted on a PB-4 bellows with a simple M39 to Nikon F adapter.  It works well but if it is intended for absolutely flat field as I suspect, the lack of film flatness of mounted slides and some negatives mean it may be overkill, and a convenient 55mm or 60mm Micro-Nikkor might give just as good an end result.

75mm means thinner DOF than with a 50/55mm macro, so in the real world it would probably flatten out any possible advantages above the latter. What would be interesting to me, is the quality in the corners, when "scanned" with a Rodagon-D.

I have an old Epson Photo flatbed scanner and compared to much praised Schneider Componon-S, the Epson is better in the corners. Would such a Rodagon be better, hard to find out.

[Birna Rørslett]

"DOF" is for all practical purposes more dependent on image magnification than focal length.

[triglav]

"DOF" is for all practical purposes more dependent on image magnification than focal length.

well, if we are comparing 50mm to 75mm you are probably right. but in absolute terms, allow me to disagree :-)

[Birna Rørslett]

At 1:1, they will yield virtually identical "DOF". Substitue a 20mm for the 50mm, and you still get the same result.

The main differences are the perspective and the manner in which the *unsharp* background is rendered.

[triglav]

Birna,

thank you for that explanation :-)

[Bruno Schroder]

Another option not mentioned so far is using a scanning lens from say a 400ED scanner.

Is it better this way than with the scanner?

[Birna Rørslett]

Is it better this way than with the scanner?

Probably not. However, many are not aware of the optical gems of the film scanners. Minolta 5400, Nikon 4000ED, I'm sure there are more options.

[Birna Rørslett]

To return to the 'DOF' vs. focal length question. The practical demonstration requires using lenses which are "unit focusing" otherwise their focal length changes when focusing closer. I used the old Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 Ais and  the Artralab Nonikkor 35mm f/1.4. Both at f/4, and set as close to 1:1 life-size as I managed with combination of extension tube(s) and the lens helicoid itself. These lenses also have approx. unit pupil magnification.

I captured the subject, a metric ruler, at an incidence angle of 45 degrees. That makes the final DOF calculation easy.

Here are the demonstration that at 1:1 with my Z5, f/4 nominal, both 35 and 105mm give the same DOF (2.8mm in my estimate). However, the perspective is different, since the distance lens-subject varies approx. 3 times. Also pay attention to the fact that the Nikkor 105 is designed for close-ups, whilst the 35 Nonikkor definitively is not. Thus in the latter case, spherial aberration influences the outcome. Not in a bad way, though.

[pluton]

Excellent demonstration.

[MEPER]

One more to the family?
https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0095/