Richard, somewhere above you mentioned that you were testing these lenses. You certainly have an excellent collection to figure out if the optimization has noticeably changed over the lens versions, especially from the compensation to the AI lens type.
I still hold that a clear (glossy) computer screen (showing "white") provides a suitable, and precisely reproducible target for extreme closeup testing. It should show clearly if the optimization has changed for close-ups. If the later versions had been tweaked to be optimal for greater reductions than the initial optimization for reducing Kanji characters for micro film purposes, it should show up in the extreme closeup range. I an earlier thread I gave an account of such testing, which showed no evidence of optical difference between my sample of compensating versus my sample of AIs.
The most prominent deficiency of the 55mm f/3.5 optics in the 1:2 to 1:1 range is the lateral chromatic aberration. Of course this is far away from its optimal working setup. Also most of the lateral chromatic is easily corrected in the digital age.
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations are easily 'seen' when adjusting focus manually. One can strive to optimally focus on the green screen patches to arrive at a consistent comparison of lens characteristics.
Bernard, that is a handy way to test lenses
i will probably do that lens this weekend or the next weekend.
sometimes, the differences are in the sample variation. i have 4 compensating models and some are a bit sharper (despite being found in a junk box with dirt covering the lens). i will find the sharpest compensating model and use that to test against the P/C version (when the optics was changed).
And finally, the sharpest 3.5 will go against the 55mm f/2.8
the 55mm AF will be excluded since it is a misfit
the 5.5cm is just "not there". my sample is not very good since it was found in a junk box and the rear element has a 2mm scratch. but Matthew Lin (from Nikkor Lenses) tested his and it was a stellar performer.
