Nippon Kogaku No 225392 Micro-Nikkor Auto 1:3.5 55mm

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have only used the 5.5 cm model for close-ups as it will not focus to infinity on all current Nikons. It shows the typical lower-contrast rendition from its much simpler coatings of the period. However, when used in reverse I noticed its field flatness was much inferior to my other 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkors. I did this with a large-format camera and while getting frame coverage was no problem, having sharpness to the corners definitively was. I decided to swap to the ordinary 55 instead. The optics of the 1:1 model vs. later lenses must be different.

Later today I plan to shoot a compensating version and an AI at infinity for comparison. Might throw in a 55/2.8 or a 60 Micro too.

[Roland Vink]

I really wonder how many incarnations of the 55/3.5 exist? For example, I have never seen these versions without bayonet screws.

They are all listed on my site
The early compensating 55 micro with the chrome barrel and finely knurled aperture grip has no screws in the mount. Towards the end of '66 is was replaced with the similar looking version but with black barrel and weakly scalloped aperture ring, 5 screws in the mount.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Apparently I thought my compensating 55 Micro was '65, but might have been early '66 instead. It is black nose, chrome barrel, and has 5 screws.

I doubt the first version ever reached our shores, as the brand only got its Norwegian dealership around that time.

[John Geerts]

My compensating 55/3.5  from '63 has no screws.

[richardHaw]

there are even black nosed ones with no screws

mine is an example
let me check, i have several of these its hard to keep track.  but i do remember that

[richardHaw]

OK, it my black nosed one did not have screws

just look at page2, my pic there shows it...

i have opened several of these metal nosed ones and the internal differences are hard to keep track, the later ones have more in common with the rubber ring type than the old ones such as the helicoid key athe position of the screws. how you secure the objective is also one and the shape of the cone/hood is also another. even the shapes of the retention rings and the objective's barrel is a little bit different. the same can be said of the Nikkor-S 50 1.4 as i have opened a couple of them. the 2.8cm to 28mm also has many differences internally, the 105mm as well. Nikon is actually pretty loose when it comes to these things...it is also good since we know that they are improving things internally

[Bjørn Rørslett]

OK, so I am now in a position to verify that the older compensating type indeed has a poorer performance at distance than the subsequent versions, further that the 55/2.8 is even better (at infinity). The old tales hold up to scrutiny. The engineers at the Mothership must have re-tweaked these so-called 'Macro normals' (the inappropriate designation they were given during their first wave of popularity) to function better as a general-purpose lens. The oldest models had been optimised for 1:10 reproduction per Nikon's pamphlets at the time.

Just to even the playing field I mounted these lenses on my Sony A7 and the difference was obvious as the compensating model exhibited a much more pronounced greyish veil due to spherical aberration than the other two lenses. Incidentally, I also experienced how abysmal the EVF of the Sony is when there is sunlight present. I could hardly see anything until I used my jacket as an improvised 'black cloth' and concomitantly engaged the Focus Magnifier.

Have now to spend the day completing my VAT returns, but if there is demand for it will post the evidence later.

[richardHaw]

went to the park for a walk with my daughter and brought my silver nose along with my D7200 and see if the bugs started to come out this season

i am currently really rusty on macro photography. did not bring any flashes so the built-in one was used...

going to shoot next time with proper lighting

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Here are sections of a remote scene (approx. 1.5 km away) taken with various 55 Micro-Nikkors as specified. The section runs from centre to frame edge. The camera, a Sony A7, was tripod mounted. Focusing by Focus Magnifier.

Sony A7, no processing apart from adding text. The ARW files are run straight through PhotoNinja with no tweaking done. The Sony has a questionable automatic w/b so just ignore that aspect.

It is quite obvious that the compensating version, as "legend" has it, really struggles on distant scenes. There is a decline of sharpness towards the edges, visible traces of spherical aberration, and lower contrast than the other two models can provide. In fact, the greyish veiling due to optical aberrations was distinctly visible already in camera.

It is remarkable that the 55/2.8 AIS already at f/2.8 surpasses the best of the two f/3.5 models.

For close-up photography, the compensating 55/3.5 is the equal or better of them all. It is just optimised according to a different logic by its maker.

[Øivind Tøien]

It is remarkable that the 55/2.8 AIS already at f/2.8 surpasses the best of the two f/3.5 models.

Yes, but for landscape use, stopped down to f/8 the 55/3.5 AI (latest version) is a very sharp lens, in league with the 50mm lenses at that aperture in my experience. My first copy was not good at infinity before f/8, while my last copy is good at f/5.6, and also has better contrast at infinity wide open. Edges suffer at wider apertures at infinity.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I just produced tangible evidence for an observation made by me nearly 50 years ago, and that has been questioned ever since. Even though it at the time in fact was backed up by Nikon's own publications.

Most 'normal' lenses stopped down to say f/8 will be more or less similar in performance for the use you describe.

[dslater]

So apparently these 55mm Micro-Nikkors are very rare:

https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/131776728239

LOL 😄
I feel bad for the poor sap that gets sucked in by this guys ad.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

eBay sellers are always on the outlook for gullible buyers. ...

"Very rare" indeed. More than 50,000 made

At this bloated yet not astronomical price someone surely will fall into the trap and be ripped off.

[Øivind Tøien]

"Yes, but for landscape use, stopped down to f/8 the 55/3.5 AI (latest version) is a very sharp lens, in league with the 50mm lenses at that aperture in my experience. My first copy was not good at infinity before f/8, while my last copy is good at f/5.6, and also has better contrast at infinity wide open. Edges suffer at wider apertures at infinity."

I just produced tangible evidence for an observation made by me nearly 50 years ago, and that has been questioned ever since. Even though it at the time in fact was backed up by Nikon's own publications.

Most 'normal' lenses stopped down to say f/8 will be more or less similar in performance for the use you describe.

It was just a try to convince myself that I do not need to add the f/2.8  version to my arsenal.   

[Bernard Delley]

On your old site, you describe the both the compensating version and the later PC version of this lens. From your description there, it appears you can see a (obvious?) difference in performance between these lenses when used close up. Can you suggest a way to tell if a lens has the old formula that is optimized for close up work photographically? That is, can you suggest a subject, f-stop setting & shooting distance where the difference between the older lens and the newer lens is visible and what to look for? As I have both the old and new versions, I'm curious to see the difference in images produced.

You can easily spot any difference in closeup performance by imaging a glossy computer screen at 1:1 . I described in a previous subject on this forum the details and showed some pieces of evidence: no significant difference between my sample of compensating Micro-Nikkor and my sample of AI  in the close up range. (I cannot find that subject here in the Lens Talk forum anymore. Either I have not seen it, not figured out an effective search -- or it was removed by the NikonGear crew).
I used a fine pitched Mac Retina screen, but there are other glossy screens around with fine pitch, Windows "Surface 3" models for example. Detailed suggestion to judge close up performance: use reduction ratio 1:1 (you could also choose up to 1:4 reduction with less fine screen pixels). See what resolution you can get with appropriate aperture (f/3.5...f/11) across the field of view. In trying to focus, you will also note the effect of longitudinal chromatic aberrations. If there is an obvious difference between you compensation and you AI sample, well then it should be obvious!

I would be interested to see your report.

It is the close up performance that is the focus of interest here, correct?