Author Topic: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion  (Read 16723 times)

richardHaw

  • Cute Panda from the East...
  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3182
  • Your lens loverboy
    • Classic Nikkor Maintenance and DIY
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2018, 05:48:46 »
still looking for the 5cm 3/5 RF version. the birth of MICRO-NIKKOR  :o :o :o

the Macro Tessar 5cm f/3.5 is more affordable so I may get that soon

Asle F

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 324
  • Hovet, Norway
    • Fjell og foto, my mountain and photo blog in Norwegian
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2018, 16:45:52 »
The instruction manuals for all these versions say the lens is optimised for 1:10, which suggests they should all perform the same at macro and at distance. These lenses are all unit-focusing so they can only be optimised for one distance.

Even if both of them are optimised at 1:10, their behavior outside the optimised magnification can differ, so the first one can work better in the close range than the other, and the other can work better at distances then the first one.

My experience is that the compensating lens is not good at distances, and the later one is not bad at distances. The 55mm/2.8 is very good at longer distances. So which one do I prefer? 55mm/2.8 for all longer distances, this one is one of my prefered landscape lenses. It works very good at all distances without extension tubes. The close range correction makes it less good with extensions if the focus ring is set to anything longer than its shortest distances.
So for all usage with magnification bigger than 1:2, I prefer the unit focusing 55mm/3.5. The compensating lens is better for these magnifications, so which one I use has to do with if the compensating does matter or not (I don't think the compesating works right with extensions). On bellows, I focus with the bellows, so the compesating does not matter, then I use the compensating lens. With extension tubes and TTL-metering the non-compensating lens is prefered.
For close ups in the range 1:20 - 1:2 and with manual flash, I use the compensating lens because of the compensating feature.
There is no illusion, it just looks that way.

Øivind Tøien

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1891
  • Fairbanks, Alaska
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2018, 03:01:17 »
I have never had my hands on the compensating version, but last year I was able to compare a copy of the 55mm f/2.8 AIS micro to one of my two copies of the 55mm f/3.5 AI micro (latest series). I really was not able to see any difference resolution wise between them at the close limit or infinity, if anything the 55 mm f/3.5 AI had better edges at infinity at f/4. However the 55mm f/2.8 AIS had much poorer contrast at all apertures. (These are straight conversions from my D7100 in CNX2, open in new tab to see the 100% crops without re-scaling, about 1350 pix wide):

100% crop center  55mm f/3.5 AI at f/8:




100% crop center , 55mm f/2.8 AIS at f/8:




100% crop right edge, 55mm f/3.5 AI at f/4:




100% crop crop right edge, 55mm f/2.8 AIS at f/4:




I briefly inspected internals of the f/2.8 version and could not see any signs of fogging etc. I had long wanted to acquire a good copy of the f/2.8 version without oily diaphragm to compare them, but this test really cured me. (The test lens belongs to a coworker.)
Øivind Tøien

JKoerner007

  • Guest
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2018, 04:24:27 »
Appreciate all of the feedback. (Also the lens porn :) )

I removed my bid from the 5.5cm elder version.

Also received my 55mm f/3.5 P. Am debating whether to send it to John White for AI conversion or use it with the Adapter.

My 55 f/3.5 Auto is due next week.

I has a brand new 55 f/2.8 that I sent beck to to B&H.
I liked it well enough (as sharp as a Zeiss APO 135), but it felt like a toy that I just spend $300 to play with.
Hard to accept buying one of these little guys new, when I can get one for $60-$150 on eBay.

May wind up just getting the Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar. Heaver, but likely just as sharp, with better micro-contrast.

David H. Hartman

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2787
  • I Doctor Photographs... :)
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2018, 06:20:45 »
Appreciate all of the feedback. (Also the lens porn :) )

I removed my bid from the 5.5cm elder version.

Also received my 55mm f/3.5 P. Am debating whether to send it to John White for AI conversion or use it with the Adapter.

My 55 f/3.5 Auto is due next week.

I has a brand new 55 f/2.8 that I sent beck to to B&H.
I liked it well enough (as sharp as a Zeiss APO 135), but it felt like a toy that I just spend $300 to play with.
Hard to accept buying one of these little guys new, when I can get one for $60-$150 on eBay.

May wind up just getting the Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar. Heaver, but likely just as sharp, with better micro-contrast.

Any pre-AI Micro-Nikkor can be used on a Nikon D2H, D300s or D800 and probably any recent Nikon dSLR when a Nikon M or M2 tube is used. Both the M and M2 tube are beveled and clear the meter coupling lever on these cameras and the Nikon F5 as well.

I had a Nikon PK-11 tube that I removed the meter coupling mechanism if close-up below 1:2 is desired. Foolishly I gave it to a school.

The 55/2.8 AIS was top rated on a coin group. There is a link somewhere in a thread on this board. Maybe someone knows and can add a link in this thread.

Hope this helps,

Dave Hartman
Beatniks are out to make it rich
Oh no, must be the season of the witch!

JKoerner007

  • Guest
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2018, 06:35:40 »
The 55/2.8 AIS was top rated on a coin group. There is a link somewhere in a thread on this board. Maybe someone knows and can add a link in this thread.

I put the link in my opening post :)

The author also didn't test the Zeiss, and he was using a D300.

I place zero stock in 10-year-old reviews ...

Also, I noticed Zeiss lenses rate higher in micro-contrast than others in the same focal length.

High resolution + micro-contrast is what produces the 3D effect ... not just resolution.

Michael Erlewine

  • Close-Up Photographer
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2067
  • Close-Up with APO
    • Spirit Grooves
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2018, 08:07:16 »
May wind up just getting the Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar. Heaver, but likely just as sharp, with better micro-contrast.

Nice lens but it also has a lot of chromatic aberration. I sold mine because of that. The 100mm is even worse.
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com, Daily Blog at https://www.facebook.com/MichaelErlewine. main site: SpiritGrooves.net, https://www.youtube.com/user/merlewine, Founder: MacroStop.com, All-Music Guide, All-Movie Guide, Classic Posters.com, Matrix Software, DharmaGrooves.com

JKoerner007

  • Guest
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2018, 14:40:10 »
Nice lens but it also has a lot of chromatic aberration. I sold mine because of that. The 100mm is even worse.

Thanks.

How do you rate the Micro-Nikkor Auto f/3.5 in CA by comparison?

I guess I will find out next week. I only use the 50-55mm lenses for close to mid-distances.

As posted in the other thread, I just received a mint copy of the Micro-Nikkor P Auto f/3.5, which is better at mid- to longer distances, supposedly.

It feels a little more robust than the current, AI-S, all-plastic f/2.8 version also.

Jack Dahlgren

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2018, 15:10:53 »
As posted in the other thread, I just received a mint copy of the Micro-Nikkor P Auto f/3.5, which is better at mid- to longer distances, supposedly.

It feels a little more robust than the current, AI-S, all-plastic f/2.8 version also.

Wow, shiny!

Given different uses, different cameras and different subjects, I think you are doing the right thing by testing for yourself. Most of these lenses are so inexpensive that you can test several and sell of the bad ones with little cost.

One thing Michael does well is collect his results and conclusions and posts them. I find that interesting reading and helpful for someone faced with a similar choice.

Oivind’s post is interesting in the way it shows different contrast between 3.5 and 2.8 lenses. The lower contrast of the 2.8 is likely better for coin photography as they have very high contrast due to reflections, but is less suitable for low contrast landscapes (though if you look closely the structure in the clouds comes across better with the 2.8)

“Better” is nearly always conditional.


JKoerner007

  • Guest
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2018, 15:28:42 »
Wow, shiny!

 :D


Given different uses, different cameras and different subjects, I think you are doing the right thing by testing for yourself. Most of these lenses are so inexpensive that you can test several and sell of the bad ones with little cost.

So very true ... and well said.


One thing Michael does well is collect his results and conclusions and posts them. I find that interesting reading and helpful for someone faced with a similar choice.

Very helpful indeed. I have spent a lot of time/money buying lenses because of Michael ;D

We have a similar light-preference in our image-making, though often different subjects.

I have often not bought lenses he likes, not because I don't trust his judgement, but because my needs in many cases differ from his, though I get and appreciate his material and descriptions.


Oivind’s post is interesting in the way it shows different contrast between 3.5 and 2.8 lenses. The lower contrast of the 2.8 is likely better for coin photography as they have very high contrast due to reflections, but is less suitable for low contrast landscapes (though if you look closely the structure in the clouds comes across better with the 2.8)

Another good point.


“Better” is nearly always conditional.

At the end of the day, that is all of it.

Another thing to add is ... some people's 'bad reviews' are based on misuse.

I will see some people post images taken in bad light, hand-held, and they will blame 'the lens' rather than their own misuse ... when that same lens, used with a tripod, and taken in optimal light ... will produce exceptional images.

That is another reason simply to buy/test yourself: no one shoot "like you do" ... except yourself ;)

At the end of the day, the only way to rate any lens is to buy a copy of it ... and test that specific lens as "you" like to shoot with it ... and see if it impresses you (or not).

Roland Vink

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1535
  • Nikon Nerd from New Zealand
    • Nikon Database
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2018, 20:43:07 »
However the 55mm f/2.8 AIS had much poorer contrast at all apertures.
In the examples posted the lens is shooting towards a very bright sky. The 55/2.8 is susceptible to flare when shooting into strong light, which could account for the lower contrast. In most other situations the 55/2.8 micro has excellent contrast.

Øivind Tøien

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1891
  • Fairbanks, Alaska
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2018, 22:43:42 »
In the examples posted the lens is shooting towards a very bright sky. The 55/2.8 is susceptible to flare when shooting into strong light, which could account for the lower contrast. In most other situations the 55/2.8 micro has excellent contrast.

At the time I also performed a test towards a local building with dark clouds behind, and the lower contrast (and warmer color) of the 55 f/2.8 was also noticeable there.*  It is not surprising though that the more complicated construction of the f/2.8 version causes lower contrast. It could be interesting though if others have access to both of these lenses and could check if this is reproducible in other copies. Also the very latest copies of the f/2.8 might have gotten SIC coating which probably was not used on the one I tested.

*Edit: Added 100% crops at f/5.6 :

100% crop  55mm f/3.5 AI at f/5.6




100% crop  55mm f/2.8 AIS at f/5.6

Øivind Tøien

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 6529
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2018, 23:27:11 »
',,,,,,,,,,,

It feels a little more robust than the current, AI-S, all-plastic f/2.8 version also.


Plastic?


Zero plastic in the 55mm 2.8 Ais, you must have mixed something up,,,
Erik Lund

David H. Hartman

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2787
  • I Doctor Photographs... :)
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2018, 23:31:44 »

Plastic?


Zero plastic in the 55mm 2.8 Ais, you must have mixed something up,,,

There must have been a little tiny bit somewhere.  :D

Maybe the AF 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor was the one that's plastic at least on the outside? Maybe?

OK, I rebel against the plastic statement if this was referring to the AIS.

Dave Hartman

Beatniks are out to make it rich
Oh no, must be the season of the witch!

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 6529
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2018, 23:34:20 »
The lens caps, but they are technically not a part of the lens,,,  ;)
Erik Lund