A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion

[JKoerner007]

I've read a lot of websites concerning this lens, its various iterations, and there are many opinions as to which is the best version. Opinions vary.

The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Auto:

Bjørn Rørslett and Thomas Pindelski favor this, the 2nd Iteration, namely the Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/3.5 Auto featured as Item #3 in Roland Vink's Page.


The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 P:

Michael Erlewine, in his eBook (p. 104), seems to favor the 55mm f/3.5 P (Item #4 in Roland's page), but his description (quoting Bjørn Rørslett) of "hill-and-dale focusing and aperture collars," seems to indicate Michael confused this lens with the one up top ... as a "hill-and-dale focusing collar" = a scalloped focus collar, as displayed in the first (not second) image.


The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AI-S:

This is the current version, still available today, and according to CoinImaging.com this lens has "some of the highest sharpness and resolution measurements that I have ever come across." It should be noted that Coin Imaging compared the f/2.8 above to the f/3.5 AI (older, rubber-ring) version ... not featured ... in which I have absolutely zero interest.

What I don't see anyone talking about is this lens, below, which seems to be a better overall optic for macro than any mentioned thus far.

The Micro-Nikkor 5.5cm f/3.5 F:

This is the original version, Item #2 in Roland Vink's Page.
Unlike every other version of the 55mm f/3.5 (which only have 1:2 reproduction ratios), this version has a 1:1 reproduction ratio.
Unlike every other Micro-Nikkor 55mm, which have ~300° of focus throw, this version has over 600° of focus throw.

I have never heard anyone compare this gem here to the three up top.
(I have also never clarified whether the mount on this particular lens can be converted to modern DSLRs.)

Full disclosure: I have a representation of every single lens, listed above, coming to me within the next week.
I would be grateful for any insight/guidance from any of the forum members here as their experiences in comparing any/all of the above lenses.

Thanks for reading.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Not sure why you think the earliest version is the best. Bjorn claims it does not have flat field which I often find useful. You can put an M ring on the later version to get to 1:1 and many of the lenses are sold with one included. It was designed to complete the range from 1:2 through 1:1.

I have the compensating version and find it to be a fine lens.

[Erik Lund]

We did visit this type of lens many times


Here is info on 5.5 cm modified for later cameras and infinity focus along with myth busting:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2840.0.html



Here mixed 55mm and 5.5 cm
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,224.msg1511.html#msg1511
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3308.msg48068.html#msg48068


Enjoy

[Erik Lund]

I somehow forgot the link to our far-east lens tinker Rick Very nice nerdy info!


https://richardhaw.com/2016/05/14/repair-micro-nikkor-5-5cm-f3-5/

https://richardhaw.com/2016/06/12/repair-micro-nikkor-5-5cm-f3-5-22/

[Michael Erlewine]

Michael Erlewine, in his eBook (p. 104), seems to favor the 55mm f/3.5 P (Item #4 in Roland's page), but his description (quoting Bjørn Rørslett) of "hill-and-dale focusing and aperture collars," seems to indicate Michael confused this lens with the one up top ... as a "hill-and-dale focusing collar" = a scalloped focus collar, as displayed in the first (not second) image.

Koerner is correct. I mislabeled that lens. I have about six Micro-Nikkor 55mm and probably got confused. Of all these 55mm Nikkors, the one I use most for close-up photography is labeled by Roland in the "55-60 mm Micro" section of his "Lens Serial Numbers" as "55/3.5 Micro Auto NKJ," which is a compensating lens and my serial number is 239094. It has a scalloped focusing ring AND a scalloped aperture ring. For me, it is easiest to identify by the serial number. I do not have the Micro-Nikkor 5.5cm f/3.5 because I did not want the field curvature. I use some of the 55mm Micro-Nikkors for copy work when I need a wider field than the Micro-Nikkor 60mms can provide.

I still maintain a copy stand, this an old Polaroid model.

The 55mm Nikkors that I have are:

Micro-Nikkor 55mm P Auto f/3.5  (Compensating)   #258896 (1968?)       

Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5   Compensating  #239094 1968?)     

Micro-Nikkor 55mm P-Auto f/3.5    #672490  (1971-1973)     

Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 P.C Auto #748676  (1973-Mar. 1975)

Nikon Nikkor 55mm  f/3.5 P.C. Auto #748575  (1973-Mar. 1975)       

Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5     # 9833775   (1977-1979)         

Micro-Nikkor 55mm  f/2.8 AIS Manual Focus    #211346   (Sep. 1986 - Nov. 1989) 62mm-filter


Different, but more useful to me are the CRT Nikkors:

Nikkor “O” 55mm f/1.2 CRT Oscilloscope  721526           
Nikkor "O" 55mm f/1.2 CRT Red-Mark 55mm f/1.1 #820236     

[JKoerner007]

Not sure why you think the earliest version is the best.

As stated, because it goes 1:1 (no adapter) and has twice the focus throw (600°).

Bjorn claims it does not have flat field which I often find useful. You can put an M ring on the later version to get to 1:1 and many of the lenses are sold with one included. It was designed to complete the range from 1:2 through 1:1.
I have the compensating version and find it to be a fine lens.

Didn't realize about the field curvature. After reading the links Eric posted, my desire for the 5.5cm has soured.

Quality-wise, more people seem to prefer this iteration for close-/mid-focus, and this iteration for infinity focus.

This consensus was underscored here as well (scroll to mid-page).

Edit: The top 2 lenses featured on the opening post are the actual examples I am getting and are the two I will likely keep.

[JKoerner007]

Of all these 55mm Nikkors, the one I use most for close-up photography is labeled by Roland in the "55-60 mm Micro" section of his "Lens Serial Numbers" as "55/3.5 Micro Auto NKJ," which is a compensating lens and my serial number is 239094. It has a scalloped focusing ring AND a scalloped aperture ring.

I am getting one of this version as well, Serial Number 226417.

Ironically, it is the cheapest one of the 3 I have en route.

As Pindelski put it, "at current market prices it’s almost offensively inexpensive."

His iteration of the same lens has S/N 223675.

[chris dees]

I have a very old Nippon Kogaku Micro-Nikkor Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, a "silver nose" from about 1963 (sn 189668).
It's in collectors condition and always in the closet.

The second one I use regularly is a Micro-Nikkor-PC Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm from about 1974 (sn 771570).
It has a factory AI-ring and is chipped by Erik.

First one shot with the second lens, second one with the first lens. Both with the Df.

[Seapy]

I have the 'current' Nikkor micro 55mm f2.8, #281115.

I sold my Nikkor micro AF 60mm f2.8 and bought this.  Fed up with the 'zoom focus' of the AF 60. Given I never used the AF feature, it was a welcome improvement from the manual over AF of the AF lens.

I have always been happy with the sharpness but don't think it was challenged for resolution with my D1, nor even my D200.

I found it indispensable with the D200's for flowers, but now with the D3, I seem to keep using the Nikkor micro 105mm f4.0 instead.

[Airy]

I only have the 55/2.8, and two versions of the Zeiss 50/2 (i.e. ZF2 and Milvus, the latter bought 2nd hand).

Overall, the Zeiss is a better buy if you can get a second hand one. The additional stop is welcome for focussing, and sharpness wide open is outstanding at all distances. Bokeh is also very good in absolute terms (I did not make comparisons with the 55).

The 55/2.8 is a very good lens, but suffers from contrast loss when shot against the light (very diffuse flare) ; otherwise it is a good allrounder - the Milvus, much more so.

For exclusive macro work, it seems that the 50/3.5 is a sound choice, see above. I nevertheless found the 55/2.8 to work quite satisfactorily for macro on OM-D + Novoflex adapter. In particular, I found no disturbing CA or fringing issues.

[John Geerts]

I have (and had) a number of 55mm lenses.  I find the 55mm f/3.5 from 1963  the best.  (for Macro work)

[pluton]

I currently operate a Micro Nikkor 55/3.5 Ai.  Wide open, the edges of the 24x36 frame are slightly blurry at infinity. My copy achieves even across-the-frame sharpness (@ infinity) when stopped to about f/8.    Once into the intended design range of about 1:10, it's a super lens.  Then it loses a small bit of detail at 1:2 and on to 1:1. 
It does seem to have a very low amount of flare and ghosts when pointed at the sun, a rare trait for a 50-60mm lens.

[Roland Vink]

Edit: The top 2 lenses featured on the opening post are the actual examples I am getting and are the two I will likely keep.

The consensus is that the compensating version (scalloped focus ring) is better for macro but poor at infinity, while the non-compensating versions (rubber focus ring Nikkor-P, P.C, K, AI) is a better all-rounder, sacrificing some close range performance for better distance performance.

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. Also, the early versions are only single coated, multi-coating does not appear until the P.C, K and AI versions so they should give better colors and contrast, which should give a better impression of sharpness.

When you receive the lenses maybe you can run some tests on which is better for macro and infinity, and report your findings here.

Note that the compensating version is designed to work on cameras with an external light meter - as you focus close the aperture opens up to compensate for extension (provided you stopped down a little in the first place). If you use the TTL meter on your camera your pictures will be over-exposed due to this feature. This gets progressively worse as you focus away from infinity, unless you happen to shoot wide open.

I use the AI 55/3.5 lens, it is a very nice and compact macro lens, but I don't particularly like the 6-blade aperture and the speed is rather slow for a "standard" lens. The AIS 55/2.8 micro is probably a better all-round lens. The f/2.8 speed makes it more usable as a general purpose lens, and CRC means it maintains good sharpness from infinity to close range. It has a nicer 7 blade aperture although the background rendition can be a little harsh at times, and as Airy said, it flares when shooting into strong light. Make sure you get one with no oil on the aperture blades.

The Zeiss 50/2 might be another option as mentioned already. The extra stop could be useful if you want to use this as a general purpose lens, but it is substantially bigger and heavier than the Nikon 55 micros, although it is still not big in absolute terms.

I'll also add, the two lenses that you are getting are not AI converted, which camera do you plan to use them on?

[Akira]

I'll also add, the two lenses that you are getting are not AI converted, which camera do you plan to use them on?

I've used the one with the compensating aperture.  It could mount on the body via K1 ring without Ai modification.  For the 1:2 to 1:1 magnification, I used M2 ring with its aperture coupling levers removed.  So long as you use the working aperture metering and use the lens only for the closeups, you are good to go without the modification.

[Bent Hjarbo]

I have the compensating version with Ai modifications, and the Ai, latest 3.5 version.
Have not yes seen the big differences in picture quality, but maybe that just me not good enough in macro photography.
I bought the compensating version for slide copying, due to it should be better close up. Used on a bellow the compensating feature is not a play.