A Micro-Nikkor 55mm Comparison Discussion

[Seapy]

You beat me to it!

I just examined mine, that was all I could find too.

[richardHaw]

the 5.5cm has plastic helicoid keys 

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

[pluton]

Nice lens but it also has a lot of chromatic aberration. I sold mine because of that. The 100mm is even worse.

I think it would be useful to distinguish between lateral CA and axial CA.  The lateral type, being *usually* easily corrected by common software, has become a more trivial issue in recent years. 
Axial CA, of course, is less-easily correctable in software and, yes...the Zeiss 100/2 Makro is famous for having it.  Very disappointing considering what Zeiss charges for the 100/2.
I enthusiastically recommend the Zeiss 50/2 as a general purpose, very-close focusing 50mm.

[Roland Vink]

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.

The 55/3.5 has 5 elements in 4 groups, the 55/2.8 has 6 elements in 5 groups, so one extra lens. I don't think that is significant, it still has a very low number of air-glass surfaces compared to lenses such as the 70-200 VR. Lower contrast could be due more to the general design than the extra element, some designs tend to send reflections to the sensor more than others. My copy has SIC and it's still susceptible to flare.

On my screens, due to the angle of view, pictures towards the top of the screen appear to have higher contrast than pictures at the bottom. The 55/3.5 images shown here are on top so they seem to have better contrast than the 55/2.8 images below ... I'd need to see them side by side before coming to any conclusions.

[Øivind Tøien]

The 55/3.5 has 5 elements in 4 groups, the 55/2.8 has 6 elements in 5 groups, so one extra lens. I don't think that is significant, it still has a very low number of air-glass surfaces compared to lenses such as the 70-200 VR. Lower contrast could be due more to the general design than the extra element, some designs tend to send reflections to the sensor more than others. My copy has SIC and it's still susceptible to flare.

On my screens, due to the angle of view, pictures towards the top of the screen appear to have higher contrast than pictures at the bottom. The 55/3.5 images shown here are on top so they seem to have better contrast than the 55/2.8 images below ... I'd need to see them side by side before coming to any conclusions.

You are likely right that 5 vs 6 elements is pretty insignificant.

Whatever caused it, the effect was there though -  to see it independently of each other, right click and open each of the additional captures I posted in the quoted post in a new tab and flip between them. I was rather surprised by this difference, and still think it would be interesting to see if this can be reproduced in other copies of the two different lenses.

(My two copies of the 55mm f/3.5 AI, both of the same latest vintage, have pretty consistent performance with respect to contrast and resolution, except that edges on the one that was used for this test are slightly better at large apertures at infinity than the other one.)

[David H. Hartman]

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.*

What I'm seeing is the lower 55/2.8 crop is lighter over all and not that the shadow areas are lighter as I'd expect if there a difference in flare. I'll guess that the 55/2.8 received more exposure than the 55/3.5.

Dave Hartman

[Roland Vink]

I have two 55/2.8, and one definitely exposes brighter than other. When setting the aperture ring to f/4, the aperture blades on one only close down half as much as the other, so it's probably more like f/3.5 than f/4. It's like that all the way through the aperture scale. Probably needs adjusting...

[Øivind Tøien]

I have two 55/2.8, and one definitely exposes brighter than other. When setting the aperture ring to f/4, the aperture blades on one only close down half as much as the other, so it's probably more like f/3.5 than f/4. It's like that all the way through the aperture scale. Probably needs adjusting...

Accurate aperture on these lenses seems tricky. I particularly had problems with my older copy of the 55mm f/3.5. To that comes chipped vs. non-chipped lenses, and how the aperture is controlled, on the body or the lens. Although my chipped 55mm f/3.5 is not supposed to have a linear aperture, I have been able to adjust the aperture actuator to an accuracy within 1/3 stop when controlled from the body up to and including f/11. (I wonder if your 55mm f/2.8 could allow a similar adjustment?). Beyond that it goes completely haywire, stopping down two stops by f/16. My coworkers 55mm f/2.8 which did not have a chip, was controlled from the lens of course, setting lens data on the body. As I used aperture priority mode, shutter speed was 1/3 EV shorter on the 55mm f/3.5. When trying to equalize in post (see below), the correction was 0.15 stop different at the f/5.6 exposure, so I would say the two lenses gave apertures very close to each other if not exactly the same.

What I'm seeing is the lower 55/2.8 crop is lighter over all and not that the shadow areas are lighter as I'd expect if there a difference in flare. I'll guess that the 55/2.8 received more exposure than the 55/3.5.

To remove any doubt I created two new crops where I tried both to compensate for differences in color balance and exposure (references on the grey panels of the building). I also made the crops exactly the same. If you are still not convinced, download the files and flip between them. The difference is very clear.

100% crop  55mm f/3.5 AI at f/5.6




100% crop  55mm f/2.8 AIS at f/5.6

[Roland Vink]

Here are two quick shots with no artistic merit, the first taken with an AI 55/3.5 micro, the second with an AIS 55/2.8 micro, both at f/8, no filters used, camera set to aperture priority.

I used stop-down metering to ensure consistent exposures. I partially mounted the lens, so the aperture stop-down lever and the AI coupling tab were dis-engaged - the lens stops down to the aperture setting and the camera meters as-is.. Any possible discrepancy between the setting on the aperture ring (which was f/8) and the actual aperture opening (which might be f/7.2 or f/8.5 or ...), is compensated by the camera meter which adjusts the shutter speed to ensure the exposure is identical between the two. The aim here is to purely assess the lens performance, not the stop-down mechanism . The color and contrast look pretty much identical to me:

[Øivind Tøien]

Thanks Roland, I agree; not much difference in your images if opened in separate tabs and flipping between them. (It is funny how the brain gets tricked to think that the top image is slightly darker when viewed on the original page). So either there is the difference with the SIC coating on your f/2.8 version or there is an issue with the lens I tried out. I might try to get back to my coworker and see if he still has the lens for closer inspection. It had an issue with a somewhat slow diaphragm as I recall, but worked fine in stop down mode in live view.

A third possibility is differences in the vintage (and coatings) of the 55mm f/3.5 AI versions, which seems less likely. What series does the copy you used belong to?

A forth possibility is that the difference only shows up when focused near infinity (the hypothesis would be that different positions of CRC elements cause different flare characteristics). I had a hard time seeing any difference in contrast and resolution at close range in the copies here, but the comparison was difficult as I was not careful enough and the focus plane ended up at slightly different locations.

[Akira]

I have also used Ais 55/2.8 Micro.  I haven't compared it with CA 55/3.5, but I haven't noticed any disadvantages in terms of the flare, ghosts or the color rendition of 55/3.5 due to its single coating.  CA 55/3.5 was a really excellent lens.

[Roland Vink]

Thanks Roland, I agree; not much difference in your images if opened in separate tabs and flipping between them. (It is funny how the brain gets tricked to think that the top image is slightly darker when viewed on the original page). So either there is the difference with the SIC coating on your f/2.8 version or there is an issue with the lens I tried out. I might try to get back to my coworker and see if he still has the lens for closer inspection. It had an issue with a somewhat slow diaphragm as I recall, but worked fine in stop down mode in live view.

A third possibility is differences in the vintage (and coatings) of the 55mm f/3.5 AI versions, which seems less likely. What series does the copy you used belong to?

A forth possibility is that the difference only shows up when focused near infinity (the hypothesis would be that different positions of CRC elements cause different flare characteristics). I had a hard time seeing any difference in contrast and resolution at close range in the copies here, but the comparison was difficult as I was not careful enough and the focus plane ended up at slightly different locations.

Your brain is not being "tricked". When viewing a screen I am sure you will have noticed changes in brightness when viewing from the side at extreme angles. Screens seem to be designed to permit wide viewing angles from side to side, but not so much up and down. You will see how the brightness changes you tilt your screen up and down...

The 55/2.8 micro that I tested was the one with NIC coating. SIC is an improved multi-layer coating but NIC was already very good, I am not sure how much difference it really makes (maybe something else to test one day).

If the lens you tried had a slow diaphragm, it probably had oil on the aperture blades (a common problem with the AIS 55 micro). This will cause exposure errors, especially at fast shutter speeds and small apertures. It's possible some oil also evaporated and deposited on the lens, which could explain the lower contract. Did the lens have a filter attached?

The AI 55/3.5 I used was relatively late, serial number 101xxxxx, but I don't think coatings changed much from at least 1977 when AI lenses were introduced, all the way through the AI-S and AF series up to about year 2000 when SIC was introduced. So I don't think the AI version somehow had better or more effective coatings than the AI-S.

I could repeat the tests at infinity or other distances, but I strongly suspect my results will be similar.

[Øivind Tøien]

Your brain is not being "tricked". When viewing a screen I am sure you will have noticed changes in brightness when viewing from the side at extreme angles. Screens seem to be designed to permit wide viewing angles from side to side, but not so much up and down. You will see how the brightness changes you tilt your screen up and down...

The 55/2.8 micro that I tested was the one with NIC coating. SIC is an improved multi-layer coating but NIC was already very good, I am not sure how much difference it really makes (maybe something else to test one day).

If the lens you tried had a slow diaphragm, it probably had oil on the aperture blades (a common problem with the AIS 55 micro). This will cause exposure errors, especially at fast shutter speeds and small apertures. It's possible some oil also evaporated and deposited on the lens, which could explain the lower contract. Did the lens have a filter attached?

The AI 55/3.5 I used was relatively late, serial number 101xxxxx, but I don't think coatings changed much from at least 1977 when AI lenses were introduced, all the way through the AI-S and AF series up to about year 2000 when SIC was introduced. So I don't think the AI version somehow had better or more effective coatings than the AI-S.

I could repeat the tests at infinity or other distances, but I strongly suspect my results will be similar.

Thanks again, Roland. Your 55mm f/3.5 is also of the latest series, so agree that it is likely similar to my copies. It would be interesting with an infinity test too. I agree that oily residues could have been an undetected issue on the f/2.8 version I tested. No filter was attached, of course. My coworker still has his lens; he had it serviced in the mean time and will bring it in to work later in the week so that I can get to examine it again.

BTW, I think the effect of different apparent brightness is at least partly due to a physiological phenomenon called lateral inhibition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_inhibition, check visual inhibition down on the page for informaton. (I have an IPS screen with very wide viewing angles). Technically it occurs already in the neural network at the retinal levels but there could also be interpretation at higher levels contributing in this case. It is a little like a sharpening effect or rather a clarity slider. It usually occurs along contrasting edges, but I think that when the the bright upper part of the lower image is compared to the close by darker lower part of the upper image it might appear brighter.

[David H. Hartman]

The 55/2.8 micro that I tested was the one with NIC coating. SIC is an improved multi-layer coating but NIC was already very good, I am not sure how much difference it really makes (maybe something else to test one day).

One may find that lenses that Super Integrated Coating produce paler or more pastel ghost compared to the older Nikon Integrated Coating. The only lens where I have two copies, one with SIC and one with NIC are a pair of 28/2.0 AIS Nikkors. I'm not sure if one can produce ghost patterns with those lenses.

Dave Hartman

[JKoerner007]

Well, I just received the 55mm Auto ... and there was oil in the lens barrel when extended (it almost dripped out).

It was clearly a junker that someone bought cheap, re-furbished, and tried to pass for a 'mint' version. (Should have known by the smaller pictures than usual.)

One interesting thing came out ... it felt a little lighter, and less sturdy, than the 55m-P-Auto ... which came out later.

Anyway, I may wind up keeping the P-Auto because it is such a clean copy and they're cheap enough.

I typically don't keep anything I won't bring with me 70% of the time though, as I am not a collector.
This will be a good, lightweight choice to bring with me to work as an investigator, as many times I have to photograph wounds, or material damage, and don't need to bring the CV 125, and don't need bokeh, but would like very sharp resolution.