Ai Micro 55mm/f3.5 for copying 6x6 slides

[Akira]

I've heard that the variation of 55/2.8 is related to the aperture lever.  The aperture lever for the first variant was a single unit, and the one for the second variant had a two-piece system.  I don't know why Nikon changed it.

And then, they dumped the two-piece system and returned to the single unit.  Allegedly, the two-piece lever didn't synchronize with the 10 fps continuous shooting with F2H (not D2H!).

[Roland Vink]

Maybe Ric can confirm this.  I wonder if the two-piece aperture lever is the reason for the 7xxxxx serial number block? Usually minor internal changes like this are "silent", there is no obvious difference externally.

[Akira]

Maybe Ric can confirm this.  I wonder if the two-piece aperture lever is the reason for the 7xxxxx serial number block? Usually minor internal changes like this are "silent", there is no obvious difference externally.

Or Erik would.

The third block of "2006 serial number" is not unique to 55/2.8 Micro, so I would doubt if the difference between three blocks (including 2006 serial) is related to this internal variation.

[Erik Lund]

The 55/2.8 has CRC (floating elements), as the lens focuses close the focal length actually increases which is why the focus distance is slightly longer than the 55/3.5 at the same image magnification.

The longer focal length could be a problem when used with the PK-13 extension tube. The PK-13 is 27.5mm long (half 55mm) and is designed for 55mm micro lenses to enable them to focus from 1:2 to 1:1. The 55/2.8 has focal length longer than 55mm at close range, so the PK-13 wouldn't have enough extension to give 1:1 magnification. To compensate for the longer focal length, the 55/2.8 actually focuses slightly beyond 1:2, to 1:1.9, so it can get to 1:1 with the PK-13. So by itself, the 55/2.8 as slightly longer working distance and greater magnification than the 55/3.5 models.

Thanks Ronald! 

This part is what I was referring to, well explained

Sure let's see if we collectively can uncover these differences, there is also the oily aperture blade issue so many have encountered  could these two be interconnected?
I didn't fully understand the difference with the aperture leaver, I'll have to read it again 

[mxbianco]

There appear to be three different serial number blocks for the AIS 55/2.8:
1. 179041 - 600xxx from 1979 - 2000?
2. 700001 - 752xxx from 2001 - 2005?
3. 800001 - 813xxx and counting, from 2006

My sample of the 55/2.8 is from the first batch, serial # 469792, bought new in mid-1980 (my first Nikon lens!). A real sales burst took place for this lens, about 300K pieces in the first year (120K in the remaining 10 years). The two other depicted lenses are older but much less used, and they cost me near to nothing (40 to 60€ each, bought used 2-3 yrs ago). Paint is stripping off of the uNikkor/2.8, but lenses and iris are still perfect, performance is still great after tens of thousands of actuations.

I also have another sample, 55mm/3.5 AI (third batch in the AI group on your webpage), with a serial # that's only 9 numbers away from the sample in your  photo: 1038261 vs 1038270 !!!

Ciao from Massimo

[mxbianco]

BTW, no problem with the oily blades that some have encountered, I suspect this comes from leaving the gear in a car's trunk under the sun!

I have never seen samples from the second batch. Mine (first batch) has a single-piece aperture lever.

Ciao from Massimo

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

Just a couple of weeks ago I was looking for the solution in the same game. To copy my negative transparencies.
At first I was also dreaming about having a dedicated scanner but prices of these machines left me searching for another way.

Then I came upon one interesting blog site written by one Italian guy (www.addicted2light.com) and his articles “How to scan films using a digital camera” and especially “Best film scanner: Canon 5D Mark II vs Drum scanner vs Epson V700”. Maybe you will want to check it also.

I’m happy now with the same setup: Nikkor P-auto 55 3.5