Nikon question from a Canon guy!

Hey all you Nikon folks, can you help out someone whose last Nikon was a Nikonos III?

 

I'm setting up to digitize a ton of slides and my Canon 100mm macro is a bit heavy and unwieldy for this application.

 

So I'm thinking to adapt a 55mm Micro Nikkor, easily done but which 55mm?

 

F/3.5, f/2.8, pre-AIS, or are the later AIS versions better than the older ones.

 

Obviously all questions that most of you will have answers to...but I'm totally clueless!

 

Take pity on an old man won't you?

 

JD

Edited December 30, 2017 by joseph_dickerson

I copied slides using my 55 f3.5 Ai with the slide mount adapter and PK-13 extension tube on my former d700. Worked like a charm. I've had the micro nikkor since new and it remains a favorite lens.

I have the pre-AI and AI versions. I don't see much difference aside from the AI version probably having better coatings.

 

I will go out on a probably somewhat unpopular limb and say that I'm not wild about the AI-s 55mm. I had one and sold it. I may have had a bad example, but I found the AI version(3.5) to be better at macro distances, although the AI-s was(is-it's still made) better when focused further away than 1 ft. or so. Poking around on the internet shows I'm not the only one who came to the same conclusion about the AI vs. AI-s versions.

 

Used 55mm AI-s lenses also deserve scrutiny as they are known for oily blades.

 

Honestly, off the bellows I use the 105mm 2.8D for most of my macro work. I do use the 55mm AI on the bellows.

The 3.5 versions are "supposed" to be marginally slightly better at close focusing distances vs the 2.8. I should borrow my neighbor's 2.8 to compare to the 3.5 that I use some day. As Ben mentioned, the 2.8 versions seem more prone to slow oily blades (which would not matter for your project). The 55/2.8 is probably a better all purpose lens if there can only be one 50mm lens in a kit, but I would go with a less expensive 3.5 for your project. I have not noticed much difference between pre-AI and AI 3.5 versions I have. Edited December 30, 2017 by robert_bouknight|1

Are you really unable to find a suitable Canon lens to do this job?

Are you really unable to find a suitable Canon lens to do this job?

That's an excellent question...the answer is obviously...yes.

But FD lenses don't work as well as Nikon lenses when adapted to EOS bodies due to the body depth.

The Nikkor Micro Nikkor is just one of the options I'm investigating.

I really appreciate all of you who took the time to educate me!

Thanks,

 

JD

That's an excellent question...the answer is obviously...yes.

But FD lenses don't work as well as Nikon lenses when adapted to EOS bodies due to the body depth.

The Nikkor Micro Nikkor is just one of the options I'm investigating.

I really appreciate all of you who took the time to educate me!

Thanks,

 

JD

 

FD lenses don't work well on EOS body but can you just get an EF macro lens with focal length around 50mm?

BeBu,

 

Thanks for the suggestion, it was one of my options, and the one I'm leaning towards.

 

JD

Since you'll probably be copying at around f/5.6-8 I don't think it really matters - they all even out in this range.

I don't have the 55/2.8, but I do have the first version of the 55/3.5 with metal ribbed focus, a later version with rectangular rubber rectangles focus ring, and the 60/2.8 AF-D. I tested them extensively just for this purpose, and ended up using the earliest one not because it was sharper but because they were all virtually equal. f/7.1 was best on all of them.

A bit late to the party, but a couple of observations:

For slide copying I would opt for a solidly-built metal MF lens, like the Micro-Nikkor, over a sloppy plastic AF model any day of the week.

 

Subject distance is irrelevant for slide copying, and in fact a shorter FL is probably better for eliminating vibration between slide-holder and camera.

 

I doubt that the difference between the f/3.5 and f/2.8 versions of 55mm Micro-Nikkor will be visible. I have both versions and their performance is practically indistinguishable in practise. The f/2.8 model has Close-Range Correction (CRC) optics, and so should actually perform better at macro distances. Both versions need a PK-13 to focus to 1:1.

 

Personally I wouldn't bother with a pre-AI model. They tend to command a premium as collector's items, and will likely have inferior AR coatings and have accumulated more wear and scratches.

The f/2.8 model has Close-Range Correction (CRC) optics, and so should actually perform better at macro distances. Both versions need a PK-13 to focus to 1:1.

 

One would think that, but in the real world it's actually not the case.

 

BTW, here's a recent photo taken with a D800 and a pre-AI 55mm on bellows. If I measured correctly, this is 6x lifesize. It was at a marked 5.6 on the aperture ring(I'm too lazy to figure out what it really is) Granted this is a 3D subject and not a slide, but it is absolutely tack sharp even at 100%. I used my trusty Normans with a couple of umbrellas way overhead to light this.

 

Why not get the Canon EF 50mm macro? I have the cheapest s/h Nikkor 55mm f3.5 and like it very much, but in your shoes I really do not understand why you don't use your Canon 100mm which will go to 1:1 without any requirement for bellows or extension tube.

Why not get the Canon EF 50mm macro? I have the cheapest s/h Nikkor 55mm f3.5 and like it very much, but in your shoes I really do not understand why you don't use your Canon 100mm which will go to 1:1 without any requirement for bellows or extension tube.

That is essentially my point earlier.

 

If one already has a certain Nikon lens, or you are contemplating a unique Nikon lens that has no equivalent in the Canon EF mount, I can understand the idea about adapting it to your Canon EOS body. A 50-60mm macro lens is quite common. Canon itself and some third-parties must have a number of options available in the EF mount.

If one already has a certain Nikon lens, or you are contemplating a unique Nikon lens that has no equivalent in the Canon EF mount, I can understand the idea about adapting it to your Canon EOS body. A 50-60mm macro lens is quite common. Canon itself and some third-parties must have a number of options available in the EF mount.

 

Before I "made the switch" I had the older non-USM 100mm 2.8 Macro. I consider a 100/105mm Macro essential for a lot of my photography, and it was one of the few EF lenses I had(and also one of the first big Nikon purchases I made). I think I paid around $150 for it at KEH(the USM version will cost a bit more) and I never had a reason to complain about the image quality.

 

There again, one big advantage of most AF macros(vs most MF equivalents) regardless of the maker is that you can get them to 1:1 without an extension tube. The old FD mount 50/55 and 100mm lenses came with the corresponding 1:1 tube in the box, and of course the Nikon tubes are common as well.

 

Speaking of lenses that one company offers and the other doesn't-I do alright with bellows but I would love a Nikon equivalent of the Canon 1x-5x.

Before I "made the switch" I had the older non-USM 100mm 2.8 Macro. I consider a 100/105mm Macro essential for a lot of my photography, and it was one of the few EF lenses I had(and also one of the first big Nikon purchases I made). I think I paid around $150 for it at KEH(the USM version will cost a bit more) and I never had a reason to complain about the image quality.

 

There again, one big advantage of most AF macros(vs most MF equivalents) regardless of the maker is that you can get them to 1:1 without an extension tube. The old FD mount 50/55 and 100mm lenses came with the corresponding 1:1 tube in the box, and of course the Nikon tubes are common as well.

 

Speaking of lenses that one company offers and the other doesn't-I do alright with bellows but I would love a Nikon equivalent of the Canon 1x-5x.

 

Yes but they do so by shorten the focal length at close distance thus your working distance at 1:1 is closer.

Yes but they do so by shorten the focal length at close distance thus your working distance at 1:1 is closer.

 

Huh. For some reason I'd never done the maths to notice this. There's still a bit of (186mm) working distance with the 150mm macro I tend to use, but in thin lens equation terms it should be 300mm (plus 300mm from the sensor plane to the optical sensor). That the lens isn't that long is a clue, though I'd figured it was just telephoto. There's a helpful table of minimum focus distances for several macro lenses on the digital picture of anyone's interested.

 

Speaking of lenses that one company offers and the other doesn't-I do alright with bellows but I would love a Nikon equivalent of the Canon 1x-5x.

 

I've got to say I'm mildly tempted by the 20mm Mitakon "super macro" (4.5-4x). And the Laowa 24mm with the big snoot, although that's a bit pricier.

Huh. For some reason I'd never done the maths to notice this. There's still a bit of (186mm) working distance with the 150mm macro I tend to use, but in thin lens equation terms it should be 300mm (plus 300mm from the sensor plane to the optical sensor). That the lens isn't that long is a clue, though I'd figured it was just telephoto. There's a helpful table of minimum focus distances for several macro lenses on the digital picture of anyone's interested.

 

 

 

I've got to say I'm mildly tempted by the 20mm Mitakon "super macro" (4.5-4x). And the Laowa 24mm with the big snoot, although that's a bit pricier.

 

On an AF camera the aperture displayed in the viewfinder is the effective aperture and they do display a smaller aperture when focusing at 1:1. If the lens focal length stays the same it should be 2 stops less but if you notice it's less than 2 stops then the focal length is shorten.

On an AF camera the aperture displayed in the viewfinder is the effective aperture and they do display a smaller aperture when focusing at 1:1.

 

Canon actually doesn't do this-they display the real aperture rather than the effective aperture.

Ben, it's time to try focus stacking on that beautiful mechanism........;)

 

I guess there's going to be an interesting 'place' in the aperture range after which more DoF is going to make actual sharpness worse.... and I guess that's the 'real' aperture, ie size of hole, before diffraction appears.

 

I've never actually measured how much deflection there is in an un-popped slide. Anyone know? 1mm maybe?

Edited January 5, 2018 by mike_halliwell

and I guess that's the 'real' aperture, ie size of hole, before diffraction appears

 

This could be nonsense, but I'm not sure about that. A longer distance from the image plane gives more distance for the same amount of refraction to spread out - which I believe is why diffraction is described in terms of f-stop rather than absolute aperture (I assume some terms cancel out). In that case, the effective f-stop would determine diffraction. With a lot of hand-waving where a complex lens is approximated as a hole, anyway.

 

I've never actually measured how much deflection there is in an un-popped slide. Anyone know? 1mm maybe?

 

That sounds plausible. I've seen significant bowing. There's a reason wet mounting and pressing things flat is useful (IIRC some cameras had vacuum backs for this - Edit: the Contax RTS-III was one). Wikipedia says 135 film is about 0.15mm thick, so that may also be a factor of you're really pushing the limits.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Andrew Garrard

Ben, it's time to try focus stacking on that beautiful mechanism........;)

 

This one needs a cleaning before I go too far :)

 

100% crop from the D800

 

 

This is a Waltham non-magnetic hair spring(and balance wheel) from the late 1880s. I forget the exact composition, but it's some combination of silver, platinum, and palladium. The two layers of the balance wheel(look closely and you can see the lamination) and hairspring all vary in composition but I think it's all in the proportion of those three metals. The screws are gold(I think around 10K), as is typical of a high grade watch. A friend of mine had one analyzed a while back and is supposed to get me the report some time-unfortunately I don't have any means of non-destructive analysis like XRF at my disposal.

 

I have around 40 watches of this particular model and grade, although only a handful of those are non-magnetic. They are all different, which is why I collect them, and each one is a nightmare to light correctly to really show them off. I have a professional photographer friend who is a master at it, but he says he sometimes spends 30 minutes setting up the lights for one photo. Of course, we're usually showing the whole watch movement and not some small part of it.

 

All of that aside, the 100% crop does show me that the lowly little pre-AI lens can certainly perform. The aperture is just what gave me correct exposure-I'm going to pull out a higher powered pack(this one was 800 w-s total, and on full power with the key lights at 200 each and the background 400) to see if I can find a sweet spot for the lens where it's even sharper.

Wikipedia says 135 film is about 0.15mm thick, so that may also be a factor of you're really pushing the limits.

 

Don't forget the emulsion isn't perfectly flat either. It's most noticeable on Kodachrome, but even on E6 and C41 you can visibly see areas on high and low density when you hold the film at an angle.

"Canon actually doesn't do this-they display the real aperture rather than the effective aperture."

 

- The real aperture is the effective aperture. The marked aperture only coincides with the effective/real aperture when the lens is focused at infinity.

 

The effective aperture is also what should be used when calculating diffraction, but not depth-of-field. Any accurate DoF formula should incorporate calculation of effective aperture (for unit focussing lenses).

 

With Infernal focussing lenses, all bets are off! Let the camera worry about them.

 

BTW. The effective aperture for macro simply equals F-number x (1+m) for unit focussing lenses or lenses on a bellows unit.

Edited January 6, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

"Canon actually doesn't do this-they display the real aperture rather than the effective aperture."

 

- The real aperture is the effective aperture. The marked aperture only coincides with the effective/real aperture when the lens is focused at infinity.

 

The effective aperture is also what should be used when calculating diffraction, but not depth-of-field. Any accurate DoF formula should incorporate calculation of effective aperture (for unit focussing lenses).

 

With Infernal focussing lenses, all bets are off! Let the camera worry about them.

 

BTW. The effective aperture for macro simply equals F-number x (1+m) for unit focussing lenses or lenses on a bellows unit.

 

That is my suggestion to find out if internal focusing lens shorten their focal length at close distance. You can find that out if the effective aperture isn't the same of a unit focusing lens. As Ben said the new AF (which has internal focusing) can do 1:1 with not extension tube. I said that isn't necessarily a good thing as those lenses shorten their focal length at close focusing.