Nikon 55 Mikro AIS versus 60 Mikro AF-S GED

Hello,

I have been working with the 55 micro 2.8 AIS for years both as a photographer and videographer and am basically satisfied with the lens.

I used to have a few AIS (24, 28, 35, 85, 105, 200) and got rid of all of them after switching to the D800 and comparing them to the G lenses. I now use the AF-S G 1.8 in 20, 35 and 85, and the only manual lens that has remained is the 55' micro 2.8, mainly because I shoot film with it most of the time. Besides the 35, it is also my walkaround lens, with which I also like to take portraits.

 

However, my experience over the years is that the new lenses are simply optically superior to the old manual ones, and I belong to the photo romantics and NOT to the pixel peepers! But I do like the contrast, the sharpness, the light behaviour and the rendering of the new G lenses, especially as they are absolutely within a fair price range.

The 55 AIS is really sharp, but the contrast and colours are often rather dull. That's why I'm thinking of switching to the 60 AF-S G 2.8. Especially as I've already had problems with the glued blades and I had to bring it to Nikon for service once in 10 years.

Who has experience with the two lenses? Is it worth upgrading? How does contrast, sharpness, rendering, bokeh behave?

 

Thanks a lot in advance,

jo

I had a Nikon 55/2.8 Micro and a 105/2.8 AF-D. I gave the 105 to my son and kept the 55 for copying artwork, slides and film strips. In general, a 50'ish lens is not well suited to closeups in nature due to the short working distance. I can be hard to keep from shadowing the subject (or spooking critters). The ideal, IMO, is the defunct 200/4 Nikkor, but a 90-105 is a good compromise. I have a Sony 90/2.8, which is superior in every way to the Nikon lens. Auto focus is nearly useless for macro photography. The AF-D can be focused manually, but the ring is loose and it has a very short throw (60 deg or less). Furthermore the AF macros shorten the focal length as you get closer, so that they can achiever 1:1 reproduction with much less extension. This leads to "breathing", which makes it difficult to frame a closeup precisely. The 55 has very little breathing at close range, and none that I can see at normal distances.

 

The 60 has the same attributes as the 105, including an abnormally short working distance. The main advantage over the 55 is that you can get to 1:1 without a 27.5 mm (PK-13) extension ring.

 

If you want good bokeh, you need to look elsewhere than macro lenses, and stay further from the subject.

 

The Nikon 55/2.8 and 50/1.4 manual lenses have a problem with sticky diaphragm blades. The cause is oil migration from the lubricating grease in the focusing helix. Nikon tech has changed to a silicone-based grease which does not incur separation. If yours was serviced in the last 10 years, it will probably be good for your grandchildren.

IMO, if you have a problem with contrast or color using the 55/2.8 Micro, something is wrong. It's about as good as any lens I own.

A useful overview of all the Micro-Nikkors can be found on Bjorn Rorslett's site. His reviews are usually spot-on, even those who disagree find his site a good starting point for their own comparison tests: Special Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount

 

It depends what you prioritize in lens performance / features / handling, and just how dedicated you are to "real" macro use as opposed to general close-up shots. What works best for Ed_Ingold or me or anyone else will not necessary be as suitable for you. Given that resale value of most second hand Nikkors today is fairly stable, it may be best to purchase a used 60mm ED G AFS and test for yourself with your own D800 and photography. Evaluate it at your own pace, if you decide it isn't right for you it can be resold at a small loss (consider the loss a "rental fee").

 

The 60mm ED G AFS is controversial, for the reasons Ed_Ingold mentioned. At real 'macro' distances, the actual focal length shortens and working distance drops to zero: the lens barrel can literally end up touching flower petals. This leaves little flexibility for arranging lighting or positioning. On the positive side, pictorial qualities are a closer match to what you like in your other G lenses: the 60mm AFS has similar coatings, etc. If you rely on AF to nail critical focus at normal or closeup distance, of course the 60mm gives you that while the manual 55mm doesn't. If you generally don't shoot objects smaller than the screen area of a 10" iPad, the AF of the 60mm AFS should work OK for you. Any closer, you're dealing with the usual unpleasant manual focusing characteristics of most AF lenses (which are even more of a struggle as you approach 1:1 life size).

 

In my case, I disliked the manual focus 55/2.8 from the day I bought it new in 1993. Between its "meh" rendering and the sticky blades issue, I couldn't wait to get rid of it (to be fair, it may have been a bad sample). Afterward, I returned to the ancient, true-macro-optimized 55mm f/3.5 Compensating Aperture Nikkor. While I'm still happy with that mid-'60s relic today on digital, others find it lacking and prefer the floating-element gimmick of the 2.8 for consistent sharpness at longer distances. Still others prefer one AF Micro Nikkor or another over the manual lenses, and some eschew the Nikkors altogether in favor of other brands like Zeiss, Voigtlander, Sigma, Kiron or Tamron in F-mount. Some non-Nikkor macro lenses sold back in the 1980s are still highly sought for their quality: unlike wides, zooms and fast lenses, the best old macros hold their own quite well on the D800.

Edited January 10, 2021 by orsetto

I have been working with the 55 micro 2.8 AIS for years both as a photographer and videographer and am basically satisfied with the lens.

Then why change?

I don't think you'll find a sharper or more contrasty lens.

 

Like Orsetto, I prefer the older 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, but the difference between it and its f/2.8 Ai-S successor is only visible at extreme close-up. If you don't do serious macro work, they behave practically identically.

 

WRT the sticky aperture - Neither of my 55mm Micro-Nikkors have shown any sign of iris sticking in decades of use. However you can't expect any photo equipment to work forever without a bit of attention. And how much does it cost to replace the aperture servo if an AF-S lens develops stuck blades?

 

I used the Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 Ais with my Kodak DCS200ir.

Some of the Ais lenses had problems with sticky aperture blades due to Nikon choosing a new lubricant for a portion of the production. Not all are affected, mine is not. I've had it for over 30 years now. Does quite well in Infrared.

The 55/2.8 Micro can focus at 1:2 magnification. The field of view is 3x2 inches at that distance. It has a moving element which improves its performance at normal distance. I have used mine for landscapes, and find it more resistant to veiling flare on a DSLR than other Nikon SLR lenses when shooting toward the sun. The front element is deeply inset, so a lens hood is not mandatory (I don't even own one). At close range it can be hard to avoid casting a shadow on your subject. A lens hood would only hurt in that respect.

 

It is the only one of my remaining Nikon lenses which is pixel-sharp with a Sony A7Riii (42 MP) when used on a tripod, with appropriae technique. However that level of performance is matched or exceeded by Zeiss primes made explicitly for the Sony, and a Sony 90/2.5 macro lens.

I just remembered that I had some shots of a resolution chart taken with the 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor.

 

Camera used was a 60 megapixel Sony a7Riv - capable of 240 megapixels in pixel-shift mode.

 

This chart was shot at 2x the normal distance, and so the line-pairs/mm figures need to be doubled.

I don't think a resolution of 200 lppmm is too bad; especially from a faded and yellowed old chart with less than great contrast!

IF going for the 60mm AF, then i would prefer de AF-D over the AF-S, the AF-D gives you 1 inch more working distance at 1:1, has brighter optics ( i think) is cheaper to obtain, and can be used on tubes and bellows since it has an aperture ring making it more versatile ..

As always, depends on your needs, priorities, and shooting style.

 

The older AFD 60mm has slightly more (one inch additional) working distance at the close limit, is cheaper, has less electronics to go wrong in the far future (no aperture or focus motors) and has the aperture ring for use on other cameras (esp nice if you tend to switch between a Nikon DSLR and classic film SLR like F2, F3, FM2, FE etc). It is "brighter" than the AFS in the sense that it vignettes a little less at all apertures (the AFS has noticeable vignetting for some uses even at f/8).

 

On the minus side, the AFD isn't quite as good as the manual focus 55mm or 60mm AFS at landscape distances The AFD lens won't autofocus on some newer DSLR bodies like 7500 that lack screw drive AF, or with the FTZ mirrorless adapter. The AFS is "brighter" in the sense that its a better performer at wider apertures, sharp from f/2.8 thru f/11, while the AFD performs best at f/5.6-f/11. If the lens is to be used primarily for macro, the AFD should be great, for more general-purpose use at a wider range of distances/apertures the AFS may be preferable. Last but not least, the AFS has nanocoating consistent with all of Nikon's newer-generation lenses: flare control is better than the AFD and color rendition may be a closer match for those sticklers who want all their lenses to draw the same as Nikon's latest.

All right....thanks a lot for all your recommendations and sharing thoughts. Today I just jumped on a good offer and baught the 60mm AF-S BEFORE I sold my 55 AIS/2.8. I will do some tests side by side and then decide which on to keep.

As orsetto wrote: "As always, depends on your needs, priorities, and shooting style.". I mostly need that lens as a shorter portrait lens (next to my 85) with an makro-option as an add-on. Very curious how the AIS holds up to the newer lens:)

Ok, I did a quick test, not really spent much time on it and I guess it is everthing but accurate. All done with a tripod. The First one (basil) is not a makro, it is a crop of a close distance shot (1m distance to the object).

I am amazed how good the 55 AIS is and surprised about the vignetting of the 60mm!!!! Bokeh seems to be slightly smoother with the 60 AF-S G, also a bit more contrasty compared to the 55.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by jochenresch

surprised about the vignetting of the 60mm!!!!

Manufacturers now are more commonly 'allowing' vignetting on the assumption that it is one of the easiest optical flaws to correct in-body (for JPEGS) or in post with software.

 

If this allows better correction of other more difficult to correct aberrations, such as Coma, then I'm OK with that.

and surprised about the vignetting of the 60mm!!!!

[ATTACH=full]1371876[/ATTACH]

One of the reasons i prefer the AF-D version...

When I did my page on servicing the 55mm Micro, I shot the photos with another 55mm Micro-

Servicing the 55 mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor Lens

Nikon AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED on Nikon D800E vs Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D on Nikon D800E

 

According to DX0mark, the AF-D 60/2.8 is better than the AF-S 60/2.8 with regard to resolution, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and distortion. I see no need to replace any of my AF-D Micro-Nikkor lenses.

Maybe there would'nt be any reason to change from the AF-D to the AF-S, but since I own the AIS this is not relevant for me.

In general my recent eperiences with the 55 versus the 60 AF-S confirms my impression I had with almost all AIS lenses on a digital body with high resloution like the D800: Some might be equally sharp if not even sharper (especially the 85/1.4 and the 55/2.8 micro), but all of them look a bit flat in comparison regarding colors, density, contrast. I have used these AIS lenses for more than 20 years, as mentioned in my initial post. I was quite happy when I used them on my D700, but after purchasing the D800 those lenses reached their limits.

As I said, I do a lot of filming unsing the 35/1.8 AF-S, the 85/1.8 AF-S, 20/1.8 AF-S and also the 55/2.8 Micro AIS. I allways have to do a lot of retouching in Premier (or Photoshop when I do photography) to get the AIS close to his brothers and sisters.

Yes, the AIS lenses do have some charm and I guess its a matter of taste in some regards. For instance, my 85/1.4 AIS was probalbly the finest portrait lens I ever owned, the rendition of the skin tone, sharpness and bokeh was just amazing. BUT: on my D800 it was almost impossible to get the focus 100% spot on. Maybe 1-2 out of 10 photos where spot on, especially on the D800. And compared to the 85/1.8 AF-S it has less conrast and density.

 

To conclude, the AIS lenses are very fine lenses and some do a great job on digital bodies. But I find the newer lenses in general are a better match with digital cameras like the D800. The rendering and sharpness just make me more happy compared to the rather flat results I get with the older manual lenses and somehow they give my a 3D-look and look more modern. This is a purely subjective impression and not scientifically proved!

 

Another myth is the believe, that the older lenses are better buildt due to metal parts and hand manufacturing. I had several AIS/AI lenses that had to go to the Nikon Service beacause the mechanic was broken or apparture blades where oily. My 35/2 AI litterally fell apart one day I was photographing a wedding! I never had any issues with the AF-S G lenses so far.