Nikon 55mm 2.8 Micro Lens

<p>I have recently purchased an almost-new-in-the-box Nikon F3HP (10 rolls or less put through it) and a 105mm 2.8 Micro lens. I am normally a portrait guy and have used this lens for a session and loved it. I have almost no experience in macro photography and have yet to use this lens for macro photography - maybe this coming spring when the flowers and bugs return.</p>

<p>My question is this: there is a 55mm 2.8 Micro AIS lens that I can buy for a decent price. If I already have the 105 Micro lens...is there any reason to buy the 55mm version?? If so, what good will it do me? Again...I have little to no macro experience...</p>

<p>BTW...I have a 50mm 1.4 lens and a 50mm 2.0 lens...so I'm really just trying to find out about the usefulness of the macro capabilities of the 55mm vs 105mm.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help!</p>

<p>I have this lens and love it, but it is a bit short for bugs and can only go to 1/2 life size without an adapter. Also, the aperture is prone to getting oily, which can be annoying but doesn't cost a lot to repair.</p>

<p>You might want to try what you have first, then see if you need a shorter micro.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If I already have the 105 Micro lens...is there any reason to buy the 55mm version??</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is there a reason? Sure. An acute affliction of NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome). ;) :)</p>

<p>I can tell you my own experience. I owned both the 55/2.8 Micro, 105/2.8 Micro and a 50/1.4 normal lens. I sold the 55mm because I found that I was just not using it. I personally found the 105/2.8 more useful for my occasional macro work (also flowers and bugs) due to the increased working distance. The 55/2.8 was simply redundant for my use. YMMV.</p>

<p>I'm with James Lai, above. I also own this lens and love it. I got it for $90, which is another good reason to get one. I too had oily aperture blade issues once after leaving it in a hot car a couple of times (oops). But some of my best macro photos have been taken with this lens. I don't do insects, but I like to do photos with a narrow focal plane. It's a decent performer at infinity as well, so you have a normal lens with you if you're using the 55mm out on the town. For me, that's handy.</p>

<p>I too have the 105 macro, but in the f4 model. I use it for portraits often and I love it. But it's heavy and it's not a handy lens to have on the camera most of the time. It's a specialty lens. The 55 is more of a go-to lens because it works for most of the things I want to shoot while on a stroll.</p>

<p>The precision of the focus point is what pleases me most about the 55mm macro lens, and its bokeh is pretty good too. I also have a 50mm 1.4 lens, and I do use it a lot, but it doesn't get me super-close like the macro. I have to be at least a foot or two away from my subject to use the normal lens, and sometimes that's not the shot I wanted. The manual focus on my 50mm lens doesn't give me the same certainty that I "have the shot" that the 55mm macro does, either, and sometimes with tired eyes, I'll miss. With the 55mm macro, I don't miss the focus on stills, ever. Here's an example of the control of focus I'm talking about, taken with the lens in question:<br /> <img src="http://www.jspencerphotography.com/images/website007.jpg" alt="" width="850" height="559" /></p>

<p>I use a 90mm 1 to 1 Tamron and rarely use my 55 Nikkor for macro (only for close-up).</p>

<p>The 55/2.8 was one lens I purchased because everyone said it is one of the "must-have" lenses; now I try to only purchase lenses that I found a need for. Once I owned, it, I hardly used it and after a few years, I sold it - before it displayed the "oily aperture" problem. It was simply too wide for my close-up photography and I didn't particularly like the bokeh either - too busy and not smooth at all. I recommend to use what you currently have and see if you find the need for a shorter macro lens.</p>

<p>I finally got rid of my 60mm and have thought about dumping my 55mm too because I like the working distance of my 105mm better. Plus, I always reach for my 50mm f/1.4 when I need a lens of this length.</p>

<p>1. For rapid-fire 1:1 slide copying, I use my 55 in preference to my much newer 105 VR because it actually is a bit sharper at 1:1, and has a more manageable working distance, ie, works with my slide copying adapter. I also tend to use the 55 for tripod or copy stand copying of flat items. For most other macro (and not-quite-macro) applications, e.g., bugs & flowers, I prefer the 105 VR macro. </p>

<p>2. Nikon fixed the oily aperture problem once the problem became obvious. I don't remember the serial number at which this happened, but it's easy to look up. Back in the 90's, my 55's iris became oily and I sold it (with full disclosure). A few years ago, when beginning a massive slide copy project, I wanted a lens I could essentially dedicate to this project, so I bought a used 55 at a very reasonable price, and which was made after Nikon fixed the lubricant problem. I've made thousands of exposures with that lens and it has been working flawlessly.</p>

<p>3. For use as a "normal lens", I've tested it head to head against my 50/1.4 AFD. It's marginally sharper at f/2.8, but by f/5.6 it's hard to tell them apart on the basis of resolution. It is a bit better than the 50/1.4 w.r.t lens flare. So, for people shots, where these features aren't usually that important, but AF and low-light ability (incl. more accurate focusing in low light) might be important, I usually reach for my 50/1.4. If I'm shooting landscapes where ultimate sharpness, flare resistance and manual focusing (which stays put once set) are important, I use my 55. </p>

<p>HTH,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>I have this lens and love it. I also have the 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. I don't use the 55mm much for true macro work because I like the working distance of the 105mm better, BUT, for normal range and simple close up work it's unbeatable!</p>

<p>Starting macro the 105 macro lens will be enough. It will be a bit more universal than the shorter focal length of 105mm.</p>

<p>While you can hardly do any wrong getting the 55mm f2.8 lens you can always get a 55mm f2.8 micro Nikkor any time at a low price, well below 100 US$ for excellent condition.<br>

Of course the question is what is your decent price and what is the condition.<br>

Look at KEH or similar places for current prices.</p>

<p>I will not mention that I got a number of macro lenses and feel that I need each of them :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks everyone for their input!!</p>

<p>Most people prefer the 105, but opinions on the 55 differ (as this thread shows). Some people like the wider view, some use it occasionally and some don't like it. It's a bit matter of style and subjects.</p>

<p>I use a 55/2.8 Micro mainly for landcapes. It is very sharp and more important, highly resistant to flare. It is the only prime lens I carry with regularity.</p>

<p>It is on the short side for closeups in nature, and a 105 has a much greater working distance and better perspective in that regard. It is my first choice for copying documents and artwork, however, where the short focal length works to your advantage.</p>