Which 55mm Micro for general purpose use ?

<p>First off, I blame Lil, for getting me looking at older lenses and camera bodies again !</p>

<p>That being out of the way, I have found the 55m f3.5 AI and f2.8 AIS lenses are not going for a lot of money. It seems opinions are a little mixed about which one is best. I think both are not optimized for pure macro works so they can be used for just a walk around lens. The f2.8 may have the grease on the blades issue. Is this just early serial numbers that have that ? If so ... any idea at what range it might be safe ? I know both are known for being sharp. I have a 35mm f2 AF for a normal lens and the 28-85 f3.5-4.5 AF for a wider range, so this focal length is sort of covered, but perhaps not as good a performer. I admit, it's the price and reputation of the lens that is calling to me, not real need. Hey, it's NAS. I freely admit it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can hardly remember all the minutiae about each variation of the 55 Micro Nikkor, but my older AI'd version of the 55/3.5 has been excellent.  Not only terrific for macro to 1:1 (mine came with the M2 extension tube) on the D2H and film Nikons, but a decent all purpose lens too.  While the bokeh is wonky with shallow DOF (OOF foliage looks funky, otherwise it's not offensive, just so-so), it's sharp enough even for landscapes.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that all dedicated macro lenses share the same quirk: 75% of the focus throw is dedicated to the range from minimum focus to around 5-10 feet; focusing from roughly 10 feet to infinity requires barely a nudge of the ring.  Tricky for quick focusing at "normal" distances.</p>

<p>Another plus in favor of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor as an all-purpose lens: like the 50/2 AI, the front element is deeply recessed inside the lens barrel.  Essentially, the lens is self-shading so for traveling light you don't really need a separate hood.  I've occasionally toted just the FM2N and 55/3.5, no hood, when I wanted minimal hassles for all around use.  Before then my equivalent was the Olympus OM-1 and 50/3.5 Zuiko macro.  In daylight this was good enough even with ISO 50 film like Ilford Pan F+.  Nowadays we're spoiled by ultra-fast lenses and incredible high ISO performance from dSLRs, but for decades many candid photographers got by just fine with ISO 100 or slower film and "fast" f/3.5 lenses.</p>

My 55 Micro is the 2.8 version and I was shooting the case on my wifes watch so I could get the serial number . I looked like it had been worn off to the eye. Well the SB800 and a full frame case back showed the serial perfectly. I have not used the 3.5 but the 2.8 is great as an all around lens as well

I have the 55/3.5 AI and it's very good. But I agree with Lex and I would have looked for a regular 50mm as well for general use.

 

Other than that I like the 50/1.2 AI-S and think it is the best looking 50mm but also big and heavy. I also have a 50/1.4 AI, the 50/1.8 AF-D and the new 50/1.4 AF-S. I'd like a 50/2 AI as well for a light weight manual focus lens. This http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index.htm is a good resource for all Nikkors.

<p>If I remember correctly, the 55mm f/2.8 has CRC (a floating element system) to help the lens perform well at all object distances. The downside of the f/2.8 version is it's tendancy to seize-up.</p>

<p>Pete S. said:</p>

<p>"<span style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;"> I also have a 50/1.4 AI, the 50/1.8 AF-D and the new 50/1.4 AF-S."</span></p>

<p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">Care to share your impressions on the AF-S version?</span></p>

<p>I LOVE my 55mm f3.5.</p>

<p>But general purpose? No way. I either put on my zoom or, if I want a fixed focal length, my auto-focus f1.8 50mm. You can use it for "general purpose", but why? There are better choices.</p>

<p><img src="http://swcornell.com/webphoto/ellaclap.jpg" alt="" /> 3.5 55mm micro nikkor on D300. Converted to ai by John White.</p>

<p>I had the f3.5 version years ago, loved it, now I have the f2.8 version and I like it even better as it's a tad bit easier to focus. General purpose? You bet! It's a super walkaround lens on my D700. Sharper than real life, and the built-in lens hood is a plus. I bought it siezed up and had it regreased and now it's as good as new. The lens will become difficult to focus when the grease has dried up, which is the opposite from most manual focus Nikkor lenses, which get looser as the grease dries up. It's a rather complicated job to regrease the f2.8 Micro-Nikkor as it has a double helicoid, but it's not so expensive, I think I paid around $75 for the job, putting the total cost of the lens still less than $100 used. I'll have to find a PK-13 for it sometime<br>

<img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/430586683_ssU2E-L.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor with D700 at f22, Seattle, 12-4-2008<br>

 </p>

<p>I have both.  My 2.8 AIS has oil on the blades, bought it new in 1980 and for years it was my take everywhere lens.  The 3.5 AI seems just as good.  Optically you won't go wrong with either. </p>

<p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">I would have to agree with what some others have said…the 55 3.5 is a great all around lens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>I have a 55 3.5 non-ai and a 55 2.8 ais.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>The 55 2.8 is a newer addition to my collection so I have not had much of a chance to use it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">   </span>When I go out and only want to carry<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>3 lenses, I will pack the 55 macro.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>It is nice to have that close-up option if needed.</span></p>

The 55/2.8 AIS is probably the one to buy. It has CLC, which compensates for the distance. It is superbly sharp at all ranges, and unlike the 105/2.8 AFD, has no visible chromatic aberation. I bought mine used about 10 years ago. It developed oil on the diaphram fairly early on, but I've had no problem since getting a CLA from Nikon Authorized Service (Morton Grove, IL).

 

It makes an outstanding landscape and pictoral lens with a DSLR. As you can see from the shot above, it is highly resistant to flare and ghosting. My 28-70/2.8 would have problems with that shot.

<p>"Care to share your impressions on the AF-S version?"<br>

<br /> Sure. It seams as good or better than any of the older lenses looking at resolution. As expected still soft at f/1.4 though. Most importantly for me was the oof rendition at large apertures which is, if not equal then, very close to the creamy look of my 50mm f/1.2 AI-S.<br>

<br /> The focus ring is equally unimpressive both in size and in feel as my Nikkor 12-24/4 AF-S. The 50 AF-S has a slower autofocus but being a different focal length it's apples and oranges. Compared to my Sigma 50-150 at 50mm (which is a much larger lens) the focus is slightly faster.<br>

<br /> Being a 50mm it's a large lens but the glass is not big and the increased filter size is due to the internal focusing. The 50 f/1.2 AI-S is smaller but heavier due to it's metal construction. The build quality is similar to the 12-24.<br>

<br /> If you want a 50mm AF-S it's a no brainer and if you are thinking about the 50/1.4 AF-D I would reconsider and get the AF-S instead (if your cameras are compatible).</p>

<p>Sorry for the hijack.</p>

<p>Maybe this idea started with John Shaw's "Landscape Photography", and then grew with the "sharpest lens in my bag ! " sorts of comments. The thought of being able to get a really nice close-up, if the opportunity came up is also in the mix.  My 35mm AF will focus as close, at 0.25m but at 1:4, things are too big. If I were to get a 50mm, I think it wouldn't add to my bag of tricks, unless is was faster than my 35mm, which would mean a f1.4 version, which is not cheap. The macro lenses do add something I don't have. Of course, the 55mm needs to get REALLY close to get that !  Probably just NAS, but I hope I have good TASTE in my syndrome.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A 50/1.4 AIS is not nearly as sharp as the 55/2.8 AIS Micro. It is also more susceptible to flare and ghosting. If you feel you need for extra two stops, then go for it. I have both, but the f/1.4 stays home while the 55/2.8 has a place in my bag. If the light gets bad I crank up the ISO or use a flash.</p>

<p>Given I just shoot film, at this point, "cranking up the ISO" isn't really an option. Unless I change rolls of film !</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Edward, this concurs with my experience. The 50mm f1.4 is not a sharp lens, it trades sharpness for speed. I will be interested to see how the new Nikon 50mm AF-S performs compared to the f1.8 AF-D and the 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor. In my experience the best Nikon 50mm lens other than the Micro-Nikkor is the 50mm f2 AI.</p>

<p>I have six 50/1.4 Nikkors and they are all sharp.  The first is a pointy prony Nikkor-S, the second an SC, the third a 'K' model, the fourth a second version of the 'K' model, the fifth an AI and the sixth an AIS.  My favorite 50/1.4 Nikkor is the first 'K' lens.  The one I use most often is the S.  For good results to be achieved wide open with an f/1.4 standard lens everything must line up.  Focus must be careful, the mirror must be in the right place and all other viewfinder parts must be in good repair.  Many photos taken at f/1.4 are also done in low light so a high enough shutter speed is also important.  There have been too many good pictures taken with 50/1.4 Nikkors over the years for them to be bad lenses.  If I am not using a 50/1.4 then I consider the 50/2 lenses from the 'K' model through the AI to also be excellent.<br>

If my count is right I have twelve 55mm manual focus Micro Nikkors.  One is a 55/2.8 AIS, one is a 55/3.5 compensating model with the black front and the rest are P, PC, K and AI lenses.  These are also all good.  The 55/2.8 will give you a little more finder brightness but you can do just as well with a 3.5 lens if you switch to an E screen.  This way you don't have the focusing aids of the K screen blacking out.<br>

   </p>

<p>Jeff, sorry but you have far too many lenses ;-)</p>

<p>I too use a 35mm f/2 AF as a normal lense (on D200's/D60). Excellent lense.<br>

The 55mm f/2.8 or 3.5 Pre-AI and AI versions are all quite good.<br>

I had my old f/3.5 ai-d early this year to use on occasion on my D200 (eqv to a 78mm in 35mm terms). Works great. one It's extremely sharp, little or no CA, and nice tonality. But it lives with my FM2 and a 20mm AI-s most of the time.</p>