Which micro nikkor

[mark_cooke]

I have a query regarding the quality of optics and how they vary between

manual focus AIS lenses and AF lenses.

I particulalry refer to the 55mm f2.8 AIS micro nikkor and the 60mm f2.8 AFD

micro nikkor.

Using these on an AF Digital body i wondered which one people consider deliver

the best results. I have been happy using the AIS 55mm lens on manual focus

and other than being autofocus, wondered if I would see any benefit from

changing to a 60mm AFD micro.

 

All your comments are, as always most welcome.

Mark

[robert_finkelman]

Hi.

 

Most serious macro photographers do not use autofocus when photographing small objects. This is due to the typically narrow depth of field yielded by true macro lenses. Finding the correct focus plane is critical in these situations, ergo using manual focus.

 

Having said that, I own and use the 60mm 2.8D and find it to be a wonderfull lens. If you are dead set on an AF macro, have a look at the AF 200 4D. I have been considering buying one, and recently posted asking folks for their input. the consensus was that it is quite simply the best macro lens in the world.

 

Rob

[leicaglow]

I used to own the 55mm Micro, but traded to a 60mm when it first came out. I still think they're so close in performance that it wouldn't be worth the change. The 60mm AF speed is terrible at close range, even with limiting the focus, so I too use it as a manual focus for macro work. Other than that, I think it's a great portrait lens and enjoy the AF when not taking macro images.

[erik_loza]

No real-world difference unless you would benefit from automatic metering. I use the old

55mm all the time for our ad work and I don't know how someone could want more. Best

of luck.

[albert_smith]

<I>...on an AF Digital body...</I><P>

 

<I>...happy using the AIS 55mm lens on manual focus and other than being autofocus, wondered if I would see any benefit from changing...</I><P>

 

I love my 55mm f/2.8 Nikkor, but only use film bodies. The biggest problem that I could see using a manual focus lens on a digital body would be the lack of TTL metering. I could do O.K. with a non-macro lens and hand-held metering or sunny-16 exposures, but a macro lens has the added complexity of a shifting aperture while entering the extreme close-up range. A TTL meter in a camera adjusts for this, but f/8 marked is not f/8 true once you get into the minimum distances.<P>

 

I would want a lens that allows for all metering with the digital body so that I can shoot without tweaking an aperture ring while guessing about the light loss due to lens extension.

[wilsontsoi]

I agree that there is no real world difference between 55 f2.8 AiS and 60 f2.8 AF-D, except that the latter will go down to 1:1 without any PK tube.

[joel_hammers]

f/8 is f/8. The aperture doesn't change. The amount of light reaching the film or sensor does because it's farther away.

[albert_smith]

<I>f/8 is f/8. The aperture doesn't change. The amount of light reaching the film or sensor does because it's farther away.</I><P>

 

I understand this, and I might have been too simple in my post. My point was that if a hand-held meter says to use f/8 for a certain shutterspeed, and you have the lens racked out to a high level of magnification, then the film will not be getting the amount of light that f/8 should give, and there will be under exposure.<P>

 

My point was that TTL metering makes macro work faster and more sure due to light loss from extension, which would give Mark a point in favor of the 60mm AF lens for a digital camera.

[Ed_Ingold]

The 55/2.8 AIS lens is an excellent lens, and has a longer working distance (front element to subject) than the 60/2.8 AF, which implements internal focusing by shortening the focal length. As other have said, auto-focus is of little use in macro photography. An AIS lens can be used with metering on a D200 or any of the pro Nikon DSLRs.

 

The 55/2.8 AIS only extends to a 1:2 magnification (half-size), which means the maximum exposure compensation is 1 stop. You can deal with this with or without TTL exposure readings.

 

In terms of practice, the working distance a 50-60mm macro lens is too short for comfort in the field, and the field of view too large for effective background control. If you pop for an AF lens, look for a 105/2.8 or longer. The 200/4 AF is an extraordinary lens (and pricey), without the CA of the 60 and 105. Save the 55mm for copying documents and artwork, or as a ~50mm "carry" lens.

[g._armour_van_horn]

I've never seen any difference in optical quality between my 55/2.8 and my 60/2.8. I don't use the 55mm that much any more, because when I'm shooting film I have better choices in the 90-105mm range. I spend a lot of time in the studio doing the same shots in film and digital, so the 90/2.8 Vivitar Series One on the F3 is a pretty decent match for the 60mm (working equivalent of 78mm) on my DCS-760 as I move back and forth between the two media.

 

Lucky for me, most of my macro work is planar, and there is no problem with the AF in that case, but you can switch to manual easily with the 60 when you need to. When out and about, I tend to use the 60 as my normal lens. I would never use the 55 in that role as it's too slow to focus (have to turn the focus ring too far) for things like wandering around a county fair, I'd mount the 50/1.8 instead.

 

I'm very happy I bought the MicroNikkor, even with the 55/2.8 at hand.

 

Van

[birdsofearth]

I've been using this (AIS) lens occasionally and there was never a problem.<div></div>