Problems with 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor?

[nico_.]

Having been hesitant about adding a macro lens to my setup for quite a while I

bought on impulse a 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. Bjørn Rørslett's review said it has a

problem with oil on its aperture blades which makes them stick. How many of you

have had this problem?

 

While I would have expected overexposed shots with sticky aperture blades,I

found that my sample actually underexposes by roughly 1/2-2/3 of a stop. Should

I bring it back to the shop to have it serviced? Otherwise I quite like this

lens. It's sharp and lightweight & manual focus is really a joy after many years

of AFing.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

You're getting underexposure on a D200, right? Are you setting the aperture to f/2.8 via the lens selection menu?

 

I wonder if you need to set the lens up as an f/4 or so to compensate for the extension that you typically use the lens at. David Hartman around?

[nico_.]

Yes, I set the D200 to f2.8. I don't think that's the problem though. I compared the lens in manual mode to a 50/1.8 and the 18-70@50 with all lenses set to infinity.

 

Thanks for the hint, Todd. That was the other question I forgot to ask: Can the D200 compensate for the extension at close distances as it does with AF lenses? If not, is there a rule of thumb or do just go by the histogram?

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Well, the meter will 'see' the less light coming down the lens due to extension, so it will probably be OK, particularly in CW.

 

I poked around the archives and found this thread on the topic:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G7Ej

 

The folks there seem to think the critical area is when dealing with very fast lenses.

[walterh]

Nico if you go to center weight light measuring the extension should not matter. The matrix metering can be fooled if the effective aperture is way off from the real aperture. Perhaps the difference between AI and AIS comes into play - I dont know. With macro I often correct exposure and do not really worry with a digital camera. Macro takes time and many shots to get it right so its no big deal that it works better with some lenses than with others. If you would be payed by the hour you might want to get current pro AFD lenses (or better the not any more current 70-180mm macro zoom). With current "chipped" AF macro lenses you see the effective aperture not the selected aperture value.

 

Regarding the oil: You should be able to see the oil on the aperture blades if it is there. You can also move the lever on the lens mount by hand and check the action of the diaphragm. If it is there have it serviced otherwise why worry? My lens does not have the problem.

[alan_wilder1]

Years ago I had the 55/2.8 AIS that was bought new and it eventually deveolped the oil on the diaphram problem. I bought an AI'd 55/3.5 a few years ago and the blades are dry as a bone despite it's 30+ year age. The oil problem on the 55/2.8 stems from the more complex CRC mechanism with the helicoids and is not unusual in these lenses. Storing the lens with the lens mount up may help to avoid the problem as well as keeping it in a cool environment.

[lee hamiel]

I would simply use it & use exposure compensation when using it.

 

I understand the feeling of using MF after AF'ng as well as it's my preference unless it's a fast moving subject.

[Ed_Ingold]

Sluggish diaphram blades will cause the problems you observe. Look and see if there is any visible oil on the blades. Oil migration is a common problem with the 55/2.8 Micro and is easily repaired for about $80 at a Nikon service facility. I had a Nikkor 50/1.4 AIS with the same problem. It has been good now for 6 years. I believe they use a different grease now, less susceptible to separation. Send the lens directly to Nikon or an authorized facility, rather than through a camera shop. It will cost less, take about 1/3rd the time and get done right the first time. I use Nikon Authorized Service, located in Morton Grove, Illinois.

[g._armour_van_horn]

I've had two of the 55/2.8s, the first one had the grease problem and I dumped it (with full disclosure) on eBay and bought the second one. You aren't having this problem, as if you do you would be seeing gross overexposure. But just to assure yourself, grab the loose lens without caps, set the aperture to f:/22, and flick the little actuator on the lens mount. If the lens is working correctly, you'll see the aperture open as fast as you flip the little lever, and see it close just as quickly when you release it. And on this lens you can see the aperture well enough that you will definitely see discoloration on the blades if you have the problem.

 

Are these underexposures while shooting in close? I shoot a lot of stuff where I take one shot of the whole piece of art, from 4-12 feet back, and one shot at about 1:2 or 1:3, and I need to open a half stop to compensate for the lens extension.

 

Van

[nico_.]

Thanks a lot guys. I had a look at the aperture blades & they look just fine. No oil. There's a 6 month warranty for this lens by the shop where i bought it. They have their own technician so I'll give him a go because of the underexosure. This is after all why I paid a bit more compared to ebay prices.