Nikkor Macro Lenses- Which would you choose- and why?

[kenneth_cooke]

<p>I am contemplating buying a Nikkor 55mm Macro Lens and as far as I can see the choice lies between the recent f2.8-http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/55mmmicro.htm<br>

and the earlier f3.5 version which I understand to be a compensating version, whatever that means- http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/micro55mm.htm<br>

I would add that I have a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 so speed is not of the essence. I am proposing to mount it onto a late model F3HP so I assume any of the current or vintage models would fit. I have a Nikkor 105mm f2.8 so that would rule out the 105mm Macro and I believe the Nikkor 60mm and 85mm are both auto focus which would rule those out from personal choice</p>

[mtk]

<p>Hi Ken, I think it really comes down to how you are going to use it. I personally have an F3 and have the 55/3.5 ai....It has amazing sharpness. As far as speed goes, I feel that to get the most out of this lens if you truly are using it for Macro work it is going to be on a tripod anyway. For me the speed is not an issue. I also have the 105/2.8 and it is an awesome lens in its own right. I do not know what the "compensating" version is anyway. I bought my copy from KEH in bargain condition and since it isn't the "fast" version it was very reasonably priced.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Kenneth -</p>

<p>A lot depends on what you want to take pictures of and how close to your subject you want to work. Additionally, just because something is autofocus, it doesn't mean you can't focus it manually.</p>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't rule out a 105mm macro just because you have a 105mm f/2.8 non-macro lens. They are completely different lenses and, although the Micro 105mm can be used in a similar manner to your 105mm f/2.8, the opposite cannot be said.</p>

<p>If you're torn between the current 55mm f/2.8 or the older 55mm f/3.5, I'd likely take the new version. It's not about shutter speed with these lenses, it's about control of depth of field. Having that extra little bit is a bonus and, to me, worth the extra money.<br /><br />RS</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Have a look at the 200 f4 micro nikkor, lots of working distance compared to the 55 or 105.</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>My 55mm f3.5 is tops among even my more recent lenses. for the price, you can't beat it.</p>

<p>It's really limited by the short working distance, but when you can get by with it, it's amazing.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>+1 for the 200mm f/4 Micro Nikkor - great lens, good working distance</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>As I understand it ...<br>

Prior to 'modern' cameras, light meters were external and did not look thru the lens (TTL). As one racked out a micro lens (longer than normal helicoid) the apeture was sent way further away from the film, effectively reducing the apeture. The user had to dial in correction factors (bellows factors to some). Nikon's lens 'compensated' for that by moving internal elements so that the exposure remained fairly constant and didn't need to be readjusted.<br>

Regarding which lens, give some thought to your working distance. Longer focal lengths give you a greater working distance to your object, which is good for skittish bugs and for getting more room to add studio or flash light into the scene.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Shortly after getting an F3HP several years ago I added an AI'd 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor (not the compensating aperture type) and M2 extension tube. Excellent lens and I use it on the D2H as well. Very good for most subjects that don't move.</p>

<p>But for photographing critters you might prefer a longer macro lens. The 55/3.5 doesn't allow much working distance, especially when used with the extension tube. And the view through the finder is very dim with that combo, especially at minimum focus/maximum magnification, so you'll need plenty of light.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>As others have said, it depends on what you plan to shoot with it. If you are wanting to shoot insects and other moving things, you'd be better off with a 105 or 200. I have the 3.5 version of the 55 that I use extensively with my D50. It's sharp and extremely useful for what I do with it (flowers usually). The 2.8 version is supposedly sharper at infinity, but I haven't noticed the 3.5 version being noticeably un-sharp. With regard to maximum aperture and DOF, for macro work, it's pretty much a non issue. Narrow depth of field is inherent close-up work. I usually find myself in the f/8-16 range more often than not. The 2.8 version would give a bit brighter image in the viewfinder, though, which can be helpful with critical focusing.</p>

[keith_b1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Nikon's lens 'compensated' for that by moving internal elements so that the exposure remained fairly constant and didn't need to be readjusted."<br>

The compensation feature was only on the lens made from 1963 to 1969(See link: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#50slow) and was accomplished by incorporating a mechanism that opened the aperture as the lens was focused closer. The compensation feature will cause inconvenience with modern, TTL metering cameras. This old and somewhat rare lens is reputed to very sharp up close, but not so sharp at distance.<br>

The later, more modern Micro-Nikkor-P(55/3.5), -P-C, Ai, or later versions(55/2.8 Ai(s)) will give the best service, as far as light metering and near + far sharpness is concerned. The later 55/2.8 AIS has a reputation for acquiring grease/oil on the aperture blades....check for this before purchase.</p>

</blockquote>

[Matthew Brennan]

<blockquote>

<p>I am contemplating buying a Nikkor 55mm Macro Lens and as far as I can see the choice lies between the recent f2.8-http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/55mmmicro.htm<br /> and the earlier f3.5 version which I understand to be a compensating version, whatever that means- http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/micro55mm.htm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends upon which sort of subject matter you are contenplating shooting.</p>

<p>I use the Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 to earn money. IMHO it's IQ (with D700) is peerless for the circa 50/60mm range. I opted to go with the f/3.5 version because the f/2.8 version is 'reported' to have more than the occasional copy develop oily/clagged aperture blades. The focus throw is quite long and thus accurate focus is dialed in. It produces a nice flat plane of view and renders colours close enough to perfect for my liking (I use it to sell plants online so colour repro is very important)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I have both a pristine - almost mint - 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, and a battered f/2.8 version that nevertheless has perfect glass. The f/2.8 has CRC (close-range correction) that's supposed to improve its macro performance, but this only works properly up to 1:2 magnification. To be honest I can see very little difference in the IQ between the two. By the time you've stopped down enough to get sufficient depth-of-field for most macro subjects, diffraction has taken over and masked any slight difference in sharpness. Functionally the lenses are identical and both need a PK-13 or similar tube to get to 1:1. The lenses are both extremely contrasty and free from flare. The f/3.5 version might just have a slight edge in sharpness when used for normal distance work, while the f/2.8 might have the edge at macro distances, but it really is a <em>very slight </em>edge either way.</p>

<p>WRT the oiling problem: This usually showed up quite early in the life of the lens, and since most 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkors on offer have been around a while now, if it was going to happen it will already have happened, and will either have been fixed or be an obvious existing fault.</p>

[kenneth_cooke]

<p>Ok, I guess that about does it and I do appreciate all your valid comments. They help me go through the thought process, but I am coming around slowly to the thinking that the 50mm f1.4 will do everything I need. I have rarely had a need to go really close in, bear in mind, I am coming from a rangefinder background where close ups are a non starter unless you go down the Visoflex route which of course I don't have to now I have added an SLR. I believe that with the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 and the Summicron M 50mm I am well supplied for that focal length and add a 55mm which is only 5mm difference is hardly worth it</p>

[gandicarter]

The 55mm Ai is a good, sharp lens over its whole range of focus, however it has little working distance once you near

1:1. The 200mm also has excellent performance over its whole range and it provides a usable working distance. I

have the auto-focus version, which works nicely in its manual mode. The other lens you might consider, although it is

pricy, is the 85mm PCE. The ability to tilt the plane of focus is very useful. Two downsides (other than cost) is that it

doesn't go as far as 1:1 and the aperture is automatic only on newer camera bodies. On an F3, for example, the

aperture stays at F/2.8. I have no experience with the earlier tilt/shift lens.

 

A problem with my 55mm is that it "hot spots" on digital cameras. The rear element reflects light bouncing off the IR

filter over the sensor back onto the image. Recently Nikon has addressed this problem with their "Nano coating". The

200mm does not have this problem.

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm surprised to hear your comment about hot spots Gerald. I've used my 55mm f/3.5 at all distances and in pretty near all lighting conditions on a D700, and never once noticed anything other than perfect colour and excellent contrast from the little gem. What camera are you using, what's the condition of the lens like and do you habitually use a filter on it? It's well-known that filters can cause reflections and hot spots with digital cameras.</p>

<p>BTW, nano-crystal coating is used on only a very few of Nikon's most expensive lenses, and even then it's only applied to a few elements.</p>

[gandicarter]

<p>The hot-spotting is from an older D70. I will look for an image to show this problem and will see if it is visible on a D3 image. I'm just off to work, getting in my morning photo-chat fix, so it will be a day or so before I reply. I'm now curious if there is a significant difference between cameras' IR filters.</p>