Nikkor 55mm f3.5 ai or Nikkor 55mm f2.8 ais?

[leon_knight]

Besides the obvious difference in maximum apertures, what other features separate these lenses from one another?

[rodeo_joe1]

Almost nothing!

The f/2.8 Ai-S version was supposedly "better", but I'm damned if I can see any difference in the results from them, either at distance or 1:1 with a PK-13.

[DavidTriplett]

Both are among the sharpest lenses ever made. I have the Micro-Nikkor 55mm/2.8 ais, and nothing else I own comes even close, with the possible exception of my Micro-Nikkor 105mm/2.8 AF-S. All else being equal, I'd pick the f/2.8 simply for the increased aperture, even if it cost a few dollars more.

[ben_hutcherson]

I owned the AI-s briefly, and sold it.

 

From the time I used it, I couldn't discern any difference between it and both the pre-AI version and AI version. In general, I'm not a fan of "normal" Macros for macro work so I ended up selling it to buy a 105 AF-D(and now have the 105 VR along with the R1C1 on lay-a-way at a local shop).

 

The AI-s is a fantastic lens, but like I said I'm perfectly content with the AI version. The only real advantage I see to it is the extra half stop when using at a normal lens replacement. In true Macro work I'm usually using strobes and/or a tripod once you get to 1:10 or so you're going to be working at small apertures anyway to get the DOF you need.

[DavidTriplett]

I also owned the original, non-AI version that I inherited from my dad, after he had it converted to AI. I couldn't tell the difference, either.

[Vincent Peri]

I have both lenses, recently purchased as I'm getting back into photography after a lull of several years. I haven't gotten any of the photos developed yet, but in the past (over several decades) I owned both lenses and found them both to be excellent (I use/used the slower version when I shoot/shot Tri-X).

 

Way back when, I heard rumors that the F2.8 macro was prone to getting oil on the aperture blades. I've owned at least 4 of them over the decades, and they NEVER had any problems at all. The reason I had 4 (or more) f/2.8 macros was because I'd be into photography for several or more years, then sell everything and then get back in photography once again, then repeat the "buy then sell" sequence several times over the years.

 

I say you'd be happy with either one!

Edited August 18, 2017 by Vincent Peri

[Vincent Peri]

posted in error.

[Ed_Ingold]

I doubt that 1/2 stop is going to make a big difference, but a new lens is likely to be in better mechanical condition, and probably has better coatings.

 

I'm using a 55/2.8 AIS with a Sony A7Rii (42 MP), and find it is capable of registering the finest detail. It is also highly resistant to flare, making it a good lens with back lighting. The 55/2.8 is prone to grease migration, making the disphtragm blades stick. It's worth a CLA if that happens, and Nikon rebuilds the lens with silicone grease, which does not migrate. I use it mainly for copying slides, but the focal length is ideal for copying documents or artwork too. It's not as good for closeups in nature, because the working distance is so short the camera tends to cast a shadow in the subject. Forget anything that can scurry or fly away.

 

I'm actually on my 3rd lens. The first I gave away (and later regretted), and my son wanted the other one back. The first froze up and needed a CLA, but worked for another 15 years before I parted with it.

 

A non-AI lens may damage the mount of Nikon cameras newer than an F4 (maybe an F5). The AI tab on an F4 folds out of harms way.

[donbright]

Had a CLA done with mine because of the sticky blades. The technician, standard or not cleaned the lens elements also and what a difference it made after a 30 year run with me. The Nikkor 55 Micro2.8 AIS is amazing. What are the thoughts of this lens at infinity?

[rodeo_joe1]

I believe the f/2.8 version incorporates a "CRC" floating element, which the f/3.5 version does not. However, any improvement due to the floating element is almost imperceptibly small.

 

Either lens makes a great close-focussing "standard" lens that's bitingly sharp from infinity down to half lifesize. As others have mentioned, the deeply recessed front element does you no favours WRT subject clearance, and for serious macro work a 90 to 105mm focal length is generally a better option. Nowhere near as compact as a 55mm as a walk around lens though.

[CvhKaar]

At that price ?

Get both...

The F\2.8 is easier to focus because it alows more light in, but i find the F\3.5 performing better on PB4 bellows when using scheimpflug metod for more DOF

(don't know why, it just does) .

[ben_hutcherson]

The F\2.8 is easier to focus because it alows more light in, but i find the F\3.5 performing better on PB4 bellows when using scheimpflug metod for more DOF

(don't know why, it just does) .

 

One of the beauties of the F series cameras is that if you want easier focusing with a slower lens, there's always a focusing screen for it :)

 

My F3 actually came with the AI Macro on it and had an R screen. The R screen has a split image and grid lines. I used it for a while and had issues getting the focus correct at large apertures-I didn't realize it but the split image on that screen is optimized for 3.5-5.6. I had zero issues getting things tack sharp with the AI Macro(or should I say Micro?), but switched it for a standard K screen for general use. Of course, changing one is a one-minute job so I don't hesitate to pick the correct screen for the application.

 

Also, bear in mind that autofocus started being widely available around the same time that(slower) zoom lenses started become popular. Most AF bodies-unless they've had the screen changed-have screens that stay fairly bright down to smallish apertures and electronic rangefinders usually work to f/5.6 or so.

[Ed_Ingold]

I believe the f/2.8 version incorporates a "CRC" floating element, which the f/3.5 version does not. However, any improvement due to the floating element is almost imperceptibly small.

The 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor doesn't have floating elements, just s simple focusing helix with a 240 degree span and 1:2 maximum magnification.

 

Nikon AF Micro lenses do have floating elements, and achieve 1:1 magnification by shortening the focal length as you get closer. This causes focus "breathing" and reduces the working distance (front element to subject) dramatically at close range.

[Dieter Schaefer]

The 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor doesn't have floating elements

Nikon begs to differ (as do two books on the Nikon system that I checked to verify): Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/2.8 from Nikon

[Michael R Freeman]

The 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor doesn't have floating elements, just s simple focusing helix with a 240 degree span and 1:2 maximum magnification.

.

 

Having serviced a couple of these, I can assure you that it does. ;-) :- )

 

 

It's one of the reasons this lens gets a really stiff focus action when the lubricant dries out. The floating group is a small diameter helical with a steep thread pitch that requires quite a bit of torque to move when the grease degrades.

 

I also think the CRC group is the area of the 55/2.8 primarily responsible for wicking lubricant to the aperture assembly.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Michael R Freeman

[Michael R Freeman]

The final version of the Ai Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 for comparison. No floating group, just simple unit focusing. Both are precision mechanical masterpieces. It's no wonder these lenses have endured for decades.

 

[conrad_hoffman]

The 55 f/2.8 Micro Nikkor is the sharpest lens I own and I use it constantly at all distances. It never disappoints. As above on the thick grease- don't wait until it won't move! There's a how-to on service on my web site.

[robert_bouknight1]

I have several f3.5 copies including the oldest version with "compensating iris", have used a 2.8 version (that had a little grease on the iris blades but still worked), and can't tell much difference. I have read that the 3.5 is supposed to be slightly better at macro work while the 2.8 is slightly better at long distances.

 

The 3.5 versions typically are a good bit less expensive. I prefer other 50's (either f1.4 or f2) for general purpose photos, so I vote for using the 3.5 as a "dedicated" macro and using other lenses for more conventional photos.

[leon_knight]

I have the option of purchasing an f3.5 for $78 or an f2.8 for $99 on Ebay. Both are in near mint condition. I posed the question because I couldn't figure out which option to choose. However, based on the comments received here, I have decided to buy both since they are relatively inexpensive and they both seem to be great lenses. Furthermore, I can always sell one at a later time if I ever consider one to be far superior than the other. Thanks for all your help. I have been thoroughly enlightened.

[rodeo_joe1]

Both are very well priced if they truly are near-mint.

 

Good luck detecting any superiority of one over the other. You'll need a very high resolution DSLR to do it!

[Sandy Vongries]

Now all you need is an M 2 ring to go with the pair.

[leon_knight]

Now all you need is an M 2 ring to go with the pair.

 

How about the PK-13?

[CvhKaar]

I have the option of purchasing an f3.5 for $78 or an f2.8 for $99 on Ebay. Both are in near mint condition. I posed the question because I couldn't figure out which option to choose. However, based on the comments received here, I have decided to buy both since they are relatively inexpensive and they both seem to be great lenses. Furthermore, I can always sell one at a later time if I ever consider one to be far superior than the other. Thanks for all your help. I have been thoroughly enlightened.

 

Wise Decision !

[Sandy Vongries]

How about the PK-13?

M 2 came with the lenses originally. K series will work as will the BR. Not personally familiar with the PK 13, but it sounds as if it would work, and is apparently "automatic" with AIS cameras and lenses. There are a variety of digital cameras it will not function with. Someone probably has personal experience with it and can comment further.

[leon_knight]

M 2 came with the lenses originally. K series will work as will the BR. Not personally familiar with the PK 13, but it sounds as if it would work, and is apparently "automatic" with AIS cameras and lenses. There are a variety of digital cameras it will not function with. Someone probably has personal experience with it and can comment further.