Choice of Nikon lenses between 55mm-60mm

Joseph Bell · Mar 24, 2019

Hello, fine snappers

I am looking for a lens for my Nikon SLR and can't decide between these lenses:

55mm 2.8 micro
55mm 3.5 micro
60mm 2.8 micro
Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 Noktor

I am looking for a lens that will be rich with character and beauty and that will look great at Infinity as well as close up.

If anyone has any experience with these lenses, I would be most grateful for your thoughts. Of course I'd also welcome any other suggestions for lenses in the 50-60mm range.

Thank you truly!

shutterfinger · Mar 24, 2019

I have a 60mm f2.8 AF(D?) Micro Nikkor. Its a great lens on my D300, haven't used it on my F4s. The 55 f2.8 will/should be an excellent performer also. Wider lens will give higher magnification close up.

narsuitus · Mar 24, 2019

Of the four lenses you listed, I have used only the 55mm f/3.5 micro.

I have used this lens for decades. It is one of the three lenses I own with the best image quality. The 180mm f/2.8 and the 105mm f/2.8 micro are the other two.

I have read reports that the image quality of the 55 micro is not good at infinity. I can neither confirm or deny this claim because I have never needed to use the lens for subjects at an infinite distance.

55mm f/3.5 micro on Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

mshchem · Mar 24, 2019

Buy a lens you can see through. A f1.4 lens is ideal. My first F2 was a F2S with a 55mm f3.5 micro nikkor. I hated that lens. I would get a Nikkor 50 1.4, if you want to do macro work buy a longer focal length lens. A 10 dollar extension tube will turn any 50 into a close up lens. MHO

mshchem · Mar 24, 2019

narsuitus said:
Of the four lenses you listed, I have used only the 55mm f/3.5 micro.

I have used this lens for decades. It is one of the three lenses I own with the best image quality. The 180mm f/2.8 and the 105mm f/2.8 micro are the other two.

I have read reports that the image quality of the 55 micro is not good at infinity. I can neither confirm or deny this claim because I have never needed to use the lens for subjects at an infinite distance.

55mm f/3.5 micro on Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

The 180 f2.8 is still being made. What a terrific lens. Blazingly fast and compact considering the focal length. I have the AF-D version, it keeps up with my digital bodies very well.

KN4SMF · Mar 24, 2019

mshchem said:
Buy a lens you can see through. A f1.4 lens is ideal. My first F2 was a F2S with a 55mm f3.5 micro nikkor. I hated that lens. I would get a Nikkor 50 1.4, if you want to do macro work buy a longer focal length lens. A 10 dollar extension tube will turn any 50 into a close up lens. MHO

I'm curious why you hated it.

Kodachromeguy · Mar 24, 2019

I used a 55mm f/2.8 for over a decade with my F3 and Kodachrome 25 film. My example was the highest resolution 50 or 55 lens in my kit in terms of fine details at a distance, such as bare tree branches or signs far away. I think it was marginally better than my Summicron type 4 on my Leicas. But the difference was very subtle.

MattKing · Mar 24, 2019

KN4SMF said:
I'm curious why you hated it.

I am guessing because the f/3.5 maximum aperture made for relatively dim viewing when light was low.
Based on your list, I take it that close focus work is high on your list of priorities.
Ironically, a lens that is designed to perform well at close focus is probably the least likely to be "rich with character and beauty". The best macro lenses are designed to be highly technical - to give accurate, distortion free images of flat field subjects.
Of course, one person's lens that is "rich with character and beauty" is another person's lens that is subject to unacceptable aberrations and distortions.
For my mind, a longer macro lens - say 100mm - is more likely to be optimized for macro work, if for no other reason that it allows for much more comfortable working distances and lighting flexibility.

Joseph Bell · Mar 24, 2019

mshchem said:
The 180 f2.8 is still being made. What a terrific lens. Blazingly fast and compact considering the focal length. I have the AF-D version, it keeps up with my digital bodies very well.

I wholeheartedly agree! This is my favorite lens I ever used. Everything about its rendering is lovely...

Joseph Bell · Mar 24, 2019

MattKing said:
I am guessing because the f/3.5 maximum aperture made for relatively dim viewing when light was low.
Based on your list, I take it that close focus work is high on your list of priorities.
Ironically, a lens that is designed to perform well at close focus is probably the least likely to be "rich with character and beauty". The best macro lenses are designed to be highly technical - to give accurate, distortion free images of flat field subjects.
Of course, one person's lens that is "rich with character and beauty" is another person's lens that is subject to unacceptable aberrations and distortions.
For my mind, a longer macro lens - say 100mm - is more likely to be optimized for macro work, if for no other reason that it allows for much more comfortable working distances and lighting flexibility.

Thank you! These are some good points. The more I think about it, the more I agree that 55/60mm is not a great focal length for macro work. Mostly I'm looking for a lovely walkaround lens. I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8 E series lens and I am not too happy with its performance at infinity. I am looking to replace it with something more interesting...

Joseph Bell · Mar 24, 2019

MattKing said:
I am guessing because the f/3.5 maximum aperture made for relatively dim viewing when light was low.
Based on your list, I take it that close focus work is high on your list of priorities.
Ironically, a lens that is designed to perform well at close focus is probably the least likely to be "rich with character and beauty". The best macro lenses are designed to be highly technical - to give accurate, distortion free images of flat field subjects.
Of course, one person's lens that is "rich with character and beauty" is another person's lens that is subject to unacceptable aberrations and distortions.
For my mind, a longer macro lens - say 100mm - is more likely to be optimized for macro work, if for no other reason that it allows for much more comfortable working distances and lighting flexibility.

Hi again, I included the macro lenses on the list mostly for their focal length. I know it's a subtle difference between 50 and 55mm, but my preferred focal length for a walkaround lens is somewhere between 55-60mm.

mshchem · Mar 24, 2019

KN4SMF said:
I'm curious why you hated it.

Too dim

RalphLambrecht · Mar 24, 2019

Joseph Bell said:
Hello, fine snappers

I am looking for a lens for my Nikon SLR and can't decide between these lenses:

55mm 2.8 micro
55mm 3.5 micro
60mm 2.8 micro
Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 Noktor

I am looking for a lens that will be rich with character and beauty and that will look great at Infinity as well as close up.

If anyone has any experience with these lenses, I would be most grateful for your thoughts. Of course I'd also welcome any other suggestions for lenses in the 50-60mm range.

Thank you truly!

my vote goes to the Micro55mm f/3.5. It's an excellent macro lens for very little $ even in the non-AI version.

mshchem · Mar 24, 2019

I would look for a mint example of the pre-Ai 50 1.4 Nikkor. The S or S-C version. These are all glass and metal. Brass helicoids, filter threads, beautiful lens. Set this at f5.6 it's going to be sharp, easy to focus and can be found in lovely condition for around $120. If you need AI there's a lot of these that were converted by Nikon. The new crop of "boutique" manual focus lenses selling for hundreds or even over a thousand dollars are IMHO not much better optically.

Kodachromeguy · Mar 24, 2019

mshchem said:
Too dim

For the F3, the Type H viewfinder screen was available in 4 models for various maximum lens apertures. And the Type M was also supposed to be suitable in dim light. I am not sure if similar screens were made for the F2 cameras. Some of the F4 screens were brighter than the equivalent F3 screens. One practice back in the day was to remove the screen from an F4 viewfinder frame and place it in a F3 frame. Then it would mount perfectly in an F3 body.

mshchem · Mar 24, 2019

Kodachromeguy said:
For the F3, the Type H viewfinder screen was available in 4 models for various maximum lens apertures. And the Type M was also supposed to be suitable in dim light. I am not sure if similar screens were made for the F2 cameras. Some of the F4 screens were brighter than the equivalent F3 screens. One practice back in the day was to remove the screen from an F4 viewfinder frame and place it in a F3 frame. Then it would mount perfectly in an F3 body.

Good idea. I don't pretend to understand all the different finder screens, I have a Hasselblad with their famous Acute-Matte screen. First time I used it I was shocked, so bright. I'm spoiled by my F5, and fast prime lenses.

Even with the newest *igtal cameras I don't use zooms because they are slow. Maybe I'm lacking Vitamin A, need to eat more carrots .

Kodachromeguy · Mar 24, 2019

You are right! both for the F5 screen, which is terrific (esp. with prime lenses), and for most *igtal cameras, which have crappy finders. See this interesting article by Mike Johnston in Luminous Landscape in 2009 (where he talks about finders devolving to the lowest mass market customer):

https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-viewfinders/

gorbas · Mar 24, 2019

For the last few days I'm trying Nocton 1.4/58mm. So far I'm very pleased. Super smooth bokeh. Well made lens, like Nikkors back in the day. Shot both film (on F100) and digital.

gorbas · Mar 24, 2019

This is taken with D810 and Nocton 1.4/58mm@f1.4. Nikkor AiS 1.4/50mm is not that crisp @f1.4. You have also 3 kinds of AF Micro Nikkor 60mm, AF, AF-D and AF-G. They are all great lenses as well as older MIcro 55 (both 2.8 and 3.5) but It's very wide range of lenses. And there is also in that range Nikkor AFS 1.4/58mm! You need to make some decisions!?

StepheKoontz · Mar 24, 2019

I know it's not a 55mm but the 50mm f2 H non-ai is a really great lens.

mshchem · Mar 24, 2019

StepheKoontz said:
I know it's not a 55mm but the 50mm f2 H non-ai is a really great lens.

Absolutely. All these lenses are going to look good at f5.6, f8.0. I rarely shoot wider than f 2.8, Nikon debuted the original Nikon F with a f2 normal lens.

narsuitus · Mar 24, 2019

Joseph Bell said:
I am looking for a lens that will be rich with character and beauty and that will look great at Infinity as well as close up.

Joseph Bell said:
Of course I'd also welcome any other suggestions for lenses in the 50-60mm range.

I own and use these 50mm lenses for my 35mm cameras:
Asahi 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar (8-element) (49mm filter)
Asahi 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar (7-element) (49mm filter)
Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 EBC (49mm filter)
Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 (49mm filter)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D (52mm filter)
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Series E (52mm filter)

All produce high quality images.

The Asahi and Fujinon lenses are M42 screw-mount lenses and do not mount on Nikon bodies.

The 8-element Takumar is rich with character and beauty and looks great at infinity as well as close-up. It is my lens of choice for theatre work.

The manual focus Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Series E is the most reasonably priced. It serves as a backup to my faster 50mm lenses.

The Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is the only one of the six that is auto focus. With the exception of macro work and theatre work, it meets all my needs for a lens in the 50-60mm focal length range.

50mm Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Kodachromeguy · Mar 24, 2019

StepheKoontz said:
I know it's not a 55mm but the 50mm f2 H non-ai is a really great lens.

I owned one of these decades ago!. Yes, I agree, an excellent lens. It came with a Nikkormat that I bought in 1968. In fact, I just scanned some old Kodachromes that I took with this lens. This is Quincy Market, Boston, Massachusetts, before the renovation that occurred in the 1975-1976 period to prepare for the Bicentennial.

mshchem · Mar 25, 2019

Kodachromeguy said:
I owned one of these decades ago!. Yes, I agree, and excellent lens. It came with a Nikkormat that I bought in 1968. In fact, I just scanned some old Kodachromes that I took with this lens. This is Quincy Market, Boston, Massachusetts, before the renovation that occurred in the 1975-1976 period to prepare for the Bicentennial.

View attachment 220128

Wow, great photo. One of the billboards in the background for Dubuque canned hams. "From the Tall Corn County" that's Iowa! Dubuque Packing Company, "The Pack". In it's heyday it was a huge operation. It spiraled down hill in the 80's, they paid good wages, equipment was old. It's all gone now. It was a huge part of the WWII effort, didn't make SPAM, that was Hormel, in Austin Minnesota. The miracle of Kodachrome slides and a 50mm lens.

blockend · Mar 25, 2019

StepheKoontz said:
I know it's not a 55mm but the 50mm f2 H non-ai is a really great lens.

Yes, the "Nikon Sonnar" is a fine, characterful lens. Increasingly difficult to find in excellent condition, and prices are climbing. A few years ago every other £25 Nikkormat came with one attached.

Choice of Nikon lenses between 55mm-60mm

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency