Choice of Nikon lenses between 55mm-60mm

[Kodachromeguy]

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.

Here are some more Kodachromes from the Quincy Market area in the 1960s and 1970s. As usual, looking back, I wish I had taken many more pictures of ordinary street scenes, signs, crowds - the elements that make up the culture of a time and place. I need to remember to do that now, as well.

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2019/03/quincy-market-boston-reuse-of-historic.html

 

[Joseph Bell]

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!?
View attachment 220124

Decisions, yes! Indeed I do! Thank you kindly for your help.

 

[Joseph Bell]

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.

View attachment 220128

Delightful!

 

[jim10219]

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

It's kind of true that the 55/3.5 doesn't perform well at infinity. But that issue is mainly just with the first version. It was later corrected in newer versions at the expense of some closeup sharpness. The first version has the metal knurled focus ring, kind of like what you'd see on an old Super Takumar. The later versions, like the one in your picture with the rubber focus ring, should perform much better at infinity.

And the first versions aren't terrible at infinity, nor are the later versions terrible close up. I have a first version that I use mainly to scan film, and I've used it for infinity focus (landscapes) before. You can get usable images, but nothing is tack sharp, especially when compared to all of the 50mm primes Nikon has offered over the years. Still, it's not as bad as some zoom lenses I've used over the years.

 

[Vaidotas]

Welcome to 50 mm world.
There are a lot of choices.

My No1 on film is Micro Nikkor 55/3.5
No2 - Nikkor H 50/2

Nikkor 50/1.4 Ais mostly rests .

Not a fan of Voigtlander

 

[Joseph Bell]

Fine people! I am most grateful for your responses and I am quite delighted over all these possibilities. I have decided to forget about the Voigtlander for the time being. I am particularly curious about the 50mm f2 and see that there is an AI version as well, which seems to have the same optics? I am also more than intrigued by these M42 Takumar lenses, and find myself wishing I'd held on to my Spotmatic! The Takumar people seem to feel that their lenses have a certain ethereal specialness to them? My only experience with a 50mm Nikon thus far is the 1.8 E series, and I was unhappy with the colors, contrast, sharpness, and mechanics of the lens, although of course it may be that I simply have a bad copy. Anyhow! Thank you truly!

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Fine people! I am most grateful for your responses and I am quite delighted over all these possibilities. I have decided to forget about the Voigtlander for the time being. I am particularly curious about the 50mm f2 and see that there is an AI version as well, which seems to have the same optics? I am also more than intrigued by these M42 Takumar lenses, and find myself wishing I'd held on to my Spotmatic! The Takumar people seem to feel that their lenses have a certain ethereal specialness to them?

Oh, oh, Joseph, I will add complexity to you decision-making process. My wife has the 55mm f/1.8 Super-Takumar (not SMC, the single-coated version) from 1971. It is astonishing. Here are some examples from Texas taken on Technical Pan film (which I should have used more often, but you know how these regrets go.....):

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2017/03/from-archives-sugar-land-texas-in-1984.html

 

[shutterfinger]

Its been/currently is rainy/overcast 12% to 20% gray with an occosinal 20 seond break of sunlight so no example of what the 60mm f2.8 AF does at infinity or close up.

 

[film_man]

I had the 55/3.5. Great micro lens, very sharp but unless you really want a micro lens the f/3.5 aperture is just too slow. I haven't shot the Voigtlander 58/1.4 but that budget covers a 50/1.2 AIS or a Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 and either of those would be much better choice for general shooting vs any of the micros.

 

[Joseph Bell]

But amigos! These Takumars are radioactive! Will the thorium get us? Do you care? Should I? !?

 

[shutterfinger]

But amigos! These Takumars are radioactive! Will the thorium get us? Do you care? Should I? !?

Don't sleep with it under your pillow nightly, carry it in your pants pocket daily, or store it next to your film and you'll be fine.

 

[darkosaric]

You can't go wrong with any nikkor 50mm lens. Actually you can't go wrong with any nikkor prime lens. Even those who are considered "bad" (like first version 200mm f4) are great lenses.

 

[Joseph Bell]

Don't sleep with it under your pillow nightly, carry it in your pants pocket daily, or store it next to your film and you'll be fine.

Excellent advice which I shall surely heed!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

d

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 .

on't bother with carrots; They improve vision but with beer or wine, you can double it and with vodka, you can see things that are not even there.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have had the 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor for somewhere around 30 years, bought it new. I've used the slower earlier version in a work environment doing film duplicating work. The earlier unit is a very good lens for copy reproduction, but is not super great for infinity work.

The 2.8 unit is really very good at close work and is sharp as a tack across the entire frame if used anywhere near f/5.6 or slightly higher. I generally use it with a 6x waist level finder and a good tripod on my F3, in those conditions it is going to be extremely hard to better.

I did use it for close to 20 years as my only travel lens in the 50mm range, it is more than adequate at infinity stuff, but there are better Nikkor lenses in the 50mm range for infinity stuff. We are talking small differences, but they are there.

If I wish to travel anywhere where I need a 50mm lens, then unless outright speed for low light is needed, the 2.8 Micro Nikkor is the lens I take.

There is a dedicated 27.5mm extension ring for 1:1 stuff. But at 1:1 you will find your lens is almost on top of the subject. Not an issue, but something that may make your minid up one way or the other.

Mick.

 

[shutterfinger]

I got a break in the weather so: Nikon D300, 60mm f2.8 AF Micro Nikkor, saved as Tiff, reduced from 300 dpi to 92 dip, width reduced from 7 to 6 inches in CS2 bicubic sharper with no other edits.
at f2.8 infinity focus; at f4 infinity focus; at closest focus distance reads f5 as the widest aperture; focus distance to capture the full blossom which is 7/8 inch at its widest section, aperture unchanged.

 

[Joseph Bell]

I got a break in the weather so: Nikon D300, 60mm f2.8 AF Micro Nikkor, saved as Tiff, reduced from 300 dpi to 92 dip, width reduced from 7 to 6 inches in CS2 bicubic sharper with no other edits.
View attachment 220323 at f2.8 infinity focus; View attachment 220324 at f4 infinity focus; View attachment 220325 at closest focus distance reads f5 as the widest aperture; View attachment 220326 focus distance to capture the full blossom which is 7/8 inch at its widest section, aperture unchanged.

thank you truly! That is very helpful!

 

[Joseph Bell]

I have had the 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor for somewhere around 30 years, bought it new. I've used the slower earlier version in a work environment doing film duplicating work. The earlier unit is a very good lens for copy reproduction, but is not super great for infinity work.

The 2.8 unit is really very good at close work and is sharp as a tack across the entire frame if used anywhere near f/5.6 or slightly higher. I generally use it with a 6x waist level finder and a good tripod on my F3, in those conditions it is going to be extremely hard to better.

I did use it for close to 20 years as my only travel lens in the 50mm range, it is more than adequate at infinity stuff, but there are better Nikkor lenses in the 50mm range for infinity stuff. We are talking small differences, but they are there.

If I wish to travel anywhere where I need a 50mm lens, then unless outright speed for low light is needed, the 2.8 Micro Nikkor is the lens I take.
Thanks so much for your help!
There is a dedicated 27.5mm extension ring for 1:1 stuff. But at 1:1 you will find your lens is almost on top of the subject. Not an issue, but something that may make your minid up one way or the other.

Mick.

 

[shutterfinger]

The other posible importants, Aperture priority auto exposure, auto white level.

 

[Joseph Bell]

Again, thank you all! I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. I picked up a Nikon 50mm f2 and a 55mm f3.5 and I will use them with compulsive regularity!

 

[mdarnton]

I have a very early pre-AI 55/3.5, an AI 55/3.5 with the rectangular rubber knurling, and the 60/2.8 AF-D. I can't tell them apart as far as results go. It's one of the best lenses Nikon made for many years. The 55/2.8 is probably fine, too, but you have to be wary of ones that have leaked oil onto the diaphragm, which was common.

You really couldn't go wrong, so the one you bought was indeed the right one!

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have a very early pre-AI 55/3.5, an AI 55/3.5 with the rectangular rubber knurling, and the 60/2.8 AF-D. I can't tell them apart as far as results go. It's one of the best lenses Nikon made for many years. The 55/2.8 is probably fine, too, but you have to be wary of ones that have leaked oil onto the diaphragm, which was common.

You really couldn't go wrong, so the one you bought was indeed the right one!

I totally forgot about that. This happened to my lens at the end of an extremely hot day of shooting portraiture around ten years ago. For close portraiture and a young(ish) person, the sharpness is unbelievable.

The symptoms were interesting, I was sometimes shooting in landscape mode, then switching into portrait mode. When in portrait mode the shutter took seemingly forever to finish doing its thing. I was probab;y shooting around 1/125 at f/8, but it was taking maybe half a second to fire. When in landscape mode, the shutter behaved perfectly. I have spoken to one other person who has the same lens and had the oiling of the aperture blades happen. She agreed that the shutter started to go wonky in one orientation, but worked perfectly in the other. Same diagnosis and fix.

I took it to a local camera mechanic where it was pulled apart, cleaned of the offending leaking lubricant, re-collimated then re-assembled; it has been fabulous ever since. That said, I haven't used it as much since then as I've moved much more in to view cameras and sheet film photography.

Mick.

 

[M-88]

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.

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

Welcome to 50 mm world.
There are a lot of choices.

My No1 on film is Micro Nikkor 55/3.5
No2 - Nikkor H 50/2

Nikkor 50/1.4 Ais mostly rests .

Not a fan of Voigtlander

Since the OP's question is solved, may I ask, what's with 50 mm f/2 Nikkor lens? I mean, I know that non-AI 50 mm f/2 "H" version and 50 mm f/2 AI should have similar optical scheme (note: I might be wrong). People are ranting that it's got barrel distortion, long focus throw and simply is "not as good as later f/1.8 lenses". I picked it up recently because I needed a lens for the body and I find no flaw in it, except for the long focus throw, which is more of a nuisance than actual problem. Everything else - sharpness, colour representation, contrast is good and front element is so recessed that I get by without a hood most of the time! But I have never owned anything else from Nikkor lens line, so I'd like to ask people who are in the know: why is this lens so disliked, if 50 mm f/2 H and HC lenses are so greatly praised?

Thank you!

Edit: according to the source below 50 mm f/2 AI and non-AI 50 mm f/2 H and HC lenses indeed have the same optical layout:
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0002/index.htm

 

[macfred]

Just out of curiosity ... Does anyone of you guys use the Nikon 58mm f/1.2. Noct-NIKKOR (AI or Ai-S) ?
--
I have an early pre-AI 55/3.5 (like it a lot but not for infinity focus distances) and the pre-Ai Nikkor S C auto 55mm f/1.2 (a nice lens with a little low contrast).

 

[darkosaric]

why is this lens so disliked, if 50 mm f/2 H and HC lenses are so greatly praised?

For me it's the look, Nikkor H and HC are prettier, with this old pre-AI design, not totally black.
I had nikkor f2 Ai, and nikkor f2 H version, they are both equally good, but I kept nikkor H.