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.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.
Decisions, yes! Indeed I do! Thank you kindly for your help.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
Delightful!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
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.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
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.....):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?
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.But amigos! These Takumars are radioactive! Will the thorium get us? Do you care? Should I? !?
Excellent advice which I shall surely heed!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.
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.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.
thank you truly! That is very helpful!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.
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.
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 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
why is this lens so disliked, if 50 mm f/2 H and HC lenses are so greatly praised?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?