Extension tube for 1 to 1 w. 55mm Nikkor??

[Dan Fromm]

Basically the use of a extension tube reduces image quality too. Though with a lens designed for macro scale that would be less, if at all.

Why do you believe this?

I know that a lens can be optimized for only one pair of conjugates and that using it at any other magnification gives up some of its optimizations. Is this what you're thinking?

 

[GRHazelton]

I have a spare, mint rt angle finder for your F3. $20 incl. ship

Outstanding! PM sent.

 

[AgX]

I know that a lens can be optimized for only one pair of conjugates and that using it at any other magnification gives up some of its optimizations. Is this what you're thinking?

Exactly. That is why even a achromate (rare!) close-up lens could be tested against an extension, and inverting a lens.
Aside of such lens and of extension tubes of course a bellows apparatus yields greatest flexibility in scales and focusing.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Exactly. That is why even a achromate (rare!) close-up lens could be tested against an extension, and inverting a lens.
Aside of such lens and of extension tubes of course a bellows apparatus yields greatest flexibility in scales and focusing.

Well, yeah, but 55 MicroNikkors were optimized for near distances. The f/3.5ers weren't the best at infinity. According to Norman Rothschild, whom I asked about it, this is why Pop Photo never published a test of a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. They didn't want to risk offending an advertiser. If my understanding is correct -- it might not be -- 55/2.8s have a floating element that moves to correct coma at infinity.

Modern Photography that used to be ran a series of educational articles on roughly a two year cycle. One was on whether extension tubes or close up lenses are better. MP tested a number of ~ 50 mm f/1.7 - f/2 lenses for 35 mm SLRs with a close-up lens and on a tube close up. Some lenses performed better with a closeup lens, others on a tube. They recommended trying both and then using the better.

 

[MattKing]

I would suggest a Vivitar Macro Focusing Tele-Converter insted of an extension tube.

Why cripple one of the best macro lenses for 35 mm still with a second-rate piece of trash? The extension tube costs less used and works better.

The Vivitar Macro Focusing Tele-Converter is actually a quite useful accessory - way more flexible and adaptable than just an extension tube.
Using it will mean a reduction in resolution, but it is worthwhile weighing whether its advantages respecting working distance and capacity for infinity focusing are more important to you than that reduction in resolution.

 

[AgX]

Well, yeah, but 55 MicroNikkors were optimized for near distances. The f/3.5ers weren't the best at infinity. According to Norman Rothschild, whom I asked about it, this is why Pop Photo never published a test of a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. They didn't want to risk offending an advertiser. If my understanding is correct -- it might not be -- 55/2.8s have a floating element that moves to correct coma at infinity.

I do not understand why people expect a macro lens to perform perfect at infinity. Only because people say so?
If that Nikon lens fell off at infinity that should not bother anyone.
Yes, modern lenses often have floating elements, thus in case of doubt one should extend them when using them with extension tubes or bellows.

 

[GRHazelton]

Well, yeah, but 55 MicroNikkors were optimized for near distances. The f/3.5ers weren't the best at infinity. According to Norman Rothschild, whom I asked about it, this is why Pop Photo never published a test of a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. They didn't want to risk offending an advertiser. If my understanding is correct -- it might not be -- 55/2.8s have a floating element that moves to correct coma at infinity.

Modern Photography that used to be ran a series of educational articles on roughly a two year cycle. One was on whether extension tubes or close up lenses are better. MP tested a number of ~ 50 mm f/1.7 - f/2 lenses for 35 mm SLRs with a close-up lens and on a tube close up. Some lenses performed better with a closeup lens, others on a tube. They recommended trying both and then using the better.

I have for my Pentax 645n the Pentax 120mm macro lens. It focuses to 1:1 without tubes or auxiliary lenses, and is wonderfully sharp in the near to macro range; but "only" sharp enough at infinity. It does make a fine portrait lens. Its results suggest to me that it is optimized for close work.

I also have the Vivitar 100mm f3.5 macro lens in the Pentax K mount. It focuses from infinity to 1:2 continuously; with the aid of its dedicated achromatic close up lens it focuses from 1:2 to 1:1. While it is a "plastic fantastic" its results are excellent, especially given its low price. Mounted on either my LX or my K-5 with a right angle finder and a focus rack it is a pleasure to use.
Since I have the Nikkor 55mm macro I'll have to do a comparison.

 

[Dan Fromm]

GR, most modern fixed focal length lenses sold as "macro" lenses for 35 mm SLRs are pretty decent. Most. I've seen 28 mm lenses engraved "Macro" that weren't and that weren't really practical as macro lenses in many situations. And I've had a 135/2.8 Steinheil AutoMakroTeleQuinar that was good for its time but was put deep in the shade by the 100/4 MicroNikkor I replaced it with.