How good is Micro Nikkor 3.5 ?

[Eagle Blue]

Having just bought a Nikon F2 w/DP-1 body, now I want to steal a lens off one of my junky Nikkormats to mount as its permanent lens. I have a nice 50mm 2/0 that came originally on an FT3, which is the multicoated one with the rubber grip (1977 I believe) or a 55mm Micro Nikkor-P Auto ser. 676432 from about 1971. Since the front element is set so far back, the barrel make it's own lens hood. But what I'm interested in is the most razor-sharpness at all distances and f stops. That's all I care about. All opinions welcome. Thank you.

 

[jim10219]

No lens is going to give you razor sharpness at all f stops. There are some physics involved that prevent that from happening.

As for the old Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, it's pretty darn sharp at close distances. It also has a flat field of focus, which makes it great as a copy lens (which is what I believe it was originally designed for). It's sharpest at about f/8, but pretty decent from f/4-f/11. It's not nearly as sharp at long distances, though it's never a bad lens. I have one and use it for DSLR scanning 35mm film on a light table. I've used it in several other situations, but that and some close up of flowers is the only times it has wowed me. I wouldn't recommend it as an all purpose lens. I haven't used the 50mm f/2 you mentioned, but I'd have to think that would be a better all-around option.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Having just bought a Nikon F2 w/DP-1 body, now I want to steal a lens off one of my junky Nikkormats to mount as its permanent lens. I have a nice 50mm 2/0 that came originally on an FT3, which is the multicoated one with the rubber grip (1977 I believe) or a 55mm Micro Nikkor-P Auto ser. 676432 from about 1971. Since the front element is set so far back, the barrel make it's own lens hood. But what I'm interested in is the most razor-sharpness at all distances and f stops. That's all I care about. All opinions welcome. Thank you.

Go with the 50/2, it comes closest to your criterion.
I have four of them, one for each body, from early single-coated to multicoated; they displaced the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 lenses I had.

The 55/3.5, I have a later one, but still pre-Ai; mine is a good all round lens but the 50/2 does everything except close focus, and it's small and balances perfectly. One of Nikon's best lenses. Both lenses benefit from a shade.

 

[blockend]

Way back a friend used the 50mm f2 exclusively, and I was slightly jealous of the sharp results he got from it. Roll forward a few decades and I picked up a pair of my own. They didn't disappoint. The recessed front element eliminates the necessity for a lens hood.

 

[Eric Rose]

If I want super sharp pics from my Nikon I slap on the 50mm f2.

 

[Eagle Blue]

Wow, thanks. Four good responses before end of shift. That's what I call service. Although I had kind of hoped for the other. But not if the Micro Nikkor can't give the sharpness at distances. I thought I'd heard years ago how sharp the Micro Nikkors are on everything, but apparently not. It's light as a feather and has hardly any glass in it. And the front element is so far back I don't even understand why its own barrel doesn't vignette. A lens and a lenshood all in one. Plus, since the F2 is a 1973, it suits that as "period-correct". But if it can't give perfect sharpness like a Lieca (?), I don't want it. So it looks like the 1977 50 f/2.0 is the winner. I hate when they changed from the metal focus knob to the rubber one. But I've decided sharpness trumps all. Thanks again.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The 55/2.8 AIS Micro, from its closest focus to at least 10 feet. I think is better than the other 50's. At longer distances to infinity I've not had the impression it was inferior - but I wasn't shooting resolution charts either.

55/2.8 Micro on an FM3a:

 

[MattKing]

How much of your photography will be on a tripod?
That is the only situation where you would most likely notice a difference in resolution and contrast.
If you shoot hand-held, the larger maximum aperture of the 50mm f/2 is likely to make composing and focusing easier in low light, and give you shallower depth of field when you want that.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I once asked the late Norman Rothschild why Popular Photography never published a test of a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. He told me that to avoid offending advertisers Pop never published test of lenses that failed to pass test at every tested focal length and distance. He said that Pop had tested every 55/3.5 version made and that none of them met the minimum standard at all apertures at infinity. So, no published test. Same went for Modern Photography.

That said, in '71 I got completely fed up with the 50/1.4 Nikkor I'd bought new in the spring of '70 and retired it in favor of the 55/3.5 I'd bought new in early fall of '70. I never regretted leaving the 50/1.4 home. I've since replaced the 55/3.5 with a 55/2.8 AIS and haven't looked back. Yes, I have a couple of 50/1.8 Nikkors that I've rarely used.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'd take the 50mm f/2;the micro Nikkor is great bt too specialised as an all-round lens.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I'd take the 50mm f/2;the micro Nikkor is great bt too specialised as an all-round lens.

Stuff and nonsense.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Micro Nikkor 55/3.5 had at least two optical schemes, the later was better at infinity. See: https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/micro/index.htm The one with the diamond texture rubber focussing ring (or later) is the one you want for infinity work.

Nikkor -H 50/2 - https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index1.htm

1001 nights Nikkor - http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/ Good info on classic Nikkors.

Nikon F2 serials - http://www.destoutz.ch/typ_production_data_f2.html IIRC this has lenses also.

 

[RichardJack]

The f3.5 seems to be favored in most reviews, but I've found the newer 60mm f2.8 AF to be sharper and focuses to 1:1. My MF choice will always be the 55mm f2.8 AIs regardless of reviews.

 

[Eagle Blue]

I had decided that I was going to have to give up the idea of making this lens my basic lens on my new F2 with disappointment. It was always my belief that no sharper lens was to be found, including infinity, which is the bulk of my work. In light of the latest posts, I'm posting photos of it, just to see we're all on the same page. I really don't want to steal the 50/2 off a dented FT3, because even dented, the FT3 was a somewhat rare model with only 1 production year and I like keeping things together. This 55/3.5 is an orphan in my house and I'd hoped I could have found it a happy home. But not if it can't give the kind of sharpness that can cut diamonds. So here it is:

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... This 55/3.5 is an orphan in my house and I'd hoped I could have found it a happy home. But not if it can't give the kind of sharpness that can cut diamonds. ...

Why not try it with landscapes at f/8 and see what it can do?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Stuff and nonsense.

pardon me?

 

[Dan Fromm]

pardon me?

Since you asked, you wrote:

I'd take the 50mm f/2;the micro Nikkor is great bt too specialised as an all-round lens.

The 55/3.5 has worked well for many people -- I'm one, my wife is another -- as an all-round lens.

 

[Jim Jones]

The early 55/3.5 was one of the sharpest of 30 or 40 lenses I tested about 45 years ago at a subject distance of 3 or 4 feet. I also never had a problem with sharpness with this lens is real photography. Faster lenses aided in focusing perhaps more than in image quality. In critical image making, f/8 on 35mm film approaches diffraction degrading in large enlargements.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I had decided that I was going to have to give up the idea of making this lens my basic lens on my new F2 with disappointment. It was always my belief that no sharper lens was to be found, including infinity, which is the bulk of my work. In light of the latest posts, I'm posting photos of it, just to see we're all on the same page. I really don't want to steal the 50/2 off a dented FT3, because even dented, the FT3 was a somewhat rare model with only 1 production year and I like keeping things together. This 55/3.5 is an orphan in my house and I'd hoped I could have found it a happy home. But not if it can't give the kind of sharpness that can cut diamonds. So here it is:

Your 55/3.5 (diamond textured focus) is one of the versions reputed to be better at infinity than the first version(scalloped metal focus). I have this same lens and it is very good at infinity. Cut diamonds? Diamonds aren't cut, they're cleaved from rough, then the facets are polished with a lap charged with... diamond dust.
I assume you will be using apertures of f:4 to f:8 exclusively, high shutter speeds, also a sandbagged tripod, mirror lockup, specialised ultra-high resolution monochrome film, etc. because this is the only way you will see a difference between the two lenses.

 

[chip j]

What's better--the 50 2.0 or 1.8 (non-af).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The early 55/3.5 was one of the sharpest of 30 or 40 lenses I tested about 45 years ago at a subject distance of 3 or 4 feet. I also never had a problem with sharpness with this lens is real photography. Faster lenses aided in focusing perhaps more than in image quality. In critical image making, f/8 on 35mm film approaches diffraction degrading in large enlargements.

all right, all right; but still, the 50mm f/2 was designed as an all purpose lens where the other was designed as a macro lens and it is very good at that.

 

[Chan Tran]

Just got one of the Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5. I will find out how good it is when I get my camera back from Nikon.

 

[Down Under]

chipj (#20), you said, "what's better?" For what? Or did you mean, "which is best?" to which I would again say, "For what?" but it's an entirely different question.

All that to say, exactly what do you shoot?

Pedantic, yes, I know. But.

The Nikkor 50/2, of course.I own four of them, so I would have to say this, wouldn't I?

I also own a Micro Nikkor 55/3.5, the first (original) version. Sharpest lens in my arsenal. As I rarely shoot close-ups of anything now, I hardly ever use it. But it's still sharp.

As well I have an old (circa 1969 or so) 50/1.4 I picked up cheaply at a flea market. It has a very small chip in the front element, which did affect my shots taken in bright sun, but a friend then marked the chip with a black marker and it has worked perfectly ever since. I rarely use it, but it's a good lens.

So there are choices and choices.

If you go by comments from perfection seekers or obsessive shooters of test charts, no lens is perfect. In the real world,whichever lens you select will serve you well (unless damaged and not focussing correctly) for most of whatever you shoot.

If you do a lot of close-up work, get the Micro Nikkor. For general photography, the 50/2 is your baby. Or the 50/1.8. Whichever.

Or why not both? Pre-AI/AIS Nikkors were dirt cheap for many years- in 2009-2010 I briefly considered selling out of Nikon but I couldn't get even A$50 for each 50' and so I kept them. They are more expensive to buy now, but with some hunting and astute bargaining you may be able to get both for less than the cost of a 50f/1.4 D,which I also have, but rarely use. As for my 60/2.8 Micro Nikkor D, well, now THERE'S a classic lens...!

 

[chip j]

Ken Rockwell says the 1.8 has no distortion compared to a little in the 2.0. Otherwise, he says, they're equally sharp.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The better one is the

What's better--the 50 2.0 or 1.8 (non-af).

one you have on your camera.

The distortion in the f2.0 is miniscule, I've been using them since the mid-90s and have yet to see it in any real world situation.