How good is Micro Nikkor 3.5 ?

shoe said:

The Nikkor 55mm F/3.5 is an excellent lens . It is a tessar design , contrasty,sharp, and can also be used as a regular lens . Be careful when choosing this lens since modifications have been made during its evolution .
The early version from 1966-67 was optimized for macro , it also had a auto-compensating aperture . Later versions were tweaked for macro and more general shooting . If you are looking for a pure macro lens , then get the early version . It is much better , more rare , and yes more $$$$.

Click to expand...

E. von Hoegh said:

Nope.
This diagram https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/micro/index.htm shows a double Gauss construction.

Click to expand...

shoe said:

The tessar design has been modified with the positive front meniscus. The deep protruding front element has the basic design elements of a tessar although modified , but the basic principles of the tessar design are in tack.. If this were a pure double Gauss it would require a negative meniscus in the rear group (hence double gauss). The front element could not be recessed and would need to be much larger . The increased Glass to air surface would also reduce contrast significantly.

Click to expand...

Eagle Blue said:

Making an inquiry such as I did, you have to question certain posts. The one about it being a flat field lens for instance. If it were a flat field lens it would be a process or enlarging lens. This one is simply set in a barrel that allows it to rack out a lot more than a standard lens. But even so, objects are still 3D, like flowers and all kinds of things. I don't think it was planned to be a document-copying lens, or a flat field. A lot of confusing information here. The main reason for my question was that I simply proceeded on the generally accepted notion that any 2 or more lenses of the same focal length, the slowest maximum-aperture lens will be the sharpest. I'm sure it's not always true, but I believe it's still a general rule of thumb. But what I'm getting here is that Nkon never meant for this one to be a stellar infinity performer. This has been a good thread, but I don't believe anything has been resolved, at least not as i had hoped. I was fishing for nothing but rave reviews for a lens that was so sharp, you could cut objects in half just by accidentally pointing it at them.

Click to expand...