How good is Micro Nikkor 3.5 ?

[shoe]

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 $$$$.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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 $$$$.

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

 

[shoe]

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

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.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Armin, you are mistaken. There are many 5 element in 4 groups double Gauss types, some badged Planar, Unilite and Xenotar. Six elements in four groups double Gauss types are also common, as are 4 element in 4 groups double Gauss types.

 

[Eagle Blue]

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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

Nope.
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

Why not read the several links I posted i post #12, it's the best information you will find.
I had a leica R3 to use for a good long while, and that Nikon 50/2 has absolutely no apologies to make to a Summicron R.

Better yet, stick some film in a body and compare the two. Posts on a forum will not tell you how your two lenses compare.

 

[Eagle Blue]

It's decided. As much as I tried to pull the discussion the other way, this poor homeless micro nikkor isn't going to be adopted after all. I'm going to pull the nice f/2 50 multicoated off my beat up junk box FT3 and twist it on my new F2. When I bought this F2 I decided to use it for picture taking, not testing. So I asked my question, and people I considered credible sources spoke. So as far as I'm concerned I have something every bit as good as the luxury brands without the absurd price tag. Thanks again.

 

[Down Under]

+1. A good decision, Eagle Blue. Shoot away and enjoy!