Nikkor P Micro 55 f/3.5

[krisb1981]

I just got this lens and after reading some materials online I have more questions now than before. When using macro with digital, the camera compensates for light fall off by changing the aperture. What happens with this lens? I read somewhere that the P lenses have compensating aperture when focused to 1:1. Is that the case? I also read somewhere that this lens doesn't do 1:1, but it is clearly marked on the barrel 1:1. Any help here?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Be careful what you read. 'P' means it has five (penta) elements, that's all. There were several versions of that lens, look here - http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/micro/

 

[Fixcinater]

If your camera (whether it is film or digital) has an automatic exposure mode, you can forget about the compensating aperture and just shoot it. The compensating aperture only comes into play when you have manual exposure modes and focus close, so you don't have to factor in the extension adjustment (like bellows factor in LF).

 

[krisb1981]

It does read P Auto on the barrel. According to mir. com is the newer type with diamond focus grip. I still don't know how it can compensate since there are no electronics to know what it going on.

 

[Fixcinater]

It's adjusting based on focus distance, if it is indeed the compensating aperture version.

 

[krisb1981]

Well I use it on Nikon F, the original F, so the it's all manual. I dont mind compensating, I am used to that with Mamiya TLR, but how much.

 

[Fixcinater]

That's just it, it does it for you...

 

[krisb1981]

So The P Auto is it? the compensating version? or the Auto is simply auto stop down aperture?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It does read P Auto on the barrel. According to mir. com is the newer type with diamond focus grip. I still don't know how it can compensate since there are no electronics to know what it going on.

Mechanical compensation, cams. "Auto" means auto diaphragm, it stops down when you take the picture and opens back to max. aperture for viewing and focussing, thay all said "auto", standards, wideangles, etc. Yours, if it is indeed the 'K' version, does not have a compensating diaphragm and does not focus to 1:1 without an extension tube. I have the identical lens, there are two ratio scales - one from infinity to 1/2 lifesize, and one from 1/2 lifesize to 1/1 lifesize for use with the tube.

 

[krisb1981]

Mechanical compensation, cams. "Auto" means auto diaphragm, it stops down when you take the picture and opens back to max. aperture for viewing and focussing, thay all said "auto", standards, wideangles, etc. Yours, if it is indeed the 'K' version, does not have a compensating diaphragm and does not focus to 1:1 without an extension tube. I have the identical lens, there are two ratio scales - one from infinity to 1/2 lifesize, and one from 1/2 lifesize to 1/1 lifesize for use with the tube.

No it doesn't say K, but the barrel has 1:1 marking that is reached when the lens is extended all the way. How much exposure should I add at the most extended point? two stops? 1 stop?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

No it doesn't say K, but the barrel has 1:1 marking that is reached when the lens is extended all the way. How much exposure should I add at the most extended point? two stops? 1 stop?

If your lens has a diamond textured rubber focussing ring, and is marked as you say, it is a 'K' version.

 

[krisb1981]

Yes it is P Auto with diamond grip. So, there is no "K" mark? And K version is the auto compensating aperture or not? Please excuse my ignorance with this lens.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes it is P Auto with diamond grip. So, there is no "K" mark? And K version is the auto compensating aperture or not? Please excuse my ignorance with this lens.

This is a quote of my post #9:
"Mechanical compensation, cams. "Auto" means auto diaphragm, it stops down when you take the picture and opens back to max. aperture for viewing and focussing, they all said "auto", standards, wideangles, etc. Yours, if it is indeed the 'K' version, does not have a compensating diaphragm and does not focus to 1:1 without an extension tube. I have the identical lens, there are two ratio scales - one from infinity to 1/2 lifesize, and one from 1/2 lifesize to 1/1 lifesize for use with the tube. "
As I mentioned, all (and more) of this information is available at the Mir site I linked you to.

There is no 'K' mark on the lens.

 

[krisb1981]

OK. But do you have to compensate when at 1:2? and if yes then how much?

 

[krisb1981]

This is a quote of my post #9:
"Mechanical compensation, cams. "Auto" means auto diaphragm, it stops down when you take the picture and opens back to max. aperture for viewing and focussing, they all said "auto", standards, wideangles, etc. Yours, if it is indeed the 'K' version, does not have a compensating diaphragm and does not focus to 1:1 without an extension tube. I have the identical lens, there are two ratio scales - one from infinity to 1/2 lifesize, and one from 1/2 lifesize to 1/1 lifesize for use with the tube. "
As I mentioned, all (and more) of this information is available at the Mir site I linked you to.

There is no 'K' mark on the lens.

OK I see that now. There are two scales as you said. One goes down to 1:2 at 24.1 cm. The other one is etched on the barrel and reads 1:2, 1:1.5 and 1:1 ans it would be used with extension rings. And I assume there is no need to compensate the exposure when at 1:2, right?

 

[Fixcinater]

OK I see that now. There are two scales as you said. One goes down to 1:2 at 24.1 cm. The other one is etched on the barrel and reads 1:2, 1:1.5 and 1:1 ans it would be used with extension rings. And I assume there is no need to compensate the exposure when at 1:2, right?

You would have to compensate, although not much (testing your specific situation is probably the best course of action). I know with my other lenses that do 1:1 it gets more noticeable as you go from 1:2 to 1:1 but not as much from infinity down to 1:2.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Um, er, ah, ignoring complexities due to pupillary magnification not equal to 1.0, the magic formula for exposure compensation given magnification is effective aperture = aperture set (f/ number) * magnification + 1

At 1:2, magnification = 0.5 so you'll need approximately 1 stop more light or exposure time or to open up one stop from whatever the meter says. At 1:1, magnification = 1.0, 2 stops more light or exposure time or open up two stops from whatever the meter says. If your camera has TTL autoexposure it will take care of this for you, whether you want it to or not.

 

[krisb1981]

Um, er, ah, ignoring complexities due to pupillary magnification not equal to 1.0, the magic formula for exposure compensation given magnification is effective aperture = aperture set (f/ number) * magnification + 1

At 1:2, magnification = 0.5 so you'll need approximately 1 stop more light or exposure time or to open up one stop from whatever the meter says. At 1:1, magnification = 1.0, 2 stops more light or exposure time or open up two stops from whatever the meter says. If your camera has TTL autoexposure it will take care of this for you, whether you want it to or not.

Since the lens by itself only goes to 1:2 then one stop will suffice, right? when the ring is attached as to give me 1:1 then 2 stops must be dialed in. Thank you for all your time.

 

[lxdude]

At 1:2, magnification = 0.5 so you'll need approximately 1 stop more light or exposure time or to open up one stop from whatever the meter says. At 1:1, magnification = 1.0, 2 stops more light or exposure time or open up two stops from whatever the meter says. If your camera has TTL autoexposure it will take care of this for you, whether you want it to or not.

To clarify, that's if the meter reading is not taken through the lens, or through the lens with the lens focused at or near infinity. Through the lens metering will always compensate for light loss due to close or macro focusing. If you are using through the lens metering on a manual camera and meter when at your desired focus point, it will read correctly, as it is reading the actual amount of light reaching the image plane.

 

[krisb1981]

Yes, Thank you very much. I am enlightened now.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

me too thanks, learn something new every day.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, Thank you very much. I am enlightened now.

If - and this is an important 'if' - you are using through-the-lens metering of any type, you need not compensate the reading you get. I have an FTN finder for my F and the only lens I use it with is my 55/3.5; I bought it for just this purpose.
By the way, that lens works very well at infinity, and due to the recessed front element it is somewhat self-shading. If you wish to use a shade, the reccomended shade is the HN-3.

 

[Dan Fromm]

By the way, that lens works very well at infinity, and due to the recessed front element it is somewhat self-shading.

E., there are people who disagree with you. Not me, my first Nikkor was a 50/1.4 bought new in March, '70. I got a 55/3.5 in September of that year, not long afterwards retired the 50/1.4 for everything except shooting at twilight.

But, y'know, neither Modern Photography nor Popular Photography ever published a review of the 55/3.5. I once asked Norman Rothschild why not. He told me that in PP's tests the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor came out unacceptable at infinity at a couple of apertures. I think the problem was coma. PP had a policy of not annoying major advertisers by publishing negative reviews of their products, so never published that test. MP had a similar policy.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

E., there are people who disagree with you. Not me, my first Nikkor was a 50/1.4 bought new in March, '70. I got a 55/3.5 in September of that year, not long afterwards retired the 50/1.4 for everything except shooting at twilight.

But, y'know, neither Modern Photography nor Popular Photography ever published a review of the 55/3.5. I once asked Norman Rothschild why not. He told me that in PP's tests the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor came out unacceptable at infinity at a couple of apertures. I think the problem was coma. PP had a policy of not annoying major advertisers by publishing negative reviews of their products, so never published that test. MP had a similar policy.

I'm aware of this; all I can say is my example performs very satisfactorily at infinity. I think the optical design is slightly different from the earlier versions, five in four instead of five in three like the previous versions.

As for the 1.4, I had two, as well as a 1.2. I now use two pre-ai f:2 Nikkor Hs for my 50s.

 

[krisb1981]

If - and this is an important 'if' - you are using through-the-lens metering of any type, you need not compensate the reading you get. I have an FTN finder for my F and the only lens I use it with is my 55/3.5; I bought it for just this purpose.
By the way, that lens works very well at infinity, and due to the recessed front element it is somewhat self-shading. If you wish to use a shade, the reccomended shade is the HN-3.

I will be using it without metring prism, so I need to compensate based on the table found in the link you provided. I just add 1 stop of light at 1:2 and 2 stops of light when used with 27mm ring to give me 1:1. I will see the results this weekend