Nikkor P Micro 55 f/3.5

[Dan Fromm]

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.

I was happy with mine too. That MP and PP found all of the 55/3.5 MicroNikkors they tested unacceptable at some apertures at infinity speaks to differences between formal and informal lens tests. Remember, they published no test reports on any version of the 55/3.5 MicroNikkor.

Your comment re changed layout surprised me. Since my memory may be failing I visited the mir site to see what it says about 55/3.5 MicroNikkor designs. There may well have been redesigns, but all versions were five element in four group double Gauss types.

You may have been led astray by this text (see for yourself at http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/55mmmicro.htm):

(Compared to 5 elements in 4 groups used in last versions of Ai-Spec f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor which again different from early versions of f/3.5 lens that has a simpler 5 elements in 3 groups design)

which is not consistent with cross-sections and text descriptions of older 55/3.5s on the site.

It is also not consistent with the cross-section shown in the instruction manual for the 55/3.5 MicroNikkor-P I bought in September, 1970. I just dug it out, it is in front of me now.

Many of the facts asserted on the Internet just aren't so, alas.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[LJSLATER]

I just bought one of these the other day, coincidentally. The same version, too (pre-AI with the diamond grip). I was shocked at how lightweight it is--there's hardly any glass in the damned thing!

I bought mine for slide copying, but I'll definitely try it outside. I tend to marry myself to new lenses after acquiring them.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

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

Not true. The K version is the black barrel lens that looks like an AI/AIS lens. The diamond pattern rubber focusing ring was used on zooms and certain primes, like the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor-P/PC, and the 180/2.8. Both of those lenses were chrome barrel, unlike the K version.

A Micro-Nikkor-PC: http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_734997.html

A 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor K version: http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_910139.html

The compensating diaphragm 55/3.5's have a metal focusing ring usually marked with a distance scale in either meters or feet. Serial numbers are much lower, too, being below 300,000. As the helicoid is extended, the diaphragm slowly opens up.

I just bought one of these the other day, coincidentally. The same version, too (pre-AI with the diamond grip). I was shocked at how lightweight it is--there's hardly any glass in the damned thing!

I bought mine for slide copying, but I'll definitely try it outside. I tend to marry myself to new lenses after acquiring them.

It's a great little lens. Slow for a normal lens, but it does the job quite well. Was what John Shaw used back in the 1970's through the early-mid '90s. Who knows, he may still have it today, even though I doubt he does much shooting with it, since he probably has current generation Nikkors that do the job.

-J

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Not true. The K version is the black barrel lens that looks like an AI/AIS lens. The diamond pattern rubber focusing ring was used on zooms and certain primes, like the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor-P/PC, and the 180/2.8. Both of those lenses were chrome barrel, unlike the K version.

A Micro-Nikkor-PC: http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_734997.html

A 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor K version: http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_910139.html

The compensating diaphragm 55/3.5's have a metal focusing ring usually marked with a distance scale in either meters or feet. Serial numbers are much lower, too, being below 300,000. As the helicoid is extended, the diaphragm slowly opens up.



It's a great little lens. Slow for a normal lens, but it does the job quite well. Was what John Shaw used back in the 1970's through the early-mid '90s. Who knows, he may still have it today, even though I doubt he does much shooting with it, since he probably has current generation Nikkors that do the job.

-J

Mine is this version : http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_600033.html and the # on mine is 691621. I have read and been told that these are "K" lenses, the distinguishing characteristic being the rubber diamond texture focussing ring and the chrome barrel. Oh well.

 

[dynachrome]

There is more incorrect information floating around concerning these lenses than correct information. The lenses which were not as good at infinity (although some consider them better at 1:10 and higher magnifications) are marked Micro Nikkor Auto. These have mechanical compensation in the close range. The first version has a silver colored (aluminum) inner barrel. the second version has a black colored inner barrel. Both have metal focusing rings with no rubber cover. The Micro Nikkor P was the first model (the first model with an auto diaphragm) to have rubber covering the focusing ring and to have the optical formula slightly changed. It and all of the remaining 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors work well at infinity. The Micro Nikkor PC had improved coating. The next model, the 'K' had similar cosmetics to the later AI. There was no AIS version of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor. The successor lens was the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor AIS which had a floating element design and which is considered excellent for both near and far subjects.

 

[Dan Fromm]

dynachrome, have you tested? MP and PP tested and tested and tested. Mr. Rothschild was not a liar, didn't make things up.

 

[dynachrome]

Dan, we have gone through this on photo.net. I actually talked to Norman not too long before he died. We shared an interest in Konica equipment. I wish I had bought even one of his Konica items when he no longer had room for them so I could have kept it to remember all of the articles of his I read since 9th Grade. I don't doubt that the two versions of the compensating 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor were not as good at infinity as the P and later models. Bjorn Rorslett writes that he finds the compensating lenses sharper close up. At one time it was more difficult to make a lens which had excellent performance for both near and far subjects. Floating element designs solved that problem. I have a 50/3.5 Zuiko macro which also has a floating element design and which is also considered quite good for both near and far subjects. If I am not mistaken, the 55/2.8 Vivitar (Panagor etc.) is not a floating element design but still does well on both ends of the distance scale. There is more than one successful macro lens design for the 50-60mm focal length range.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Don't forget that the 55/2.8 MicroNikkor has a floating element. MP and PP both published tests of it. They published no tests of any version of the 55/3.5. As is sometimes asked, what part of no don't you understand?

 

[dynachrome]

It makes no difference to me whether MP or PP tested a particular lens or what their reasons for not testing it might have been. Versions of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor have been used to produce very good results for a long time. The same is true for the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor. I have enough experience with all auto diaphragm versions of the 55/3.5 to know their strengths and weaknesses. A test report of one example, whether done recently or years ago, would not give me any more useful information than I have gained from using the lenses myself. I turns out that over time some people found that the manual focus 55/2.8 Micro Nikkors had oil drift over from the helicoid and onto the aperture blades. The lens would be serviced and then the problem would return. I know some people who went back to their 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors to avoid this problem. Both of my 55/2.8 Micro Nikkors were found with oil on their blades and both were serviced. Eventually different lubricants were used and the oil problem either didn't come back or only came back after a long time.

Dan, will you be at the next Sunday NJ camera show?

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Re: MP/PP test results... There's usually enough sample variation in most lenses that the test results may not matter that much. If the lens does a good job for you, that's what matters. A good idea to try to test something out before buying or at least make sure there's a good return policy if that's not possible.

So far, I've been lucky with the 55/2.8's. Have owned six of them. None of my samples have either had the diaphragm issue or coagulated grease on the helicoid.

-J

 

[dynachrome]

There is a link to a test of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor P in a thread in the CMC forum on photo.net.

 

[Dan Fromm]

There is a link to a test of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor P in a thread in the CMC forum on photo.net.

If these http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744296/sizes/o/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744224/sizes/o/ aren't what you referred to, please give the link.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Wow. Arguing over lens tests which were never done...
All I know is my lens works well at infinity, I've never tested it and don't own a test chart. I do own a slide projector, two in fact, and the slides made by my example are sharp. Period.

 

[lxdude]

The aforementioned link:

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00c/00cAUc-543647584.jpg

 

[Dan Fromm]

The aforementioned link:

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00c/00cAUc-543647584.jpg

Thanks.

I'm glad to have my mistaken belief -- that MP never published a test of any 55/3.5 MicroNikkor -- corrected.

Here's what they got for the 55/2.8:


f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

55/2.8 11/80 (@1:49) 2.8 69 49 52 30
4 69 55 54 48
5.6 78 55 58 55
8 69 62 58 57
11 69 62 54 55
16 62 49 48 48
22 49 44 38 40
32 40 35 24 36

(@1:2) 2.8 48 36
4 64 48
5.6 64 54
8 64 54
11 54 48
16 48 48
22 42 42
32 38 36

 

[dynachrome]

Dead Link Removed

This is a test of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor P. It's from the April 1972 Modern Photography. Over the years I have seen many tests of the 55/2.8 AIS.

 

[dynachrome]

One of the odd things about lens testing is that the standards of different testers are not identical. Different contrast levels will produce different resolution results from the same lens. Different testers use different magnification levels. When testing with film there are other factors. Years ago one magazine did the test shots on Panatomic-X and then examined the negatives with an Olympus Vanox microscope. High Contrast Copy (5069) was also used. Today I would use either Technical Pan or Imagelink HQ for 35mm stock. The fact that Technidol is no longer sold is not a big problem. There are many good substitutes. The 1:2 test results for the 55/2.8 are probably more impressive than the 1:49 results. Many standard non-macro lenses give excellent results at 1:49 but even macro lenses show much lower resolution numbers when you get down as far as 1:2. I have certain lenses which are optimized for specific ranges of magnification like the 12CM f/5.6 Macro Nikkor (for the Multiphot) or the 12.5/2 and 25/2.5 Minolta RMS mount bellows Rokkors. These lenses do not have either helical mounts or auto diaphragms so they are not as flexible for use "in the field" as a 55/2.8 AIS.

 

[dynachrome]

Other tests of the 55/2.8 AIS: http://coinimaging.com/nikon_55microais.html and http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1403/cat/12 and http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=161

A more recent headache in reviewing these lenses is that today they are often judged by how well they work with digital cameras. They were originally designed for use with film.

 

[Dan Fromm]

One of the interesting things about a lens tester, MP for example, is that its test methods and standards of acceptable performance change over time. This makes comparisons of tests from different eras risky.

When I was in my macro lens phase I acquired (purchased, borrowed) a number of good macro lenses and tested 'em at a variety of magnifications. Centrally, a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS shot at f/4 beat two 63/4.5 Luminars shot wide open from 2:1 to 6:1, was roughly tied with two 40/4.5 Luminars around 6:1 and was a hair worse than one 45/4.5 CZJ Mikrotar and better than another. Had I known this going in I could have avoided some expense and work.

The Luminars lost resolution when stopped down from wide open. The reversed MicroNikkor lost resolution when stopped down below f/4. I mentioned all this to Brian Caldwell, who remarked that the MicroNikkor is diffraction limited centrally at f/4. The circle that's diffraction limited grows on stopping down farther.

I think there's a curse on 45/4.5 Mikrotars, back then Marc Small had one that wouldn't focus; turns out one of the lens elements was missing. Mine was markedly better than Charlie Barringer's. Used lenses ...

dynachrome's point about optimizations for ranges is dead on. The literature says it too, I saw it in my testing.

 

[kitanikon]

I'd like to add 2¢ about the "K" lenses

"K" Nikkors are generally referred to informally as there is nothing on any Nikkor lens to designate it as such....
"K" stands for COSMETIC, in my mind, referring to the black barrels rather than silver ones, and rubberized focusing barrels...
Some people refer to lenses with the black barrel AND SCALLOPED METAL focusing ring as "K" lenses, but I don't...

Some "K" lenses would retain the optical design of the previous version....e.g. the 50mm F2......though would get new coatings (in some cases being redesignated as such with a "C" after the letter designating the number of elements...)

Some "K" lenses would temporarily retain the optical design of the previous version before being replaced by a new optical design with the same specifications...the 135/2.8 Q became a Q.C (multicoated) before and AFTER getting the "K" treatment and prior to getting the optical upgrade IN "K" cosmetics as the new compact 135/2.8 "K" whose mount was NOT initially redesigned and designated as an AI/AIS lens, but would later become redesigned and so designated...The 105/2.5-P went through a series of similar upgrades/revisions, including the scalloped metal focusing barrel version.

Some lenses got the "K" treatment cosmetically before being discontinued/replaced by another "K" lens of the same FL but different aperture and mount with the AI/AIS designation...85/1.8-H became the 85/1.8 H.C and then got "K'd" (with an optional AI aperture ring) before it was replaced by the 85/2AIS

[AI/AIS lenses refer to the aperture rings, mounts, and speed indexing posts required by some F bodies, but not to the optics...some lenses were available with an optional factory AI aperture ring to allow mounting on bodies required a notch in the ring, but were not available with revised mount options]

...and still other "K" lenses retained the same FL/aperture designation when they got the cosmetic 'upgrade' along with a new OPTICAL formula of later AI or AIS mount lenses...an optical design that would be redesigned optically yet again after getting the "K" treatment...the 300/4.5-H became the 300/4.5-AI before getting a new optical formula with ED elements.... the 180/2.8 went through similar cosmetic and optical upgrades...

 

[dynachrome]

If I can remember all of my K lenses they are: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 50/2, 55/3.5, 50/1.4 1st Version, 50/1.4 2nd Version, 105/2.5, 135/2.8 1st Version, 200/4. In some cases I have more than one of each. The first 50/1.4 K may be my favorite of all the Ks. If you do not examine a lens closely it can be a K with a factory AI ring and be mistaken for an AI. The 35/2.8 K and early 35/2.8 AI have the 6 element/6 group formula and are very good. The first 50/1.4 K is probably sharper close down but not quite as sharp at or near wide open when compared to the second 50/1.4 K. I might also have a 135/3.5 K. The 28/3.5 K is a decent lens but not as good as the 28/3.5 AI with the larger rear element. I also like the C lenses. They make the most of the older formulas and more sturdy all metal outside construction.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

The other thing of note re: the early K-version 50/1.4 versus the compact K version, is that it seems the compact lens has a little more contrast. It is sharper wide-open than the earlier version. One odd thing I've noticed with the 50/1.4 lenses, is that the F version (the one marked "NIKKOR-S") seems to have the same contrast as the compact lens, albeit with the soft focus effect wide-open. The C version (NIKKOR-S.C), however, tends to be a little less contrasty in situations.

Right now, I only have one K-version Nikkor. The 85/1.8. Has the factory AI ring on it, so it's what KEH calls an 85/1.8 AI. A misnomer, of course, since said lens doesn't have the lens speed sensing tab that all AI and newer Nikkors with an aperture ring have on them.

-J