Nikon F mount (35mm) 50mm vs 55mm Macro for belows work?

ITD said:

I think that if every response stuck rigidly to the OP's questions, then there would be far less to learn from them. In this case I think the OP's question was answered a while back - for my part I posted because nobody had mentioned a limitation that I'd encountered with the favoured option.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah, sort of, but the OP is going to be blowing up cine frames, i.e., working above 1:1 so the limitation you mentioned doesn't come into play.

And it doesn't come into play twice. Once, because the subject will be transilluminated. In effect, the OP wants to copy slides. Twice, because the lens will be reversed.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan Fromm said:

Dan S., I haven't tried a 55/3.5 reversed, although I could since my wife has one. But I do know that the 55/2.8 will do what's needed and doubt the f/3.5 is interestingly better.

Interesting fact about the 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. Modern Photography never published a test of one. Two possible explanations, they never tried one or they did and it flunked. Remember that they chose not to publish tests of lenses than failed test. Years ago, but after MP had folded, I ran into Norman Rothschild and asked him why MP hadn't published a test of the 55/3.5. He told me that they'd tested several versions and than none was good enough at infinity at at least one marked aperture to pass.

Click to expand...

Hi Dan,
Not to beat a dead horse here, but you really need to make a distinction between the 55 f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor Auto and the later Micro-Nikkor P and PC versions. The Micro-Nikkor Auto was optimized for close-up work and performance suffered at infinity. However, it became so popular, that in the newer P nad PC versions, Nikon adjusted the formula to improve performance at infinity at the expense of close-up performance. With the f/2.8 version, it look as if they tried ti use a floating element to get top performance both close-up and at infinity. The older Auto version is a bit difficult to find. You can tell if you have one watching the iris as you focus - with the lens at infinity focus, set the aperture to f/5.6, then watch the iris as you turn the focus ring to it's closest focus - you will see that the aperture opens up as you focus closer - this is the auto-compensating feature of the lens - newer versions don't have this feature.
The biggest advantage I see of the 55 f/3.5 vs. the f/2.8 is cost - I picked up my 55 f/3.5 with the matching M2 extension ring in mint condition for $65.00. I believe the 55 f/2.8 is quite a bit more expensive.

As far as MP not publishing tests - I think the reason Norman gave is lame - who cares how the lens performs at infinity? It's a macro lens not a general picture taking lens.

Dan

Tim, will do; thanks!

All good information; thanks to all.

Dan S.,

I make the distinction for two reasons. I think the 55/2.8 is better at distance than the 55/3.5 (my first macro lens). Irrelevant in the context of this discussion. And I know from testing that the /2.8 is superb reversed, also that it is diffraction limited in the center of the field at f/4. I haven't done the parallel testing with my wife's /3.5, so can't say whether it is better, as good, or worse.

That said, I doubt that in use close up the differences between the /2.8 and /3.5 are worth worrying about. When I sold my old /3.5 and bought a brand new /2.8 I wasn't overwhelmed by the increase in screen brightness, nor was I when I replaced my stolen 105/4 with a new 105/2.8.

I've bought all of my MicroNikkors new -- I'm just a fool, alas, but the current set are all grey market -- and haven't followed the market for used ones. I had the impression that even 55/2.8s could be got for < $US 100 with a little careful shopping.

I'm sorry, I can't defend MP's policy. All I can do is report it. I deplored it back when because its useful to know which lens not to buy and in which circumstances a lens won't give really good results. "No test published" is too ambiguous.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan Fromm said:

Well, yeah, sort of, but the OP is going to be blowing up cine frames, i.e., working above 1:1 so the limitation you mentioned doesn't come into play.

And it doesn't come into play twice. Once, because the subject will be transilluminated. In effect, the OP wants to copy slides. Twice, because the lens will be reversed.

Click to expand...

OK, I see your point. Since you put it like that... I'll get me coat

I like using the Leica RF lenses with the L->F adapter for close-up work.

"Way Back When", Spiratone (?) made an attachment for copying 8mm and 16mm frames for SLR's. It was a T-Mount device, similar to a slide copier but with more magnification. Might check used camera shops or Ebay. I'll try to find a brand name in the old Modern/Pop Photo mags. We're talking mid 70s.

L-H, Olympus made a similar device. One sold recently on eBay.de, brought silly money.

Here are my answers to the questions without thread drift.


Question: “Is there any advantage to buying the 55mm macro over a standard 50mm prime when being used on the bellows?”

Answer: Yes


Question: “Any opinions, or rather, what's your opinion?”

Answer: Yes, see my earlier post.

If you're shooting small 3D objects you're better off WITHOUT FLAT FIELD lens...better to INVERT a similarly sharp conventional lens (such as 50 1.4 or 100 2.5)...gives you a concave field, ie more depth of field around your bug.

This is slight thread-drift certainly nothing wrong with Nikon - superb lenses. But, have you tried a Minolta Rokkor-X 100mm Macro? Quite sharp. Not sure about the 50mm macro because I've never used/laid hands on one.
Minolta also made bellows and bellows specific lenses for this kind of stuff as well...have you looked into that at all? Just a thought before you buy a whole seperate system for this project.
Jed

jtk said:

If you're shooting small 3D objects you're better off WITHOUT FLAT FIELD lens...better to INVERT a similarly sharp conventional lens (such as 50 1.4 or 100 2.5)...gives you a concave field, ie more depth of field around your bug.

Click to expand...

Hmm. And for slide copying? Because that's what the OP wants do do.

As for bugs, how on earth can I find a lens that matches the bug in front of me? I mean, not all bugs have the same radius of curvature. Some are even flat. And there are other, more complexly curved, subjects fit for macro work.

Oh me! Oh my! What am I to do? In other words, read the thread from the beginning even though it is long and boring and think harder about your advice's implications.

Dan Fromm said:

Hmm. And for slide copying? Because that's what the OP wants do do.

As for bugs, how on earth can I find a lens that matches the bug in front of me? I mean, not all bugs have the same radius of curvature. Some are even flat. And there are other, more complexly curved, subjects fit for macro work.

Oh me! Oh my! What am I to do? In other words, read the thread from the beginning even though it is long and boring and think harder about your advice's implications.

Click to expand...

I agree Dan,
Frankly even for photographing bugs, I'm not so sure about the curved field - it really depends on where the bug is sitting. However, I have read on another site how a curved field is quite useful for photographing flowers since they do tend to be concave.
Dan

Dan,

If the lens doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Cheers,

Dan