Nikon Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 AI-S?

[Markok765]

I'm wondering how good this lens is at longer distances and infinity.

 

[oldlugs]

Check here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

 

[Markok765]

"The faster f/2.8 version of the Micro-Nikkor had floating elements to make it perform equally well up close and for distant scenes. Unfortunately, the f/2.8 design is extremely prone to getting lubrication onto its aperture blades to make the aperture stick unexpectedly when shooting. I gave up my f/2.8 after having cleaned it twice. It makes an excellent paper-weight, however. Newer versions may have a stiffer lubrication so as to minimise the seepage problem. Storing the lens in an upright position and avoiding hot spots such as car trunks may also contribute to mitigate this issue."

Are they talking about the Ai-S or the AF one?

 

[johnnywalker]

I have one, and haven't had any of the problems mentioned. I can't tell any difference between it and a 50 mm at longer distances, but I haven't really "tested" it. I imagine it makes some compromises somewhere to achieve the macro.

 

[Barry S]

I have the 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor and the performance is stunning from macro to infinity. Whatever the design is, the performance at non-macro distances is past excellent into outstanding. I've used a lot of lenses in every format and the 55 Micro is absolutely top notch throughout its entire magnification range. I haven't had an issue with lubricant migrating onto the aperture blades, but they're definitely referring to the 55mm AIS version. I think there was a short-lived 55mm AF version before the more common 60mm AF lens.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Marko, the 55 2.8 Micro Nikkor I have, was bought new by me about 25 years ago.

It is a very good lens and if you use it with a tripod, you can get positively stunning results with careful enlarging.

The lens does work brilliantly close up, with or without the PK-13 extension piece, which is required if you wish to do 1-1 reproduction. Without that extension, you can only go to ½ life size on the negative.

It is brilliant at slide duplication and small pieces of reflective art.

As a general purpose lens it is more than good enough and I have used mine extensively as one of a trio of lenses I have carried in my travels.

That said, I prefer to use my Nikkor 50 1.8 for general usage if I can, but if pushed for space, the 55 Micro Nikkor 2.8 is the one I will pack.

I have had the dreaded sticking aperture blades occurence with mine. If you go to my gallery you will see one picture called Shawl. This was taken at the end of an extremely hot day shooting in the backyard. The camera had been sitting in direct sunlight whenever I wasn't shooting and I can tell you it was almost too hot to touch. I shot 4 rolls during that afternoon session of about 2½ hours.

The camera was being used in portrait mode and I noticed the sound of the shutter seemed to be a bit off, when I put the camera into landscape mode, the shutter sounded normal. The last portion of the shoot I turned the camera to landscape mode and took the actual shot in the gallery. After finishing that roll I unloaded the camera and checked out the shutter, only to find that the aperture blades (two of them) had visible lubricant showing. I was actually hearing the aperture blades returning sluggishly.

I took the lens to my own camera repair technician. He pulled it apart and had a go at me for getting the lens serviced by a non accredited (Nikon) service place. I then informed him that I had bought the lens new and it had never been serviced before. He then looked further into the matter and it appears that the lubricant that Nikon were using at the time of manufacture was the culprit, at least this is what he had been told from people who should know (whoever they are)

The funny thing is that my technician isn't an accredited Nikon repairman

Regardless of that, the lens is now once again working beautifully and I believe the sticking aperture blades bit shouldn't happen again, my repairer used a different more modern lubricant after the clean.

If you wish to do some close (ish) work, I don't think there is any better lens in the Nikkor range below 2 metres distance from the camera.

For general work at or near infinity, it is very good, but not as good as my 50 Ais 1.8 normal Nikkor. You will really only notice the difference by nitpicking, but there is a difference.

If you do get one, you will not regret it.

Mick.

 

[Markok765]

I'm now worried about the aperture. I wanted this lens more for everyday use, with the macro thrown in if I needed it. I liked it because of the good construction. The 55mm F3.5 is too slow for my needs as a normal lens, which is why I didn't choose that. What is your opinion of manual focus lenses on the F5, and what do you think about the 50mm f1.4 AI? Also, has anyone had any experiences with BGN lenses? My BGN body is well used, but I don't know if the same would go for the lenses.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Marco, it is my experience that lenses are a far better, or safer gamble, than any body.

I wouldn't worry about the sticking aperture blades, if it happens the lens is just going to require a service, then it will usable for the next 20 - 30 odd years.

It is an extremely good all round lens and the best at close range stuff, you will not regret it, at least you shouldn't regret it.

Maybe someone living near you has one you can try to see the quality first hand on your own negatives.

Mick.

 

[André E.C.]

With this series of optics (everything bellow the D ones) you will lose that 3D color matrix metering you so champion (correctly should I say).

One thing is a user who gets an F5 and has a huge array of older optics already available, other, is a user investing on a new set of older optics and don't take the full capability of the device.

One question, why not invest in a more recent optic and take the maximum performance of your wonderful camera?

Some food for tought.


Get the 50mm f/1.4D or the cheaper 1.8D, both are top class performers.



Cheers




André

 

[Markok765]

With this series of optics (everything bellow the D ones) you will lose that 3D color matrix metering you so champion (correctly should I say).

One thing is a user who gets an F5 and has a huge array of older optics already available, other, is a user investing on a new set of older optics and don't take the full capability of the device.

One question, why not invest in a more recent optic and take the maximum performance of your wonderful camera?

Some food for tought.


Get the 50mm f/1.4D or the cheaper 1.8D, both are top class performers.



Cheers




André

Oh yeah, I would lose color matrix. Color Matrix is good for when you don't want to have to think/dont have time to think about what you want to expose for in the frame. I especially like it for rim lit shots. I'll consider the 50mm AFD lenses, though the construction is not as good. It shouldn't be a problem if I don't drop it!

 

[André E.C.]

The construction is good enough, if you aren't knocking the optic around, I had the 1.4D in the past, and i still own the 1.8D, the construction is better on the faster version, a bit cheaper and more plastic fantastic in the 1.8. For die-hard users of older nikkors, obviously the plastic shell may seem odd, but hey, the optical quality is fantastic, isn't that what really matters?


Good luck in your choice.




André

 

[Morituri]

Hi guys, I thought I'd bump this nice old thread instead of making a new one.

I just got this lens, and as we know it seems to be prone to getting oil on the aperture blades. My question is, for the sages out there, at what point do you BEGIN to see that there might be tiny oil leakage, in other words, how does it look like when lubricant slowly starts to come out?

I ask because I got this pretty cheap in almost like new condition but it has three very thin slivers of de-coloration (it looks a tiny bit darker then the color of the actual blades), as it were, on three aperture blades, all in the same place, the edge of the blade pointing inwards. I checked my other lenses and none of them has anything remote to this effect on their aperture blades. I thought if this is the first sign of leakage might as well sell it and try to get some money for it while it's in good shape

Thanks guys!

 

[Pumal]

This lens is a 'sure shot' under any conditions.

 

[fotch]

Well, you should disclose such to any buyer and your price will probably be low, why not get it cleaned and lubed properly, and us it. Its a fantastic lens.

I have one purchased new, and a few years ago, while using in the sun, the oil appeared and started affecting the iris functioning. I had a Nikon authorized service take care of it and I am glad I did. Great lens, one of the best.

 

[CGW]

I never found the slightly slower 3.5 to be a huge drawback, especially considering what the lens can do close-up and at mid-distance. Besides it never had the lube leak issues of the 2.8. If yours is diseased, though, and you either fix it or price "as is." Anything short of full disclosure would be slimy.

 

[Morituri]

Yes of course, I would never sell it off in a "half way to the grave" state. I found a great link on the internet (http://akikorhonen.org/projects.php?action=view&id=774) if/when I need to fix it and I won't sell it in any other shape then excellent. Just needed to know so I don't sell it in a worse condition then I thought it was in. But yea, great lens.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I never found the slightly slower 3.5 to be a huge drawback, especially considering what the lens can do close-up and at mid-distance. Besides it never had the lube leak issues of the 2.8. If yours is diseased, though, and you either fix it or price "as is." Anything short of full disclosure would be slimy.

The older f/3.5 is supposed to be not as good at infinity as the f/2.8 (i.e. is a more specialised macro lens).

 

[CGW]

The older f/3.5 is supposed to be not as good at infinity as the f/2.8 (i.e. is a more specialised macro lens).

"supposed to be not as good at infinity..." Another urban legend. Why would Nikon make a lens that doesn't focus properly at infinity? Trust me, the 3.5 did.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

"supposed to be not as good at infinity..." Another urban legend. Why would Nikon make a lens that doesn't focus properly at infinity? Trust me, the 3.5 did.

Not an urban legend and nothing to do with "proper focus": lenses are optimised for different things.
With the f/3.5, Nikon made a great close-up & macro lens. Infinity performance wasn't a priority.
The f/2.8 was designed to offer a better balance between close-up and distance performance.

 

[dynachrome]

CGW and Mr. Nut, you're both right. The 55/3.5 compensating and the earlier pre-set 55/3.5 were both supposed to be optimized for 1:10. According to some people they are actually sharper in the very close range. I have a 55/3.5 compensating lens in my collection and it doesn't seem sharper that the later lenses at 1:1 or 1:2. The compensating lens was not supposed to be so good at infinity. I've only used mine a few times at infinity and I closed down so the results were still good. The P lens was changed. It no longer had the compensating mechanism and is better at longer distances. I find it good for just about anything. The 55/2.8 is a floating element design and is very sharp at all distances. When the light is good I prefer a 55/3.5 P or later just to have something smaller. The 55/3.5 PC has improved coating and is probaby my favorite of the bunch. Prices for these lenses are so low you can get a few and compare them yourself. When I'm in the mood for something even lighter I will use an Olympus OM camera with the 50/3.5 Zuiko. It also has a floating element design and is sharp at all distances. What if I need a faster macro lens in OM mount? Then I will use one of my two 55/2.8 Vivitar macros.

 

[Timestep]

I use the best of all combinations: a 55mm. f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor, and a 50mm. f/1.2 AIS Nikkor. Both. surprisingly are excellent general use lenses; each having its own strength—close-up ability, or low light capability. But each can be used for general photography