dynachrome, have you tested? MP and PP tested and tested and tested. Mr. Rothschild was not a liar, didn't make things up.
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.
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?
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?
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.
APUG: F4, F3HP, F2AS, Nikomat FT2, Nikkormat EL, FT
Nikkors: 18-55/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX (f/D2x), 20/3.5 UD, 24/2.8 AI, 50/2 AI, 50/2 H, 50/1.4 S, 55/2.8 Micro AIS, 85/1.8 K, 105/4 Micro AIS, 180/2.8 PC
- My flickr stream
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
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.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Originally Posted by lxdude
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