Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,290   Posts: 1,535,406   Online: 770
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,364
    dynachrome, have you tested? MP and PP tested and tested and tested. Mr. Rothschild was not a liar, didn't make things up.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    803
    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.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,364
    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?

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    803
    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?

  5. #35
    John_Nikon_F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Duvall, WA, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,423
    Images
    2
    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
    APUG: F4, F3P, F2ASx2, F
    DPUG: D200
    Nikkors: 18-70/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX (f/D200), 24/2.8 AI, 50/1.4 AI, 50/2 H, 85/1.8 K, 105/4 Micro AIS, 180/2.8 ED AIS, 300/4.5 ED AI

    My FB - My flickr stream
    My SmugMug

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    803
    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.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,364
    Quote Originally Posted by dynachrome View Post
    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...44296/sizes/o/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster...44224/sizes/o/ aren't what you referred to, please give the link.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,378
    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.

  9. #39
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,627
    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.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,364
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    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

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin