Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,546   Posts: 1,572,923   Online: 983
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    376
    I use the 55mm f3.5 Nikkor with M2 extension tube to shoot up to 1:1. I prefer a B screen with either the F or F2.

  2. #22
    ITD
    ITD is offline
    ITD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    155
    I have the 55mm f/3.5. Used with bellows without reversing it can be tricky, since the front element of the lens is recessed by about 3cm. Some of the enlargement ranges with the Nikon bellows that I have therefore require a distance from subject to the end of the lens barrel of only 1.5cm - doesn't leave a lot of space to get any light in.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,509
    Don't you just love thread drift? The original poster asked a question that few of the responses bear on.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Don't you just love thread drift? The original poster asked a question that few of the responses bear on.
    true - but I think he question was answered - i.e. the 55 macro is better for his application than a standard 50mm

    Dan

  5. #25
    ITD
    ITD is offline
    ITD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Don't you just love thread drift? The original poster asked a question that few of the responses bear on.
    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.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,509
    Quote Originally Posted by ITD View Post
    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.
    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

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post

    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.
    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

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Tim, will do; thanks!

    All good information; thanks to all.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,509
    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

  10. #30
    ITD
    ITD is offline
    ITD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    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.
    OK, I see your point. Since you put it like that... I'll get me coat :-)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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