Am I crazy (considering nikon)

[redisburning]

tomorrow I have an opportunity to look at an F and potentially get it with a 55mm f3.5 auto pc micro nikor.

I have a perfectly adequate OM kit (om-1, om-2, 28, 35 and 50mm lenses) as well as a one trick pony srt-101 with a 58mm f1.2.

I dont know if I should be spending my money on this. Is this lens something to write home about? Im not interested in another fast 50, but if this lens is really good I might do it.

Also, what price makes this a good deal? What makes it a must take deal?

 

[goffer]

I have the 55mm f2.8 that I consider to be the best $100 I ever spent.

 

[FrankS]

Sure. Everyone needs a Nikon F. It's a classic.

 

[redisburning]

Sure. Everyone needs a Nikon F. It's a classic.

well Im a poor college kid so fundamentally speaking I cannot just buy it to have it.

if the lens is very good and the camera is passable, I will do it. just like I did with the rokkor. I know that the Zuiko 50mm f3.5 is a very nice lens, and I'd love to have one. If this lens is comparable, I dont mind eating the cost of the camera. I hate the srt I have but I love the lens so I keep it even though I could probably trade it for something more immediately useful.

I was wondering if this is a similar situation or if it's just another lens in a sea of gear that doesnt stand out in any way.

Goffer that's good to hear. Do you have any experience with this slower f3.5 version though?

 

[Pikapig]

its good enough as well but problem is..why don spend that little bit more to find a f2.8 micro, which can easily be found in the market....


I use my 55 f2.8 for my flowers...

 

[Pikapig]

And this is how close i can get...

by e way, these are shoot using a DSLR...so on film, it shouldnt be too huge a different...how this help in your decision making...🙂

Nvr tried the nikkor 55mm f3.5, but feedback for the lens wasnt tat bad either...

 

[redisburning]

its good enough as well but problem is..why don spend that little bit more to find a f2.8 micro, which can easily be found in the market....

for ~120 with a nikon F?

I dont think I would be that lucky.

 

[Tom A]

My normal macro kit is an old F and the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5. I have other macro lenses - but the 55f3.5 is probably the best bang for the buck. I had the 55f2.8 and tried it against the f3.5 - and I found the f3.5 better.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

2hi. i recently bought a nikon fm with a 50/f2 lens from a fewer rffer. i love it to bits. it is smooth, silky and the lens is much sharper than the 1.4f even at f2.

i fretted over not buying the fm2, the fm3a, the fm2HP etc etc but when i received the FM, it was perfect for me.

you can view my photos that i took last week:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150249053656451.324333.703791450&l=a198ff67ec&type=1

I am sure your Nikon F is better built as a pro body.

compared to my new-oldstock prakitca, the nikon is so much better.

raytoei

 

[jaredangle]

tomorrow I have an opportunity to look at an F and potentially get it with a 55mm f3.5 auto pc micro nikkor.

I'd pounce on this if I didn't already have similar equipment. If you're in need of a great macro that also is very sharp as a standard lens for normal focusing distance, this lens is perfect. I think ones of that age are between $60-100 dollars on sites like KEH. The F body is very sturdy as well. The lens should work just fine on a higher end digital like the D300 or D700 as well if you ever get one; my college's 55mm f/3.5 works great on my D700.

Here's a shot I took with it.

 

[Pikapig]

for ~120 with a nikon F?

I dont think I would be that lucky.

haha...just a suggestion for top up..but if the budget is set for a 3.5, then just get it...you wont go wrong...

 

[redisburning]

If it is an early 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor non - AI then it may not be compatible with the Nikon DSLR's.

thanks for the info but it's not relevant to my needs.

I have access to a 40D but I dont use it; I am exclusively a film shooter now. at any rate Im pretty sure this is a pre-ai lens.

Ill check out the camera tomorrow. I think if it's in good condition I will get it. If it's not I will pass.

 

[spiderfrank]

if you need a macro, find a lens for your OM cameras

 

[Chris101]

In your shoes, I wouldn't do it. The Nikon F is a gateway camera, that will lead to an FM2n, F3as, F4, F5, F100, and ultimately to an F6. And that just the film line you will end up buying. They ring out 2 or 3 'must have' digital cameras a year, so be prepared to buy those too. And the glass - it is as expensive as Leica glass, and MUCH bigger and more impressive to lug around. Chicks dig it.

Seeing as you have a decent OM kit, you would indeed be better off buying a 50 f/3.5 macro for it as this is one of the best normal lenses available in any brand. If you can't handle slow, they have an F/2, but it's not quite as sweet.

ps, I own a nice OM kit myself, as well as a gargantuan Nikon kit that, like the plant in Little Shop of Horrors keeps imploring me to feed it!

 

[user237428934]

tomorrow I have an opportunity to look at an F and potentially get it with a 55mm f3.5 auto pc micro nikor.

I have a perfectly adequate OM kit (om-1, om-2, 28, 35 and 50mm lenses) as well as a one trick pony srt-101 with a 58mm f1.2.

I dont know if I should be spending my money on this. Is this lens something to write home about? Im not interested in another fast 50, but if this lens is really good I might do it.

Also, what price makes this a good deal? What makes it a must take deal?

As we all know, the grass on the other side of the fence is always greener 😀

 

[jaredangle]

If it is an early 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor non - AI then it may not be compatible with the Nikon DSLR's.

Weird... the lens my college has is of the P Auto type - no reference to AI, looks like most of the other 1960's lenses, not the more modern AI look. but once the focal length and max aperture were dialed into my D700's lens settings, it did indeed auto-index the apertures.

edit - must be an AI-converted lens?

At any rate, maybe Redisburning should stick to the OM system's 55mm macro for the sake of convenience. I'm drawn to the system myself, if it weren't for a small income.

 

[Sam N]

The OM 50/2 macro is supposed to be a great lens. It's not super-cheap but it's probably not a lot more than a decent F either.

 

[dtcls100]

The OM 50/2 macro is supposed to be a great lens. It's not super-cheap but it's probably not a lot more than a decent F either.

It's about $500-600 dollars for one in good condition. An excellent lens though, very sharp with excellent bokeh as well.

 

[redisburning]

Seeing as you have a decent OM kit, you would indeed be better off buying a 50 f/3.5 macro for it as this is one of the best normal lenses available in any brand. If you can't handle slow, they have an F/2, but it's not quite as sweet.

this seems to be a valid point.

tbh there are several lenses that are a higher priority in the OM system to me than the 50mm f3.5 though. I dont necessarily need a macro lens. Actually I dont need one at all. I just looked at this as an opportunity to get a nice lens on a camera system I was legitimately interested in trying.

As we all know, the grass on the other side of the fence is always greener 😀

this is actually my primary concern.

I dont know, maybe it's because so many pros used Nikon, or that Paul Simon song about Kodachrome, that shocking Afghan Girl picture, or maybe Roger Hicks' comment really bugged me, but I've been wanting to try some Nikon stuff =/

The OM 50/2 macro is supposed to be a great lens. It's not super-cheap but it's probably not a lot more than a decent F either.

I would LOVE to have the 50mm f2 macro but it's not really in my price range right now. This F is particularly well priced. Worst case scenario I could flip the camera.

 

[Roger Hicks]

My normal macro kit is an old F and the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5. I have other macro lenses - but the 55f3.5 is probably the best bang for the buck. I had the 55f2.8 and tried it against the f3.5 - and I found the f3.5 better.

Dear Tom,

Same here. But I always find it dangerous to suggest to OM users that any other system might be better. At $120 or so an F+Micro Nikkor is a 'bite their arm off' deal.

To OP: Does it come with the 1:1 extension tube? If not, I have one lying around somewhere. Yours for a small contribution (anything you like) to a breast cancer charity.

Cheers,

R.