Am I crazy (considering nikon)

[Chris101]

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.
...

Then it sounds like you want the Nikon - GET IT! Like I said, the F is just a gateway camera (kinda like a gateway drug) cause the Nikon system can keep you entertained for many thousands of dollars to come. And the stuff ain't bad.

Look into your future:

 

[Vics]

The Nikon F and F2, F3, F4, 5, 6 have the distinct advantage over all other SLRs in that they show the entire film frame in the finder. It's that precise framing that makes me keep my F cams. The Micro Nikkor 3.5 is not only a great macro, but also a tack-sharp normal lens as well. I think they usually came with an extension tube that took the lens from a 1:2 magnification to a 1:1 magnification. Mine had lost the tube by the time I got it, so I found one at a local shop and so I'm happy. The Nikon F is the first of the total "camera systems" with interchangeable EVERYTHING!
Go for it, and you'll sell all that other stuff. Annie Leibovitz started out with a Minolta SRT101, but when she "got serious" she bought a Nikon F with a 35/2, a 55 micro Nikkor 3.5 and a 105mm Nikkor 2.5. She made a few pretty fair pix with that kit.

 

[redisburning]

well doesnt matter anyway.

seller balked and now wants double. last night we had something worked out, today I guess not.

maybe Ill sell some of my parker 51s and pick up someone else's F down the road.

 

[shadowfox]

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.

And that's all you need to give it a try.
In this age where top-notch film cameras are way below their original prices, it'd be crazy *not* to try them all ("all" here is relative to your inclination and wallet, of course 🙂 )

Nikon F is a classic, you ought to try it if just for being able to say so.

I am an OM user, and I like classic Nikons 😀

 

[Field]

I had a Nikon F and they are very high quality... Higher build quality than OM's for sure, but I have fallen in love with the OM lenses. Semi-exotic Nikon lenses are cheaper than semi-exotic OM lenses (there is nothing outlandish in the OM lineup).

The macro lenses for the Nikons are sharper than their standard lenses; they only problem being speed. They are much cheaper than the OM's.

The 20, (24 I think too), and 28mm lenses are cheap and great at f2.8. The f2 versions of them are still $200 cheaper than an OM f2 wide. All the wides are a good penny though.

Cheapest best lenses:

Nikon 105mm f2.5 P-C (not perspective control, it is just a P-C instead of P, it has another element so it is like a planar+), it is one of the best lenses ever made. $90-150 for a non-AI (fine on F model). The AI version is another $30-80 in price. It would only cost you $30 to have one converted. Some people like the modern 100mm, but I would get the 105mm P-C first. The P version is worth grabbing if it is super cheap, has a legendary status, but the P-C is extraordinary.

Nikon 50mm f2 is superior to the f1.4, but the autofocus 1.4 and 1.8 are nice. If you price jump A LOT to a 58mm 1.2 you are good. The 50mm 1.2 is ok but for $500 there are a lot better things out there.

Nikon 55mm f3.5 macro (as you already know), is sharper than probably anything but the 58mm 1.2 and f2.8 macro.

 

[nikku]

Nikon 105mm f2.5 P-C (not perspective control, it is just a P-C instead of P, it has another element so it is like a planar+), it is one of the best lenses ever made. $90-150 for a non-AI (fine on F model). The AI version is another $30-80 in price. It would only cost you $30 to have one converted. Some people like the modern 100mm, but I would get the 105mm P-C first. The P version is worth grabbing if it is super cheap, has a legendary status, but the P-C is extraordinary.

That 105mm is a nice lens. I started out with a Nikkormat (a tank, with superb build quality), 28/3.5 (non ai), 50/1.4 (non ai), and a 135/2.8 no name AI lens. The 28/3.5 is super cheap, and not at all a bad lens--great color and contrast, but some noticable distortion at the edges. Later I got the 105/2.5 P.C (great value for the money) and 35/2 O (non ai). The one lens that would convince me to get another Nikon is that old 35/2. I love the way it renders.

Now I'm an OM guy, but mostly for the form and function of the cameras, not necessarily the glass--though I do think it is all very nice.

Nikon lenses are cheaper (especially non ai) compared to their Zuiko counterparts, by virtue of the sheer volume of Nikkors on the market.