Bingley
Veteran
Beautiful shots, Chris M.!
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Doug A
Well-known
Two prism finder F's in the drawer. 105/2.5 non-AI on one, 55/2.8 AIS Micro on the other.
Rangefinder 35
Well-known
I have used that lens (2.8) for many years. It was very sharp and flare-free, no doubt partly thanks to its recessed front element. In the end I gave it up for a newer 60/28 D Micro, the decision I regretted for ever since...
randy stewart
Established
In the mid-70s, I bought a newly introduced FM and the then-new 55mm 2.8 Micro-Nikkor to use as a normal lens with close focus. It was a great combination I used with later FM/FE bodies until I went to AF. Based on test results, the 55mm 3.5 Micro is a bit better in the macro range of focus, as is the following 60mm 2.8 AF, however the 55mm 2.8 is a generally better performer at conventional focus distances. It has a rep of oil leaking onto and sticking the aperture more than most Nikkors, but I never experienced the problem myself - a fairly easy and/or cheap repair in any event. If you can work with the slow maximum aperture. it is a real; sleeper as a normal or primary lens.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Jonathan R
Well-known
Sorry to buck the trend
Sorry to buck the trend
This thread caught my eye because I used to have the 55mm f/2.8 AI version and had a love-hate relationship with it. I bought it in the 1980s for its versatility. I needed to take close-ups for my work, but my personal interest was in street photography. So I used the micro 55 as my 'normal' lens on a Nikon FE (gloomy little thing with monstrous mirror slap) until about 2000 - almost 20 years. For close-up work, the 55 was really excellent, but as a 'normal' lens I was frustrated by poor quality images. Corner and foreground sharpness were poor, and I felt there was a general lack of clarity, even using fast shutter speeds and/or a tripod. I do have a few good street and landscape images from those days, but not many. It's hard to judge whether the nice photos posted in this thread show better lens performance than I got, especially as we don't know what aperture was used in each case, but also because online viewing after scanning and editing isn't really a good measure. (BTW, I have nothing but good to say about the Nikkor 105mm f/2 lens that I also owned - but that's another kind of beast, of course.)
In the 1990s I bought a second-hand Rollei 35 with the Tessar f/3.5 lens for days when I didn't want to take the Nikon. Given a little extra development time to compensate for the soft contrast, I now started to get street and landscape images that were as sharp as I expected, at least in good light conditions. Although the Rollei was a step backwards in terms of what the camera did for you (pre-set focus, uncoupled meter, awkward ergonomics) it became my preferred companion and I fell completely out of love with the Nikon gear.
Finally in 2001 I got myself a second-hand Leica M6 and Summicron f/2 50mm. This time I expected a step change in quality, but was disappointed again - at least initially. The real quality emerged gradually as my technique improved. So it's possible that my negative view of the micro-Nikkor 55 as a 'normal' lens was due to my poor camera technique, or the camera I used it on, or lack of attention to detail in the darkroom. However, comparing recent 20x16 prints from my best Leica negatives versus recent prints from my best Nikon negatives, the difference seems really clear to me - especially when I consider that by chance the former were taken in available window light indoors, while the latter were in full daylight.
[No plug for Leicas intended here, I'm just reporting what I found. If I were to plug anything, it would be that little Rollei f/3.5, which I still carry, and which has won me some super images. I have nothing but admiration for the guys who designed it, for they made all the right choices.]
Sorry to buck the trend
This thread caught my eye because I used to have the 55mm f/2.8 AI version and had a love-hate relationship with it. I bought it in the 1980s for its versatility. I needed to take close-ups for my work, but my personal interest was in street photography. So I used the micro 55 as my 'normal' lens on a Nikon FE (gloomy little thing with monstrous mirror slap) until about 2000 - almost 20 years. For close-up work, the 55 was really excellent, but as a 'normal' lens I was frustrated by poor quality images. Corner and foreground sharpness were poor, and I felt there was a general lack of clarity, even using fast shutter speeds and/or a tripod. I do have a few good street and landscape images from those days, but not many. It's hard to judge whether the nice photos posted in this thread show better lens performance than I got, especially as we don't know what aperture was used in each case, but also because online viewing after scanning and editing isn't really a good measure. (BTW, I have nothing but good to say about the Nikkor 105mm f/2 lens that I also owned - but that's another kind of beast, of course.)
In the 1990s I bought a second-hand Rollei 35 with the Tessar f/3.5 lens for days when I didn't want to take the Nikon. Given a little extra development time to compensate for the soft contrast, I now started to get street and landscape images that were as sharp as I expected, at least in good light conditions. Although the Rollei was a step backwards in terms of what the camera did for you (pre-set focus, uncoupled meter, awkward ergonomics) it became my preferred companion and I fell completely out of love with the Nikon gear.
Finally in 2001 I got myself a second-hand Leica M6 and Summicron f/2 50mm. This time I expected a step change in quality, but was disappointed again - at least initially. The real quality emerged gradually as my technique improved. So it's possible that my negative view of the micro-Nikkor 55 as a 'normal' lens was due to my poor camera technique, or the camera I used it on, or lack of attention to detail in the darkroom. However, comparing recent 20x16 prints from my best Leica negatives versus recent prints from my best Nikon negatives, the difference seems really clear to me - especially when I consider that by chance the former were taken in available window light indoors, while the latter were in full daylight.
[No plug for Leicas intended here, I'm just reporting what I found. If I were to plug anything, it would be that little Rollei f/3.5, which I still carry, and which has won me some super images. I have nothing but admiration for the guys who designed it, for they made all the right choices.]
Horatio
Masked photographer
Leica glass is great. There's no denying that, but I think the f3.5 micro-Nikkor is reputed to have better IQ. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken. 
gavinlg
Veteran
I moved on from mine - I found it to be a really well rounded and consistant lens in terms of how it draws, but I couldn't live with the f3.5 aperture relative to the size/weight, long and stiff focus throw of the thing.
I found it really sings at f4 onwards and it is better at close to mid distances. If I could find an f2 lens with similar rendering style (rounded, sharp without being harsh) I'd be a happy guy. I'm not sure I'm going to find it in the nikon lineup - so have been looking to the M summicrons also.
I found it really sings at f4 onwards and it is better at close to mid distances. If I could find an f2 lens with similar rendering style (rounded, sharp without being harsh) I'd be a happy guy. I'm not sure I'm going to find it in the nikon lineup - so have been looking to the M summicrons also.
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
Have you tried the old Nikkor-H (or H.C) 50mm f/2.0? I love the rendering of this lens. It exhibits quite a bit of barrel distortion but I have not find it a major drawback in everyday shooting. Apart from that, it's a really nice lens, sharp without being harsh, with nice out of focus areas and great built quality.
That's what Mike Johnston wrote (in his essay The Empirical Photographer) about this lens:
This lens is also featured in the second of the "Thousand One Nights" on Nikon website: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0002/index.htm
Cheers!
Abbazz
DC1030
DC1030
The 3.5 Mikro Nikkor is my "scanner lens", I use it on a Fuji Xt1 to scan negatives, and sometimes on my Nikon F. One of the best lenses you can get. Especially for landscape photography it is very versatile, as you can easily take details e.g. shells on the beach...
gavinlg
Veteran
Abbazz, Yes! I got a 50mm H.C f2, and have so far shot one roll with it. Seems to be promising. Your description definitely seems accurate so far.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
I used to have two 50/H.C lenses. Great build quality and pleasant rendering.
However 0.6m MFD bothers me quite a bit.
Later on I found a 50/2 K version (which I believe the Optic is the same with the 50/2 H.C) which can focus down to 0.45m, and I am happy with it. Sold the two H.C and keep the 50/2 K
cjm
Well-known
Thanks Steve!
keytarjunkie - the movement of the birds coupled with the sharp subject is mesmerizing, well done.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
When I bought my FM3a new, I also bought the 55/2.8 AIS for the same reason - versatility.
However, I’ve not been disappointed - the 55/2.8 has given me not only excellent macro images (with and without the PK13 extender), but has given me very high resolution “normal” images, even out to infinity. I think it’s the sharpest Nikon lens I have (aside from the 60/2.8 AF-S G) and I have most of the Nikon pre-AI, AI(S), and AF lenses from 28mm to 300mm.
Maybe your FE needed better mirror foam? My FE2 doesn’t sound much different than other Nikons. Of those I have, from F to F4, FM’s and such, the F2’s are the loudest. Worst mirror slap I ever heard was on a K1000, but not all of them.