One hundred and twelve lines per mm !

Dwig said:
This appears to be the original compensating aperture design. Be careful using it with TTL meters that couple to the prong. Its aperture design will lead to exposure errors at close distances. The error is minor at normal distances, approaching 1/3 stop at around 25" distance, but reaches a full stop at its minimum focusing distance. For accurate TTL meter reading you need to use stop-down metering after focusing.
Click to expand...


This is exaclty what I read in the manual and I wonder how they achieve this.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
Just out of curiosity, the early quotes are in "lines per mm" while more recent resolution figures are in "lp/mm" which is "line pairs per mm."

The question is does a black line and it neighboring white line count as one or two lines?

Is the measurement of the Micro Nikkor 112 lp/mm or 56 lp/mm? Just curious. My micro Nikkors are very sharp.
Click to expand...

The certificate states line per mm. I have not yet looked at the film strips but i will enlarge them and count what I'm able to observe.
 
The question is does a black line and it neighboring white line count as one or two lines?
Click to expand...

Yes :D

If you think about it, what you're looking for is the smallest difference you can detect, so you start with a pattern like ||||||||||||| at ever decreasing sizes, where the white and the black widths are the same. You then look for the smallest set in which you can detect two black lines separated by a white. i.e. the line pairs. This is "line pairs per millimetre". That's a bit of a mouthfull so some people just drop the "pairs".
 
raid said:
Your lens is rare if it is like the ones that is described in the link below. A 1965 lens may be "too new".

See this link: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/micro/index.htm
Click to expand...

It's a sweet lens regardless of which version. In the pic it seems to be the original auto diaphram (and hence auto-compensating) versions, chrome filter ring and all.

The MIR site is very good, but note that there are a few errors and omissions on the page in this link:

1. There was never and "M-1" ring. The first ring was the "M" ring (no number), which was the companion to the auto-compensating version of the lens. This was replaced by the "M-2" ring with the introduction of the rubber gripped non-compensating version.
2. All versions were 5 element & 4 group. There is one place on the MIR page which incorrectly indicates a 3 group version.
3. The illustration of 3 versions fails to note that the middle version is not in original condition. It has been Ai-converted resulting in it having a completely different f/stop ring, one that doesn't match the cosmetic appearance of the original.

In my experience, all variants with a completely metal focusing ring are auto-compensating. The non-compensating lenses introduced the rubber grip which has the same diamond pattern as that of the original 43-86mm lens.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Yes :D

If you think about it, what you're looking for is the smallest difference you can detect, so you start with a pattern like ||||||||||||| at ever decreasing sizes, where the white and the black widths are the same. You then look for the smallest set in which you can detect two black lines separated by a white. i.e. the line pairs. This is "line pairs per millimetre". That's a bit of a mouthfull so some people just drop the "pairs".
Click to expand...
Not always. Some 'lines/mm' figures really are lines -- one black, one white -- not lp/mm. The further you go back, the likelier this is.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dwig said:
It's a sweet lens regardless of which version. In the pic it seems to be the original auto diaphram (and hence auto-compensating) versions, chrome filter ring and all.

The MIR site is very good, but note that there are a few errors and omissions on the page in this link:

1. There was never and "M-1" ring. The first ring was the "M" ring (no number), which was the companion to the auto-compensating version of the lens. This was replaced by the "M-2" ring with the introduction of the rubber gripped non-compensating version.
2. All versions were 5 element & 4 group. There is one place on the MIR page which incorrectly indicates a 3 group version.
3. The illustration of 3 versions fails to note that the middle version is not in original condition. It has been Ai-converted resulting in it having a completely different f/stop ring, one that doesn't match the cosmetic appearance of the original.

In my experience, all variants with a completely metal focusing ring are auto-compensating. The non-compensating lenses introduced the rubber grip which has the same diamond pattern as that of the original 43-86mm lens.
Click to expand...

Websites can have errors in them. I accept this fact. This lens looks beautiful, and iI bet that all 55/3.5 made are very sharp.
 
raid said:
Websites can have errors in them. I accept this fact. This lens looks beautiful, and iI bet that all 55/3.5 made are very sharp.
Click to expand...

So right... I just wanted to point out the errors since there was discussion about IDing the OP's lens and the errors could lead the OP astray.

Unless damaged, all Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 lenses are very sharp. They're all the same optical design with the exception of the improved coatings in the later versions. With the simiple design, the coating improvements had little impact on the image.
 
When resolution is measured in lp/mm, a black-white combination is one line-pair. Hence line-pairs per millimeter. Usually measured with a 1951 USAF Test Pattern.

When measuring resolution as LW/PH, a black-white combination counts as two line widths, hence line-widths per picture height. Usually measured with an ISO 12233 Test Chart.

In either measurement system, there are different ways of measuring: Extinction resolution, where you can no longer see the separation between the lines. And the more modern and probably better measurement MTF50, where the contrast between black and white lines is 50% of the contrast at low spatial frequencies. This older measurement by Nikon is probably extinction resolution.

Google either of the test chart names to get an example.

To convert:
-- Starting with lp/mm -- multiply by 2 x number of mm in the picture height.

On 35mm film: 100 lp/mm at extinction is equivalent to 4800 LW/PH or sometimes just "line widths" or "lines."

As usual, Wikipedia has an article on this topic:

Line pairs are often used instead of lines; a line pair comprises a dark line and an adjacent light line. A line is either a dark line or a light line. A resolution 10 lines per millimeter means 5 dark lines alternating with 5 light lines, or 5 line pairs per millimeter (5 LP/mm). Photographic lens and film resolution are most often quoted in line pairs per millimeter.
Click to expand...
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Thanks, Roger. Do you know if these figures should be gathered from the aerial image or if there is a standard for testing with film?
Click to expand...
There is (or was) an astonishingly low degree of standardization, not least because ultimate resolution figures are extremely subjective: they're a matter of edge definition as well as maximum and minimum contrast. Thus, 80 lp/mm with woolly edges can look less sharp than 60 lp/mm with higher edge contrast -- which is one reason you should always treat such figures with deep suspicion.

Perhaps surprisingly, I know more about film resolution than lens resolution, because I've spent more time talking to film manufacturers about it. Kodak and Ilford could never agree, for example. They were very consistent and pretty much interconvertible: they just weren't the same numbers. As far as I recall it was one of the East German universities -- Magdeburg, maybe -- that was reckoned to have the best testing protocols, i.e. the ones that no-one objected to too much.

As for aerial vs. on-film, the few lens manufacturers I've talked to agreed that aerial resolution is all but meaningless, because you can't take pictures on the air. With film, you've got film thickness, flatness and location, and with digital you have Nyquist limits. I know that Zeiss have achieved over 200 lp/mm on film, but they said it took 'focus bracketing', i.e. focusing; shooting, twisting the focus a fraction; shooting again; twisting a fraction more; shooting again; going back to the original mark; shooting again; twisting in the opposite direction...

You also have the mechanical accuracy of the focusing system (including mirror and screen, in a reflex) and the resolving power of the human eye (which is surprisingly variable, even when fully 'corrected').

In other words, with a fine micrometer mount and aerial focusing via a microscope, you can get ridiculously high lp/mm figures, but they're meaningless in the real world. Which is precisely the same as at least 90% of the other things in photography (or indeed, anything else) that are discussed to death on the internet.

The original figures given for the Micro Nikkor are, therefore, of very limited value and are valid only for the R.G. Lewis testing protocol, i.e with a target of given contrast (higher contrast targets give more lp/mm, for obvious reasons) and for a given film which is almost certainly no longer in production. They are of far more interest as an historical document than as any real evidence of the resolving power of the lens. Assuming the lens is still as good today as it was when it was tested, I would be astonished if I couldn't get 125 lp/mm on the right film. But what would it mean?

Cheers,

R.
 
goodtimes said:
This is exaclty what I read in the manual and I wonder how they achieve this.
Click to expand...

The aperture mechanics are coupled to the distance ring - fully extending (to 1:2) will open up the aperture by one stop. Accordingly, the mechanism will not work when fully open.
 
I have one (a bargain), and these days it is the last SLR gear I keep.
This lens was designed first for microfilming purposes : copying usual sheets (24x36 cm) to 24x36 mm, the reason why it is computed for 10:1 ratio. The result is a very fine lens untill severall meters, and it is obviously among the strongest lens not only for test charts but also general photography.

I found I make many pictures with not so far main suject. I think that other standard lenses (even very fast one) can rivalize or even be better for very distant subjects. But the micro-Nikkor stays as a clever choice : I sometimes read lenses "optimized for infinite", but I think infinite is not so interesting distance (excepted for astronomy).
 
But what would it mean?
Click to expand...

A very good question. Once more it's back to the point where objective crosses over to subjective. In your exposure book, you point out that there is no such thing as correct exposure (sorry if that's a misquote) but the right exposure for the image you want.

Perhaps there's no such thing as sharpness but the right acuity for the subject?
 
Micro-NIKKOR

Micro-NIKKOR

Bought one of these with the 'P' in 1970 and I have never been disappointed. It came like the one pictured with one inch ring.

It isn't worn out yet but the box, silica packet, styrofoam packing, and plastic bubble went straight into the trash. Cut out the black bottom of the bubble for a rear cap since it locked into the bubble and didn't come with a rear cap.

What do I know? Just a working photographer.

It still ties every bundle.
 
I seem to remember that Kodak once produced an advertising poster of watch internals which they used to show just how good Technical Pan film was. if my memory serves me correctly, the lens they used to produce the extremely detailed image was a 55mm Micro-Nikkor....
 
Lovely lens. I have one too, not in the kind of shape yours is in but it serves. Resolution and contrast have never been a problem.

Minox subminiature lenses are very highly corrected, the most expensive part of the camera. Their resolution is aided by a clamping pressure plate. They can achieve upwards of 200 lp@mm on microfilm, and were used in microdot production by covert services once upon a time. But remember that a 6x8 inch print is already almost a 20x enlargement of the format so it needs that resolution.

The Minox 35GT-E's 35mm f/2.8 lens is also good quality, similar o the 40/3.5 Tessar in the Rollei 35—but not in the same class as the subminiature lenses or the Micro-Nikkor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom