| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 1674
|
 Posted: Thu May 23, 2024 9:56 am Post subject: Micro Nikkor-P.C 3.5/55 vs Macro-Hexanon 3.5/55 |
 |
|
alex ph wrote:
I happened to compare two macro lenses, both well reputed. Put on Sony Nex, some detail is noted in the chart. You may click on the image to see it in larger resolution.
The results look really close.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11061
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2024 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
 
I want to say the center images are swapped. The white balance on first pair is different; right side is warmer.
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 1674
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2024 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Not precisely. It's just an effect of autocontrast applied to both shots. I wished to avoid difference in colour balance set by the camera for each lens, and it worked the other way round.
Here are the SOOC jpegs of both, just resized.
Micro Nikkor
Macro Hexanon
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11061
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2024 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Ah ha!
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SandroB
Joined: 07 Mar 2013
Posts: 47
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2024 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SandroB wrote:
Judging from the photos you show my preference would be the Micro-Nikkor, but I don't think I could really explain why. Do you have a preference or do you use the lenses for different subjects, light situaions, indoor-outdoor etc.?
Lex
_________________
Lenses:
Leitz/Leica Elmarit-M 2; Elmarit-M 28; Summaron 2.8/35; Summicron 35; Summilux 35; Summarit 1.5/50; Elmar 50; Elmar-M 50; Summicron 50; Summilux 50; Elmar 65; Elmar 90; Elmarit 90; Tele-Elmar 135; Elmarit 135; Telyt 4/200.
Steinheil Culminar 2.8/90
Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 4.5/135
Bodies: Leica M3, M4, M4-2, M4-P, M6TTL, MDa, MD-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1275
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2024 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
judging by the first picture, the dof of the hexanon seems to be higher, there´s more area in focus, or maybe focusing point it is not the same on both pictures? it is still unclear to me on the the chair there seems to be less blurry area, i´m confused
On the long distance shots, probably hexanon do a bit better , but of course 3.5 shouldn´t be the one to tell which one is best |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tachi
Joined: 09 May 2020
Posts: 98
Location: China guangzhou
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2024 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
tachi wrote:
The photo on the right is better
_________________
a person has no faith if he has no patience |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 1674
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2024 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
I might for sure have shifted a bit the focusing point going from one lens to the other, as well as the physical point from which I was shooting handheld, thus contributing to the bokeh difference in complex background items.
The point I wished to demonstrate is that the difference between the two lenses is surprisingly small. So if you've got one or another for a good price, you should not be worried too much about the "best choice". Both perform very well, being very close all-purpose runners.
By the way, when I got the Macro Hexanon for 45 euros several years ago, I considered it as a really good catch for the price. I see now several Micro Nikkors (always 3.5/55) at local French boards for 45 and 50 euros, and ask myself if that is a particularly good moment to buy a macro lens if someone wishes it, or the era of high demand for macro + Nikon mark is over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 1216
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
I prefer the nikkor's rendering from what I see here, but the differences are indeed small.
As an all-around lens, there are much better choices around. The P.C. 55 3.5 that I have has a slight tendency to barrel distort on general scenics taken near infinity. For all-around use, the k-based nikkor 50mm f2 is a much better lens. The old "micro" shines best where it is supposed to~ at minimum focus distance, especially with the extension tube that was designed for it.
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1275
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
could you check if is same speed and iso on both first two shots? i might be wrong , but maybe one second shot has more dof that first , or the lens is not true same aperture
there seems to be a spec of dust on top of the small glass and the blur on the chair is higher on the nikkor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 1674
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
I checked, both shots are made at ISO 200. The Nikkor shot shutter speed is 1/500, the Hexanon one is 1/400.
You may double check downloading the individual pictures, I kept all exif data before uploading them to the forum.
The aperture is WO at both shots, as I said, it could be focus point or point of view (or finally the lens scheme?) which may give a different idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 1674
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
| Doc Sharptail wrote: |
| For all-around use, the k-based nikkor 50mm f2 is a much better lens. |
You might be right. Unfortunately, my experience with Nikkor 2/50 is limited to one test shot, after which happened an epic fail, il literal sense. Here is an explanation of why I do not own that lens any more. Since then, I have been looking at various listings, but the actual prices seem to be a little bit (pretty much, indeed) exaggerated for a 50mm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 1216
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
| alex ph wrote: |
| Doc Sharptail wrote: |
| For all-around use, the k-based nikkor 50mm f2 is a much better lens. |
You might be right. Unfortunately, my experience with Nikkor 2/50 is limited to one test shot, after which happened an epic fail, il literal sense. Here is an explanation of why I do not own that lens any more. Since then, I have been looking at various listings, but the actual prices seem to be a little bit (pretty much, indeed) exaggerated for a 50mm. |
I've gotten all of mine (which I have 3 left) all on camera bodies in package deals, and they were not all that expensive that way.
The K, which replaced the old H.C. first appeared on the nikkormat FT-2, IIRC, in standard non-A/I F mount. It was paired with an awful lot of cameras, including the F2 pro body, all the way up to at least the FE, when a new f1.8 came to replace it at the mid-point of the FE line. I may be wrong on this, but I think the first A/I variants appeared on the nikkormat FT-3. At any rate, there are an awful lot of them around, and a little digging should find reasonable pricing for good condition lenses.
It is still the lens I reach for when contrast is important.
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 1674
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Thank you for the hint! I will keep my eye on the cameras you mention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 1216
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2024 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
| alex ph wrote: |
| Thank you for the hint! I will keep my eye on the cameras you mention. |
One of them here has the A/I-s scoop milled into the flange, so a few at least, probably shipped with the FA/FG series cameras as well.
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
