Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Micro-NIKKOR 55mm lens test
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:38 pm    Post subject: Micro-NIKKOR 55mm lens test Reply with quote
Hello everyone, I had read good reviews about this lens and decide to do an all-rounder test, from portrait to what it is build for micro. All photos taken as it is, no post processing except resizing for the thread and my watermark. Okay, let the photos do the talking. Very Happy

Portrait shot of my father



General view of MRT train cabin



Low light shot in a public bus at night



Micro shot of a plant grow on the tree bark



What do I think of this lens ?

Two words , GREAT and SHARP ! Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:42 am    Post subject: Re: Micro-NIKKOR 55mm lens test Reply with quote
Krisgage wrote:
Hello everyone, I had read good reviews about this lens and decide to do an all-rounder test, from portrait to what it is build for micro. All photos taken as it is, no post processing except resizing for the thread and my watermark. Okay, let the photos do the talking. Very Happy

Portrait shot of my father



General view of MRT train cabin



Low light shot in a public bus at night



Micro shot of a plant grow on the tree bark



What do I think of this lens ?

Two words , GREAT and SHARP ! Laughing


Hi,
This lens is well respected on this forum. I know I have a copy and so do many other who post here. IMO it's the best lens you can get for the money.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
IMO it's the best lens you can get for the money.


I 100% AGREE.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Same here ! 100% agreed too !


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Absolutely - if you compare with other lenses called "macro" not "micro" the difference in value is incredible.


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Absolutely, thumbs up for the 55mm Micro-Nikkor.

By the way, which version do you use, the F2,8 or the F3,5? I prefer the F3,5.


Greetings to Singapore
Benedikt


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Absolutely - if you compare with other lenses called "macro" not "micro" the difference in value is incredible.


patrickh


It is simply since Nikon understood the definition of macro. Macro: all beyond 1:1 magnification (> 1x and up to about 50x), micro: below 1:1 magnification (<1x)


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mom when she travelled to Japan in the early 60's came back with a Nikkormat and a 55 Micro... somehow she was clued into the sharpness thing... Someday I'd love to have such a set up.

I really like the train cabin photo


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BenediktW wrote:
Absolutely, thumbs up for the 55mm Micro-Nikkor.

By the way, which version do you use, the F2,8 or the F3,5? I prefer the F3,5.


Greetings to Singapore
Benedikt


I have the 3.5 also. Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
spiralcity wrote:
I have the 3.5 also

me2 but it stay sleeping in a box, the barrel is hard to move


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I want one!
But they're so much Sad


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BenediktW wrote:
Absolutely, thumbs up for the 55mm Micro-Nikkor.

By the way, which version do you use, the F2,8 or the F3,5? I prefer the F3,5.


Greetings to Singapore
Benedikt


My version is f3.5. Greetings to you too ! Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
Mom when she travelled to Japan in the early 60's came back with a Nikkormat and a 55 Micro... somehow she was clued into the sharpness thing... Someday I'd love to have such a set up.

I really like the train cabin photo


I love the sharpness of this lens too. Thank you, I am glad you like the shot. It is taken at the end train station thats why it is pretty empty. It is Changi Airport train station. Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
spiralcity wrote:
I have the 3.5 also

me2 but it stay sleeping in a box, the barrel is hard to move


Add some lub and get it going ! Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Razster wrote:
I want one!
But they're so much Sad


You can find these on ebay cheap. I believe i paid around 50.00 USD for mine and It's in near mint condition.

I havent checked the prices in some time, it may have changed a bit, but I wouldnt think it would have changed much.

Focus is stiff on this one.
Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just got one of this twodays ago for 25 GBP shipping included. It's a 1971 version, we will see what I get.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cilinderman wrote:
I just got one of this twodays ago for 25 GBP shipping included. It's a 1971 version, we will see what I get.


Congrats ! Looking forward to your results Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
patrickh wrote:
Absolutely - if you compare with other lenses called "macro" not "micro" the difference in value is incredible.


patrickh


It is simply since Nikon understood the definition of macro. Macro: all beyond 1:1 magnification (> 1x and up to about 50x), micro: below 1:1 magnification (<1x)


Now I am confused Wink

Definition as I understand it:

micro - Small: microscopic
macro - Large: macroscopic

The term macro lens I would assume means the lens makes small objects appear large as a posed to the lens being large or for viewing large objects.

So does that make the term micro lens to mean a lens that makes large objects appear small Rolling Eyes I would assume micro lens is in fact for viewing very small objects.

Or is Nikon or kds315*'s definition correct and at odds with the rest of the non-photographic world.

Confused Fergus

Last edited by fergus on Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fergus wrote:

Definition as I understand it:

micro - Small: microscopic
macro - Large: macroscopic


Correct so far.

fergus wrote:
The term macro lens I would assume means the lens makes small objects appear large as a posed to the lens being large or for viewing large objects.


Yes. A macro lens is needed to photograph very small objects.

fergus wrote:
So does that make the term micro lens to mean a lens that makes large objects appear small Rolling Eyes I would assume micro lens is in fact for viewing very small objects.


The size of the image on the sensor is smaller than the size of the object. So yes, it makes objects smaller.

At 1:1 the size of the image on the sensor is exactly the same as the object, neither smaller nor larger, which is why 1:1 is the threshold between macro and micro.

fergus wrote:
Or is Nikon or kds315*'s definition correct and at odds with the rest of the non-photographic world.


Its correct and its not, in fact, at odds with the rest of the world. Remember that Nikon make both macro and micro lenses. So its not unexpected that they use the correct terminology to distinguish lenses which make an image larger than life, and lenses that make one smaller than life.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
fergus wrote:

Definition as I understand it:

micro - Small: microscopic
macro - Large: macroscopic


Correct so far.

fergus wrote:
The term macro lens I would assume means the lens makes small objects appear large as a posed to the lens being large or for viewing large objects.


Yes. A macro lens is needed to photograph very small objects.

fergus wrote:
So does that make the term micro lens to mean a lens that makes large objects appear small Rolling Eyes I would assume micro lens is in fact for viewing very small objects.


The size of the image on the sensor is smaller than the size of the object. So yes, it makes objects smaller.

At 1:1 the size of the image on the sensor is exactly the same as the object, neither smaller nor larger, which is why 1:1 is the threshold between macro and micro.

fergus wrote:
Or is Nikon or kds315*'s definition correct and at odds with the rest of the non-photographic world.


Its correct and its not, in fact, at odds with the rest of the world. Remember that Nikon make both macro and micro lenses. So its not unexpected that they use the correct terminology to distinguish lenses which make an image larger than life, and lenses that make one smaller than life.


Hi Chris

Thanks for replying and good explanation. To be honest I did know macro means larger than life on film/sensor and micro means smaller than life size on film/sensor in the photographic world. I was playing devils advocate Twisted Evil as I know so many people are confused by these terms. Take the term "microscope lens" by this definition it would be a macro lens. Laughing

Regards

Fergus

Last edited by fergus on Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fergus wrote:

Thanks for replying and good explanation. To be honest I did know macro means larger than life on film/sensor and micro means smaller than life size on film/sensor in the photographic world. I was playing devils advocate Twisted Evil


Ah, I seem destined to waste my time trying to carefully explain things to people who already know it and are just jerking me around. Rolling Eyes

fergus wrote:

as I know so many people are confused by these terms.

And presumably you thought that spreading confusion further would be funny.

fergus wrote:
Take the term "microscope lens" by this definition it would be a macro lens. Laughing

No, but I will let you explain that one yourself because I can't be arsed, frankly.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually, I believe nikon was almost the only manufacturer to use the term micro. All their micro lenses, I believe, went to 1:1, although some had to be used with tubes. Other manufacturers were not so purist and used "macro" as a generic term for "close-up photography" with little regard to the multiplication factor.


patrickh


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fergus wrote:
Or is Nikon or kds315*'s definition correct and at odds with the rest of the non-photographic world.

Confused Fergus


I don't know if you are confused or not, but others might be, so I hope you will forgive this contibution.

The point made by kds315 and, indirectly, by patrickh is that some manufacturers misuse the term "macro". If you look at 3 current macro/micro lenses..

Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro

Tokina AT-X M35 Pro Dx AF 35mm f/2.8 Macro

Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF Micro

then each of these reaches the 1:1 magnification ratio but does not go beyond that. In fact each of them operates in the "micro" region - the Sigma, for example has scale markings between 1:5 and 1:1. Presumably, Sigma and Tokina would argue that since they reach the 1:1 boundary they are entitled to call their lenses "Macro". Nikon, on the other hand, recognises that their lens operates almost exclusively in the micro region and names it accordingly.

The situation is even worse. Many manufacturers don't worry about getting even close to 1:1. So for example..

Sigma 17-170mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro/HSM has a maximum magnification of 1:2.3.

And there are very many other examples.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Actually, I believe nikon was almost the only manufacturer to use the term micro. All their micro lenses, I believe, went to 1:1, although some had to be used with tubes. Other manufacturers were not so purist and used "macro" as a generic term for "close-up photography" with little regard to the multiplication factor.


patrickh


Well put. I was typing my long winded contribution when this appeared.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
fergus wrote:

Thanks for replying and good explanation. To be honest I did know macro means larger than life on film/sensor and micro means smaller than life size on film/sensor in the photographic world. I was playing devils advocate Twisted Evil


Ah, I seem destined to waste my time trying to carefully explain things to people who already know it and are just jerking me around. Rolling Eyes

fergus wrote:

as I know so many people are confused by these terms.

And presumably you thought that spreading confusion further would be funny.

fergus wrote:
Take the term "microscope lens" by this definition it would be a macro lens. Laughing

No, but I will let you explain that one yourself because I can't be arsed, frankly.


Hi Chris

Ouch!

My intention was certainly not for jerking you around or wasting your time. So I am sorry if it came across that way. I only meant to highlight the confusion and generate discussion.

Regards

Fergus..

Last edited by fergus on Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2