Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Retro" data-source="post: 474304" data-attributes="member: 37517">I just read this page about my 'new' lens. I found it very helpful for understanding the value of this lens.<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55f35ai.htm" target="_blank">Nikon 55mm f/3.5 Review</a>I had read about other lenses previously, so I would have been more picky if I had encountered them instead of this one, but I had never read about the 55mm before seeing it in the store. If I had, I probably would have held out for the 2.8. I deliberately avoided the 50mm 1.8 because I knew the 1.4 was better. I also knew the 1.2 was even better, but they are at least $400 mint. My 50mm is mint, and I think I paid enough for it. I intended to follow that standard for every lens, but I slipped on this 55.According to Rockwell, I have an excellent lens, even though it's not the best. I've gone through a roll and a half since my OP here, and I can't wait to post the pics. One thing he said that I found strange:"The 55mm Micro works great in place of a faster normal lens. When I was younger and stupider I thought that it would not be very good when used at ordinary distances. Whoops, it's spectacular at all distances. Unless you need the extra stop or two offered by the other 50mm normal lenses, you can forget about needing a separate normal 50mm lens if you have this."Well, I still love my 50, but next year, after I've bought a few other (more important) lenses I'll consider the 55mm in 2.8.My top choices now are a 105mm and a 28mm, or a 35mm. And I won't slip again. I would really like an 85, but $700 is steep.</blockquote>

Verification