A New 55

R

Retro

Senior Member
I just bought a new used 55/3.5 today, but I just looked it up on eBay, and I think it's an AI conversion. The retailer mentioned a 2.8 that came out later, but he said he still considered this one to be the best. He has one just like it that he said was not in as good a shape as this one. I found an identical lens on eBay with solid 'rabbit ears.'

I paid $125 for it at a used camera store in Windsor.

He told me this lens was not a conversion, but with the 50mm he said the way to tell is if the f/16 is orange on both rings. If they are blue, it is AI, not AI-S. On my lens the 32 is blue and the smaller 32 is white.

Every time I look at lenses on the internet I try to remember everything he told me about these AI-S lenses, and the differences with previous versions (like the 'rabbit ears' with holes or no holes, a crenelated focus ring, etc.), but I'm still trying to get a handle on it.

Anyway, this expands my abilities, as now I can do some macro. I'm heading out to my wife's garden right now to see if I can finish this roll with some interesting shots. This lens seems mint to me. I haven't had any shots with this FE2 yet that would have been appropriate to post in this forum. I'll try to change that with this roll.

And the store owner tried to explain to me why Nikon thinks macro is micro. I'm still scratching my head. I'm no pro, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're 8 inches from your subject, you're shooting macro. Sounds like semantics.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Now, why didn't you just get the 1.2?? For ~175 more its abso-freaking-lutely worth every penny unlike the 3.5.
 
R

Retro

Senior Member
SkvLTD said:
Now, why didn't you just get the 1.2?? For ~175 more its abso-freaking-lutely worth every penny unlike the 3.5.
Click to expand...
Because it's $175 more. But I'll remember that. To spend that much, I would have waited a few months. I was itching for a new lens now.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Retro said:
And the store owner tried to explain to me why Nikon thinks macro is micro. I'm still scratching my head. I'm no pro, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're 8 inches from your subject, you're shooting macro. Sounds like semantics.
Click to expand...

Last I read was that Nikon calls them micro because they were originally used to make microform. The label stuck.

Here's a link. Your guess is as good as mine about how valid the info is but it makes sense.

Ultra Micro Nikkor Grand History

The appearance of the Micro Nikkor 5cm F3.5 was in October, 1956.

It was designed for 35mm micro film system. This lens's designer was Mr. Zenji Wakimoto. He was called the expert of a lens design.
Although 1950s was the time which was using the microfilm camera imported from the United States, it had a serious problem for resolution to read the Japanese characters.
As we know, Japanese "Kanji" characters are more complicated than alphabet.
It is easily understandable the Japanese lens needs more resolution than alphabet lens.

But, what is micro film system?

Micro film system was used to save the documents. Before the personal computer was come out, printing processing was analog method.
When the company saved the document, it was bulky if it was still paper.
Therefore, all documents were taken a picture and saved in the small photograph.
Of course, to save into the micro film, each company orders that to professional people.
And that size was not only one size also there were many formats such as postcard size, small window opened, and so on.
For all problems, the Nippon Kogaku made the lenses which ware called Micro Nikkor 5cm F3.5 to demand the high resolution to produces the microfilm photography in Japan.

Although other camera company named MACRO for macro lenses, this is the reason only Nikon named macro lens "MICRO".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
R

Retro

Senior Member
I just read this page about my 'new' lens. I found it very helpful for understanding the value of this lens.

Nikon 55mm f/3.5 Review

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.
 
N

nzswift

Senior Member
One thing to be aware of if your in the market for a 55mm/2.8 AIS is that they often suffer from sticky aperture blades.
 
R

Retro

Senior Member
SkvLTD said:
But please, link/quote MIR or Thom Hogan or someone actually credible.
Click to expand...

This forum should have a page with a list of such sources, so newbies know where to go to learn. It's always a given, on any forum, that newbies are expected to do their own research when they have questions, and not be lazy by asking other members about every question they have.

That's why I read Rockwell's page; to learn about equipment, and what's good and what's not, and why. Your comment is the first indication I've seen that he's not credible. It's news to me. I'll look up the other two you referenced.

I just watched a video by The Angry Photographer (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVcxJ9k14bi__-uA1cGkEcA). What he says about lenses sounds pretty credible to me (I don't care much for his style). I like my 50mm, but now he's changed my mind about the 1.8. I tend to think in terms of the good being garbage in the good-better-best spectrum, so I bought the 1.4 (the 1.2 being $400 or more), but sometimes the good really is good. I also watched his video about speedlights.

I know that Nikkor has cheapo lenses, and I'm intending not to ever buy them. I had not done any research at all on 55mm lenses before buying the one I have now, but I had read about several other lenses. I just didn't happen to encounter one of them in the store.

I feel like I've been in prison for 28 years. I just got out and I have to learn all over again. I had a lot of fun with the Olympus for many years, and took a lot of great pictures. I've always enjoyed the technicalities of real photography, but looking up at the expertise from the bottom is pretty daunting.

I don't think I'll be content in this craft until I have a 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, an F90, F4, and a few speedlights. And no cheapo lenses.

It's going to take a while.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Retro said:
It looks like neither MIR nor Thom Hogan have reviewed the 55mm AI-S lenses.
Click to expand...

There are tons of other sites though. Rock basically says the SAME thing about EVERY/other lens. 18-55 kit is good/plenty for most people according to him.....
https://photographylife.com/lenses/nikon-micro-nikkor-auto-55mm-f3-5
through the Nikon F-Mount - Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 review and recommendations for accessories

Honestly only bad glass Nikon made were, arguably, the E-series plasticy consumer lenses, but given their prices the IQ was actually solid. That said, older non-major-major brand glass was only real bad glass, still with enough gems in the midst.

50/2 is the roach of Nikon glass today, but its absolutely fine across the board. I'd really worry more about the body than the glass.

And lastly, where are YOU looking that 50/1.2s are $300+?
 
R

Retro

Senior Member
SkvLTD said:
And lastly, where are YOU looking that 50/1.2s are $300+?
Click to expand...

I've only looked on eBay for lenses, unfortunately. It's too easy, and other sites are more obscure, or have smaller selection.

50-1.2 lenses1.jpg50-1.2 lenses2.jpg

Concerning the lower prices, I get skeptical. Saving $50 isn't worth it for a lens that is not in the best condition.

I understand Thom's point about not babying your equipment, but when I go to buy used stuff I appreciate a seller that didn't take his advice.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Retro said:
Concerning the lower prices, I get skeptical. Saving $50 isn't worth it for a lens that is not in the best condition.

I understand Thom's point about not babying your equipment, but when I go to buy used stuff I appreciate a seller that didn't take his advice.
Click to expand...

Mine was 260 shipped, MINT, etc. You just have to use your eyes to decipher that description and condition pictures.
 
Top