Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell    Search Used end    Archive 2008 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF

Kid_Film Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #1 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF I would like to get one of the older micro 55mm but i'm not quite sure the differences between the two. I've heard the 3.5 is better, why? Also as long as i get an AI version of the 3.5 it will work on nikon's DSLR's right? -Curtis Nov 23, 2008 at 12:36 AM

gugs Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #2 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF I like the 3.5 but it only works (= with proper metering) on the Dx00 and pro-bodies, D200, D300, D700, D2x, D2h, D3 etc... If you accept to meter by trial and error looking at the histogram, you might give it a try on other bodies like the D70 Guy Nov 23, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Kid_Film Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #3 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF Thanks. I don't care if it meters or anything like, i just want to make sure it will mount to the D70 and take pictures. Why do you like the 3.5 over the 2.8? The only negative i've heard about the 2.8 is oil on the aperture blades. Nov 23, 2008 at 01:16 AM

EB-1 Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #4 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF I preferred the f/2.8. Back in 1982 it was nice upgrade over the f/3.5. EBH Nov 23, 2008 at 01:22 AM

mawz Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #5 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF The f2.8 is known to be susceptible to getting oil on the aperture blades in the AI/AI-S version (not the AF version). The f3.5 is also known to be a better general-use lens (Sharper at infinity while also sharp at macro distances). Both are extremely good all round. Nov 23, 2008 at 02:53 AM

kjcramer Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #6 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF I only have experience with the 2.8 but I can tell you it's fantastic. I was looking for a 3.5 as well but found a 2.8 for $125 on the board. It's crazy-sharp on a D700 and probably a better focal length on a crop body. Nov 23, 2008 at 03:50 AM

90 5.0 Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #7 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF I know this isn't what you are asking but why do you want the older 55 micro lens? Is it because of cost or do you just want a "nostalgic lens" If you are wanting an inexpensive macro option in the 50mm range might I suggest buying a 50 1.8 af-d and a Kenko extension tube? You will get to retain metering and auto focus. I would also buy a reverse adapter that lets you reverse the lens to the body you woun't get metering but the macro magnification like this is awesome, the nikon one is 45.00 iirc but you can get them for 17.00-20.00 from different stepping ring manufactuers and also a double male adapter that will let you reverse the 50 onto another lens those are about 10.00. I use a 135 prime with a 50 or a 28 on it like this for macro as well. I think if you went this route you would have a more usable macro set up that is more flexible and gives you a fast normal prime at the same time. Just something to think about. Nov 23, 2008 at 05:33 AM

mawz Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #8 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF 90 5.0 wrote: I know this isn't what you are asking but why do you want the older 55 micro lens? Is it because of cost or do you just want a "nostalgic lens" If you are wanting an inexpensive macro option in the 50mm range might I suggest buying a 50 1.8 af-d and a Kenko extension tube? You will get to retain metering and auto focus. I would also buy a reverse adapter that lets you reverse the lens to the body you woun't get metering but the macro magnification like this is awesome, the nikon one is 45.00 iirc but you can get them for 17.00-20.00 from different stepping ring manufactuers and also a double male adapter that will let you reverse the 50 onto another lens those are about 10.00. I use a 135 prime with a 50 or a 28 on it like this for macro as well. I think if you went this route you would have a more usable macro set up that is more flexible and gives you a fast normal prime at the same time. Just something to think about. A 55/3.5 can be had for $50 or less, less than half the cost of the 50/1.8 alone. And it's a LOT sharper than the 50/1.8 at macro distances and beats the 50/1.8 at normal distances as well. Nov 23, 2008 at 02:58 PM

Kid_Film Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #9 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF I currently have the 50mm 1.8D and i was wanting to get a 55mm for micro work basically. If extension tubes would work then i guess that would be fine, but what ratio can i get with tubes(1:2)? Also i want SHARP images. I've made the decision to only by SHARP lenses from now on. After work with lots of top quality optics i can't stand soft lenses. Could any link to some tubes on B&H so i know what to look for? -Curtis Nov 23, 2008 at 05:56 PM

Avi B Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On p.1 #10 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF Yeah, that old AIS glass is good. here are a couple shots with 55 f/2.8 on a D2H using the macro lighting kit (taken at Henry's photoshow) exif left intact: Nov 23, 2008 at 07:32 PM

gugs Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #11 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF Kid_Film wrote: I currently have the 50mm 1.8D and i was wanting to get a 55mm for micro work basically. If extension tubes would work then i guess that would be fine, but what ratio can i get with tubes(1:2)? Also i want SHARP images. I've made the decision to only by SHARP lenses from now on. After work with lots of top quality optics i can't stand soft lenses. Could any link to some tubes on B&H so i know what to look for? -Curtis to me the 55mm is a better choice, because you can focus on the lens, and the lens is distortionless . Using extension tubes will give you a greater magnification factor (with a 50mm) but the focus distance will be more or less fixed (you have to focus by moving the camera). If you want to go that way, the Kenko kit is what you are looking for. I put some info on my website, if you are interested: http://users.skynet.be/van.hooveld/tips/macro.htm Guy Nov 23, 2008 at 07:39 PM

Kid_Film Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #12 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF Thanks guys. So gugs do have any sample photos with the tubes and a 50mm? I was looking around and say the kenko kit (around $160) are those the correct ones? -Curtis Nov 23, 2008 at 09:34 PM

gugs Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #13 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF here is a simple example with the 3 tubes and the 50mm 1.8 Guy Nov 23, 2008 at 09:41 PM

gugs Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #14 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF and another one to give you an idea of the magnification Guy Nov 23, 2008 at 09:43 PM

Kid_Film Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #15 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF oh wow, that's pretty big. That looks about what i want to do. So where those with all three tubes stacked? Nov 23, 2008 at 09:48 PM

gugs Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #16 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF both pics are with the three tubes stacked.... and again don't forget that with the tubes you lose quite some flexibility. The length of the tubes and the focal length of your lens (here the 50mm) determine the magnification. If you want to change it, you have to determine which tube combination will give you the appropriate length and mount the corresponding set on your body... BTW, You could use the tubes on the 18-70 to get back some flexibility... but IQ will be better with the 50 1.8 Guy Nov 23, 2008 at 09:55 PM

stompyq Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #17 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF 90 5.0 wrote: I know this isn't what you are asking but why do you want the older 55 micro lens? Is it because of cost or do you just want a "nostalgic lens" If you are wanting an inexpensive macro option in the 50mm range might I suggest buying a 50 1.8 af-d and a Kenko extension tube? You will get to retain metering and auto focus. I would also buy a reverse adapter that lets you reverse the lens to the body you woun't get metering but the macro magnification like this is awesome, the nikon one is 45.00 iirc but you can get them for 17.00-20.00 from different stepping ring manufactuers and also a double male adapter that will let you reverse the 50 onto another lens those are about 10.00. I use a 135 prime with a 50 or a 28 on it like this for macro as well. I think if you went this route you would have a more usable macro set up that is more flexible and gives you a fast normal prime at the same time. Just something to think about. You obviously haven't tried the 55mm f/3.5. Really, it beats the 50mm f/1.8+ tubes by a very long way. No contest. Add to that the 55mm can be had for under $50 (mine was $17 shipped off ebay). Really don't think for that much money just get it and don't look back Nov 23, 2008 at 10:20 PM

mawz Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #18 · Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 MF And don't forget, the 55 works just fine with tubes. Nov 24, 2008 at 12:41 AM

	end FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost your password?