James Markus wrote:
Today a bunch of tomatoes were ripe for picking - so that became the test object on my comparison of the 55mm micros. The setup is about 18 inches above the bowl of fruit at f5.6 using a remote trigger. I also used the D800 viewfinder green dot for focus confirmation as the live view on the D800 isn't as real time as on my 5DSR. This first shot is straight out of camera with no adjustments using the 55mm f2.8 ais micro, and showing what the focus point selection. http://www.photomatter.com/2021/55mmf2.8ais-micro_DSC6933-soc.jpg
Note: the file names contain an error. The f3.5 is an AI not an AIS. This new lens bugs me. The finish is better than the f3.5. It has a much smoother helical movement, and a more solid feel - plus it just looks better. But, the f3.5 is the better performer. I have a few lenses in this category. Beautiful paper weights I will never use. Looks like at some point I will need to get rid of these lenses....Show more →
I have always found the 55/3.5 to be better in the macro department. The 2.8 is better as a walk around standard lens outside of macro work.
James Markus wrote:
Note: the file names contain an error. The f3.5 is an AI not an AIS. This new lens bugs me. The finish is better than the f3.5. It has a much smoother helical movement, and a more solid feel - plus it just looks better. But, the f3.5 is the better performer. I have a few lenses in this category. Beautiful paper weights I will never use. Looks like at some point I will need to get rid of these lenses.
Thank you for the previous explanation, James. My experience with lens tests is limited to AF fine-tuning of AF lenses. At f/5.6 the AIS lens is soundly beaten. My version isn't as good as the Dx micro 40mm or the G 60mm but it is compact and its manual focus action walks all over theirs. I find a lot of parallels in photography as in audio equipment. Perfection is rated very highly and people go to great lengths finding it. I can't argue with the results. Knowing what I know now based on your tests, given a choice between the two I may reach for the f/3.5 lens but if the movement is noticeably worse than the AIS' that would complicate the choice for me because at these image sizes, especially the tomatoe pictures, I can't tell the difference. I'll go for the one that's nicer to use. On the other hand in audio, I'm always reaching for the one where I press the button on the remote and the music starts playing.
Jay-- love the rock reflection image with the lighthouse in the background.
Late to commenting on it, but agree with others, Jose, on the insanity of getting those sharp bird images with the 500 reflex!! Those things are so preposterously hard to focus. Outstanding work.
Rafael, beautiful capture of the man at the pier playing guitar. Enchanting light. Top notch.
Colin, whew, those BnW Eden Project images! You nailed space feel with the conversion. Reminds me of a less elegant attempt I made with the little Sony RX-1 here at the Queens NYC old Worlds Fair grounds 'unisphere.'
Interesting thread about f/3.5 vs. f/2.8 Micro...glad I have the f/3.5, I suppose
I just want to state that my comparison is only for the two copies of 55mm micro lenses I have, and I don't think it speaks to the model differences. There is variably in lenses within the same model, and that kind of is what put me on this test. People here like Scott get amazingly sharp images using the f3.5 as a normal lens. My copy can not produce a sharp non macro image. I have the 50mm f1.2, and the afd 1.4 which are sharp - so I don't need another sharp normal lens. But my f3.5 is not the same as Scott's. However, it is great at macro which is what it was intended to be used.
James Markus wrote:
I just want to state that my comparison is only for the two copies of 55mm micro lenses I have, and I don't think it speaks to the model differences. There is variably in lenses within the same model, and that kind of is what put me on this test. People here like Scott get amazingly sharp images using the f3.5 as a normal lens. My copy can not produce a sharp non macro image. I have the 50mm f1.2, and the afd 1.4 which are sharp - so I don't need another sharp normal lens. But my f3.5 is not the same as Scott's. However, it is great at macro which is what it was intended to be used....Show more →
Bjørn Rørslett has a nice summary of these micros that, as usual, agrees with my impressions of older lenses here:
From top to bottom and left to right:
Nikkor 600mm f/5.6N ai-s EDIF; Nikkor 24mm f/2.8F ai'd; Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5F ai'd; in camera Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4 F ai'd; Nikkor 85mm f/1.8K ai'd; Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 ai-s.
From top to bottom and left to right:
Nikkor 600mm f/5.6N ai-s EDIF; Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 ai-s; Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5F ai'd; in camera Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4 F ai'd; Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8F ai'd; Nikkor-QC 135mm f/3.5F ai'd.
Both shots with D850 + PC Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D, ISO 6400, f4.2 at 1/400s.
No flash, just ISO 6400 and B&W version to add the proper "mood/atmosphere".
Just listed a pristine copy of the first Nikon 50mm f1.8 Ais lens originally intended for the Japanese market only.
From "Evaluations By Bjørn Rørslett":
"The earliest AIS version of the 50/1.8 delivers a truly stellar performance on the D2X. The field is admirably flat, too. There is nothing more to be said here. As perfect a lens as anyone could imagine. What a shining little star this lens proved itself to be."
Jay. That is a reminder of the past impressions of Bjørn Rørslett that I haven't seen in quite awhile (15 years?). He seemed to stop reviews at the D1X - D2X Nikon Camera era - both crop frame sensors & the D3 FX sensor. His opinions seem to be accurate in most cases, but I have found variability within some Nikon lens.
Two of the most extreme were the 12-24mm f4 DX which took three tries to get a good copy. The Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR is the worst lens I ever encountered, and I gave up looking for a good example. In manual focus Nikkors almost every single one has been good. I thought there must be some reason Nikon kept tweaking the 28mm f2.8 ais. I bought successively newer, and better condition copies. And, the image quality improved each time until I thought I had reached a quality that I considered excellent. I once had a like new 24mm f2.0 ais that was simply gorgeous, but performed like crap wide open. What good is a fast lens that you can't use wide open? That lens taught me a lesson. If you won't use it get rid of it. I'm lucky as I made a bit of money reselling the 24mm, the 24-120, and other lenses.
From top to bottom and left to right:
Nikkor 600mm f/5.6N ai-s EDIF; Nikkor 24mm f/2.8F ai'd; Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5F ai'd; in camera Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4 F ai'd; Nikkor 85mm f/1.8K ai'd; Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 ai-s.
From top to bottom and left to right:
Nikkor 600mm f/5.6N ai-s EDIF; Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 ai-s; Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5F ai'd; in camera Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4 F ai'd; Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8F ai'd; Nikkor-QC 135mm f/3.5F ai'd.
Both shots with D850 + PC Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D, ISO 6400, f4.2 at 1/400s.
No flash, just ISO 6400 and B&W version to add the proper "mood/atmosphere"....Show more →
James Markus wrote:
Jay. That is a reminder of the past impressions of Bjørn Rørslett that I haven't seen in quite awhile (15 years?). He seemed to stop reviews at the D1X - D2X Nikon Camera era - both crop frame sensors & the D3 FX sensor. His opinions seem to be accurate in most cases, but I have found variability within some Nikon lens.
Two of the most extreme were the 12-24mm f4 DX which took three tries to get a good copy. The Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR is the worst lens I ever encountered, and I gave up looking for a good example. In manual focus Nikkors almost every single one has been good. I thought there must be some reason Nikon kept tweaking the 28mm f2.8 ais. I bought successively newer, and better condition copies. And, the image quality improved each time until I thought I had reached a quality that I considered excellent. I once had a like new 24mm f2.0 ais that was simply gorgeous, but performed like crap wide open. What good is a fast lens that you can't use wide open? That lens taught me a lesson. If you won't use it get rid of it. I'm lucky as I made a bit of money reselling the 24mm, the 24-120, and other lenses....Show more →
Jim,
Well I must be lucky because my 24-120 f/4 is pretty darn good.
Even after moving over to the Z system I am hanging onto the F-mount zoom because it works well in IR. It will be my walkabout lens when my D610 comes back from its IR conversion.
Admittedly not as good as my trio of goto MF primes in the 24-85mm focal length but the zoom at 120mm way outperforms my 105/2.5 and 135/2.8 primes. That holds true for my D7100 IR sensor and filter combo. Things might differ on FX. Time will tell.
Both with Nikon FA and 85 f2 AIS. Tri-X developed in HC-110, dilution E at 24C.
I was always curious about the 85 f2 AIS. Its not at the same level as the legendary 1.4, or the 1.8 which has been very popular here, but the small lens does pretty well and is a good lightweight walkaround with the Z6, or one of the smaller Nikon SLRs.
Colin,
That was my point which I guess I didn't state clearly. There is variability within the same model lens, and even in the bodies that the lenses mount on. I saw good reviews and examples online of the 24-120, but could not find one to perform that way on my D1X, D2X, or D300 - at that time.
Jim
DeltaSigma wrote:
Jim,
Well I must be lucky because my 24-120 f/4 is pretty darn good.
Even after moving over to the Z system I am hanging onto the F-mount zoom because it works well in IR. It will be my walkabout lens when my D610 comes back from its IR conversion.
Admittedly not as good as my trio of goto MF primes in the 24-85mm focal length but the zoom at 120mm way outperforms my 105/2.5 and 135/2.8 primes. That holds true for my D7100 IR sensor and filter combo. Things might differ on FX. Time will tell.
