Ah yes! I corrected the wee small fence located at Daytona to one of 6 feet/ 1.828 meters. Thanks for pointing out my mis-typed remark. Thank you for the likes too!
I of course took pictures of my Corvettes and here they are. The "3" & "4" cars finished 3rd and 4th behind the two Fords. Oddly, the Fords qualified as production cars with only 400 produced where the Vette's are produced widely and sold to the masses.. Rules
Go for the 3.5. The 2.8 version can be prone to getting oil on the blades.
bobbelbob wrote:
Hi everyone. Im into buying a lens for macro and the 55/3.5 seems to be very sharp and also not so expensive. So, which one of the 55/3.5's should I go for? As far as I understand there is an older P version then the coated P.C and also the later ai-version. I've also seen that there's a k-version out there..
Also, would it be worth going for the 55/2.8 ais version even though it's a bit more expensive? Should add that I'm probably gonna use it not only for macro but for some landscape too.
Ken Hill wrote:
Ah yes! I corrected the wee small fence located at Daytona to one of 6 feet/ 1.828 meters. Thanks for pointing out my mis-typed remark. Thank you for the likes too!
I of course took pictures of my Corvettes and here they are. The "3" & "4" cars finished 3rd and 4th behind the two Fords. Oddly, the Fords qualified as production cars with only 400 produced where the Vette's are produced widely and sold to the masses.. Rules
NightOwl Cat wrote:
Go for the 3.5. The 2.8 version can be prone to getting oil on the blades.
Okej. Now that you mention it, I think I read that on Björn Rörsletts page as well. That is one argument not choosing the 55/2.8, anonther argument for me would be that it is a bit more expensive than the 3.5.
Sorry Steve, the 55/2.8 is now out of the picture.
So, Laura, which version you got? The P, PC or the Ai?
NightOwl Cat wrote:
So let's see shots of the winning FORD cars
Laura,
Sorry no Fords. Maybe if I had a Fuji I might have gone off the deep end. But since you brought it up t I didn't see any FUJI's used by IMSA. I did see a Sony and a lot of D500's with long lenses. I'm guessing the frame rate as well as a usable viewfinder.
The Corvette's were also forced into reducing the horsepower of their engines to compete with the Ford's. Truth be told a consumer can buy a faster car from a dealer than what is allowed for the GTLM series. But next year the Vette's will change.
As far as manual focus goes ... not to bad with focusing a zone on the track and shooting multiple images. The panning shot of the "3" car posted captures it at probably 180mph on the banked oval. All in all pretty happy and happier I wasn't lugging around the big 300 2.8 like I did at Sebring.
Maybe Peter who does more of this than me can weigh in.
As Steve warned here is one more point for your consideration! :-)
Below is a link which also explains about the early compensating models which many are not aware of if they have not thoroughly researched the lens history:
I have the non-compensating rubber focus Ai lens, serial #605922 which is a spectacular lens! I also have the 55mm f/2.8 which is an equally stunning performer. A thorough research of this lens points out the problem with lubricant on the aperture blades was due to the type of lubricant Nikon first used in the lens production. It was changed and later models (from what I have read and experienced) don'tt have this problems although the original problem has been tied to any of these lenses. A pity as they are wonderful as long as you are careful in your selection......
Reagan wrote:
Sunny and 78 today
The Fuji Gods have watched over my wife and I this winter no one has gotten sick
I expect the Virginia Blabbermouth to show up soon
He hasn't been around much either
Reagan
Still hurting over stealing the 100,000th post
And who might you have stolen that post from? You earned your place on this thread a long time ago Reagan. It was fine with me that you made the 100,000th post... better you than some stranger who mistakenly opened this thread looking for wildlife photos. Forgive yourself my friend and enjoy whatever camera system suits your taste.
I've had an exchange of emails with Chin and we'll likely have a couple of days together in early March after his time in Las Vegas. It seems flying through San Francisco from Singapore is a shorter flight that flying through Los Angeles. Fortunately, he has some free time after his conference before he return flight from San Francisco, so we'll have a chance to play a bit. There WILL be photos.
Reagan wrote:
I still have a D800E and 2 MF lens and 2 AF Nikon lens
R
There is still hope for you my friend...
Chin has offered to let me shoot with his Fuji so I'll find out what all you guys are talking about. I expect I'll like the form but I so enjoy the Df it is difficult to imagine I'd give up FX for a DX camera. A full frame Sony might tempt me but I'm not shooting enough to be hungry for a new camera. If that changes, I'll certainly mention the subject on the thread.
Bay area weather for today... in the high seventies and low eighties... just like Florida it seems...
As Steve warned here is one more point for your consideration! :-)
Below is a link which also explains about the early compensating models which many are not aware of if they have not thoroughly researched the lens history:
I have the non-compensating rubber focus Ai lens, serial #605922 which is a spectacular lens! I also have the 55mm f/2.8 which is an equally stunning performer. A thorough research of this lens points out the problem with lubricant on the aperture blades was due to the type of lubricant Nikon first used in the lens production. It was changed and later models (from what I have read and experienced) don'tt have this problems although the original problem has been tied to any of these lenses. A pity as they are wonderful as long as you are careful in your selection......
I had no idea there was anything such as a compensating aperture. Perhaps the 2.8 ais version could be something to consider (checked on ebay and the 2.8´s ais made after -06 is very expensive, compared to the 3.5 ai-version). One can always wonder when they changed the lubricant.
But it´s more fun to have an older model Looking on the photosynthesis page all the lenses made between 1969-1979 should be fine, at least regarding the compensating thingy with the 3.5-versions. And in my case I need the pre-ai to be converted. I´m gonna keep all of this in mind before buying.
I had no idea there was anything such as a compensating aperture. Perhaps the 2.8 ais version could be something to consider. But then one has to find one of the newer models. But it´s more fun to have an older model Looking on the photosynthesis page all the lenses made between 1969-1979 should be fine, at least regarding the compensating thingy with the 3.5-versions. And in my case I need the pre-ai to be converted. I´m gonna keep all of this in mind before buying.
//Kristian
I have a mint Nippon Kogaku Micro-Nikkor Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm (from 1963 according to Roland Vinke's website).
It's a Silver Nose, pretty rare.
Drop me an email if you're interested.
I had no idea there was anything such as a compensating aperture. Perhaps the 2.8 ais version could be something to consider (checked on ebay and the 2.8´s ais made after -06 is very expensive, compared to the 3.5 ai-version). One can always wonder when they changed the lubricant.
But it´s more fun to have an older model Looking on the photosynthesis page all the lenses made between 1969-1979 should be fine, at least regarding the compensating thingy with the 3.5-versions. And in my case I need the pre-ai to be converted. I´m gonna keep all of this in mind before buying.
I always found compensating language confusing. What I wanted to know for my personal shooting, is whether the lens must be used exclusively for close work or can function well with longer shots. I know Bjorn Rorslett talks about such matters in his reviews, so you should be able to narrow your choice to what really works for you. Though I have the 55 f/2.8 AI-s I've been tempted by the earlier f/3.5 as an addition to my kit of pre-AI lenses. You're right, Kristian, they are a bargain. Of course, since you need a converted lens your options will be a bit more limited. Good luck sorting it all out.
I used 55mm 2.8 Micro Nikkors belonging to my employers for about 25 years, and when I wanted my own I bought a 3.5 (AiS) as I never used them at less than f/8, and it was cheaper. Mainly used for flat copy but now scanners do that and I continue to use the 3.5 in retirement for 'still life' three dimensional stuff in close up. I have never seen any differnce between the two for this work.
I have always understood that the 2.8 is better for infinity stuff. I've never used either for anything other than close work. Very nice lenses.
On the 55mm 2.8/3.5 debate.
Well, I bought my f/2.8 before learning about the potential for oil on the blades.
Mine is absolutely fine but after reading about the known issue I close down the aperture when storing it and never leave it lying on its side for prolonged periods. I have nothing bad to say about my 2.8.
CGrindahl wrote:
I always found compensating language confusing. What I wanted to know for my personal shooting, is whether the lens must be used exclusively for close work or can function well with longer shots. I know Bjorn Rorslett talks about such matters in his reviews, so you should be able to narrow your choice to what really works for you. Though I have the 55 f/2.8 AI-s I've been tempted by the earlier f/3.5 as an addition to my kit of pre-AI lenses. You're right, Kristian, they are a bargain. Of course, since you need a converted lens your options will be a bit more limited. Good luck sorting it all out.
The Aperture Compensating feature opens the F/stop when you are focusing closer and is only a useful feature if you are using a camera that does not use behind the lens metering, unlike today's digital cameras. It is functionally obsolete.
The other type of compensating that may be causing confusion is Close Focus Compensating where a group of lens elements is moved to improve performance at close distance. This is desirable with yesterday's and today's cameras.
