Micro Nikkor 55mm? Anybody?

I like mine. Check my blog for some samples. I haven't updated it in a while but there are plenty of shots with the Micro Nikkor 55. I have the 2.8 but there is also a 3.5.
Most of the macros are on pages 3-6 as that time of year I shot lots of flowers.

Micro Four Thirds User Forum - Lisa O's Photo Blog

 

I use it on the G1
It's the 2.8 version.
Very good lens, both for macro work and general photography
Here's a sample that may have been posted here before

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Owning the 55/2.8, the 105/2.8 and the 200/4 Micro Nikkors, the 55 is finally the one that gets least use, because you have to go quite close to the subject.

CU,
Rafael

 

It's a good lens, I don't use mine much (f/3.5 version) since I've settled on the 105mm focal length for most of my macro work with insects, but it would be a great lens for flowers and the like, I just like the ability to stay that bit further away from flighty insects that a 105mm ,macro lens gives me.

Barrie

 

I've had both the f/2.8 and f/3.5 versions of the Micro-Nikkor 55mm. After trying them out on my G1 I sold the f/2.8. The f/3.5 version is much sharper in close-ups but not excellent at longer range. It is optimal at f/5.6 and extremely sharp there. My f/2.8 was also less contrasty; in my film days I used it for landscapes because it was sharp all over the frame, but also then I preferred the 55/3.5 for close-ups.

So for close-ups get a Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5. For longer distances try to find a Nikkor AI 50/1.8, mine is excellent from f/2.8 onwards. My Micro-Nikkor 105/4 is excellent on the D300s, but not great on the G1. Don't know about all the other Micro-Nikkors.

 

another vote for the 55mm f3.5

 

I've never really done much macro photography, but I recently got a 55/3.5 for getting plant and insect photos. I also got the M2 extension tube, but it's not really not very useable without a tripod and a light source.

Here's my favorite from the 55 so far:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Witch hazel

 

This flickr set was shot using Micro-Nikkor 55mm F/3.5.
2010-08-07 UCB Botanical Garden - a set on Flickr

 

It is an extremely good lens
I have the 3.5 - I could post you an image of a flower or something, but the following is a jpeg taken as close as you can get with the lens, (without extension tubes), at f11 and ISO 1600,hand held at 1/500 sec

(a point to maybe think about is that it is a Nikkor SLR lens, designed for a full 35mm film, (let's say a FF sensor in digital terms), - on the Nikon DSLRs you can "tell the camera" what manual lens it is - I think that it is recommended that for the best results you tell your D300, (cropped sensor), that this lens is an 85mm - (maybe 55mm x 1.5, (1.6)- but it's only a guess on my part!) - anyway, - maybe this allows the cameras smart software to make some adjustments - with M43 cams there is no such information passed to the camera)
I do not think, however that this really matters, with M43 stuff as the M43 sensor, (even smaller than the sensor on the D300) only uses part of the lens and all the results that I have seen - good and bad images - have been good - if you see what I mean - IMHO, it is certainly worth spending up to £100 to get a good (condition) copy

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

I have the P.C. version of the 55mm 3.5 and it has proven to be great thus far. From what I've read, I think it is the first multi-coated version of the lens. I paid about $25 from KEH for it, since it has a gouged up (but usable) filter ring.

 

The 55mm F3.5 Micro-Nikkor is optimized for 1:10 reproduction, the 55/2.8 has a floating element for use at all ranges. I have both lenses, and the 60/2.8 AF-Micro-Nikkor. All are first-rate.

55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor on the DCS200ir.





No need to refocus for IR, that is how good the color correction is.

 

Hi,
Proud new owner of a G1, and a handful of legacy lenses. One of my first choices was the 55/3.5 macro nikkor. This is my first post and image upload...
Eric

 

These images were sized to 900x600 in PS as jpegs (same pixel size as the B&W flower images post above mine) yet my images came out much smaller when posted...where did i go off the beam???
Thanks,
Eric

 

You're fine--just click on a thumbnail and you'll see the full version.

 

Lisa, I love your photos. Always enjoy revisiting your site and viewing some of those beautiful flower shots again! wonderful work