Micro Nikkor + Adaptor = more or less the same resolution as a kit lens..?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Dave in Wales, Jan 9, 2014.

  1. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    Opinions please.

    I'm considering using my 12-40 with Kenko Extension tubes and have ordered a couple to try out.

    But for a little more money I could get a 55mm Micro Nikkor and adaptor.

    I was trawling for the best adaptor and came across this...........

    In very early tests with old 4/3 lenses I did find that the very best Nikon lenses (like 55/2.8 macro) were more or less the same resolution as a kit lens with both at best aperture, I kind of lost interest in the Nikons after that as the hassle wasn't worth it to get the same performance as the kits.

    On here.......http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50779327

    As there is no extra glass added in either solution I would have thought that the IQ was equal to the IQ of the master lens.

    Perhaps focusing is put off in some way or maybe lens misalignment comes into it, I have heard of some adaptors not focusing at infinity..?

    Legacy lens addicts educate me...please.
     
  2. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    Go for the older lens. At least with that you can take a photo of something far away without having to pull the lens off and removing the tubes and risk dropping something. I got me a 55/3.5 macro which is a good walkaround lens as well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=58427

    Tubes are not an option with the 12-40

    Just treated my self to a 55mm AIS plus PK13 ring..........http://coinimaging.com/nikon_55microais.html
     
  4. mnhoj

    mnhoj There and back again

    Dec 3, 2011
    Los Angeles
    John M
    That freedom is worth the price alone.
     
  5. mnhoj

    mnhoj There and back again

    Dec 3, 2011
    Los Angeles
    John M
  6. Rudy

    Rudy Mu-43 Veteran

    449
    Jan 24, 2013
    Oakland, CA
    I think the reason why the legacy macro is a bit disappointing is that you end up using only the center of the image.
    The Nikkor had to draw an image circle for a 35mm frame, but you are looking at only 1/4 the area with a M4/3 sensor.
    Native Macro lenses have the advantage of needing to be corrected only for the smaller sensor size.
    They also have the advantage of 30 extra years of lens design, computer optimization and manufacturing improvements (aspherics and specialty glass).
    If you are really into macro, you should probably stick with the Olympus 60.
    Rudy
     
  7. Screamin Scott

    Screamin Scott Mu-43 Regular

    39
    Jan 13, 2014
    Atlanta Ga. Metro
    Much of what you said about 30 years of improvements holds true. However, most of those "improvements" have been small & not easily discernible unless pixel peeping or making large prints. Remeber too that computer aided designs were around from the late 70's onward & the laws of optics haven't changed, thus except for LD,SD, or aspherical elements, there have't been any great advances. Lens coatings can be another help, but with the improvements in post processing software, many of the defects of the older technology can be overcome. Thus to dismiss, offhand,older technology is doing a disservive to people....After all, not everyone can afford the "latest & greatest"
     
  8. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    408
    Jul 15, 2012
    Norway
    Patrick Kristiansen
    You have to get quite hot glass to outperform the 55f3,5 micro-nikkor. I have it and like it. Sold the newer and much more expensive 60f2,8 as I did not like that. Good 90's are better, but larger, and costlier. Any of them better than kit's imo.
     
  9. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Just about all of the major brands made good legacy 50-55mm f3.5 macro lenses, all of which are great starter macros nowadays on Micro 4/3 cameras with their 2X crop factors. In addition to the 55mm Micro Nikkor, I have also used and owned an Olympus 50mm f3.5 Macro OM Zuiko, a Minolta 50mm f3.5 MD MD Rokkor, and a 50mm f3.5 Canon FD lens. All of them are excellent, and should be available for well under $100 used on ebay or elsewhere, although I find the Canon FD to M4/3 adapters more tricky to use than other mounts.
     
  10. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Keep in mind that your 16MP m4/3 camera has the same pixel density as a 62MP full-frame sensor. And the 55/3.5 was designed for films which had resolving power of at most 12MP or so. That's a big difference in resolution.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    408
    Jul 15, 2012
    Norway
    Patrick Kristiansen
    That is true enough, but I find quite a few "made for film" lenses plenty sharp. And the lens in question here sure is. May not generate moire on an em1, but still sharp.
     
  12. biomed

    biomed Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 22, 2013
    Seattle area
    Mike
    I too was looking for a macro lens. After looking at the offerings from Panasonic and Olympus, I decided on getting an adapter and use my Nikkor 55/2.8 Micro. Very sharp on U4/3 camera especially when stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. Manual focus on my GX7 is a breeze with focus peaking. I also have the older 55/3.5 version. The AIS version has an edge in performance. It was an inexpensive route to u4/3 macro photography for me.
     
  13. datagov

    datagov Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2012
    New York
    I shoot a lot of macro and started with an E-M5 and a Pentax-M 100mm F4. It is a sharp lens with good bokeh. But soon thereafter I scored a Tokina at-x 90mm f2.5 for about $20 on ebay and that lens is wonderful. But its also heavy and I don't take it with me when I travel. Instead, I bring a Raynox DCR-150 and use it with the Olympus 45 for autofocus macro, and sometimes also with a Canon FDn 100mm f2. With the Raynox, I get a lot of flexibility. I had a Sigma 30mm f2.8 and sadly sold it. I have to say that it is the perfect focal length to use with the Raynox. The autofocus is fast, IQ is great, and working distance is nice. Worth looking into if you want to shoot macro and want some flexibility.