Mathias Martinsson wrote:
>I have just been offered an old Mikro-Nikkor 55/3.5, at what seems like a
>fair prize - for Sweden, that is! It looked just fine, but there is one
>thing that did not make sense: it was an old chromium-barrel lense, with
>an metal (non-rubber) focusing-ring, but it had an reproduction-ratio of
>1:1 engraved on the barrel. From what I've heard, only the most recent
>Mikro-Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS and the AF Mikro-Nikkor 60/2.8 goes as high as
>1:1. All the data I've gathered points out that all old Mikro-Nikkor
>55/3.5 only goes to 1:2 without an extension-ring. This one must have been
>really old, due to the lack of a rubber-focusing ring, but not so old that
>it's an pre-AI: it had the famous litte notch on the aperture-ring, and it
>seemed not to have been AI'd afterwards, as it showed no scratched paint,
>and no mechanical abuse on the aperture-ring whatsoever. And it was not so
>old that the metal-focusing ring had valleys like the pre-AI and
>aperture-preset models, but rather a smooth metal!
>!
>-ring with trapetziod dimples all over.
>
>Anyone knows something about this lense? How does it compare to the
>legendary M-N 55/3.5 1:2-lense? Or does the engraving perhaps somehow
>presume that you have an PK-?? extension-ring mounted? The, as always
>nice, clerk at the store was explicit about the lens' ability to go down
>to 1:1 without an extra extension-ring.
This lens sounds as if it might have been worked on a couple of times; it
definitely did not start out as an AI lens.
The earliest 55/3.5 Micro did not have an automatic diaphragm, had a chrome
barrel both behind and infront of the focussing ring, had reproduction
ratios from 1:10 to 1:2 marked on the (black, metal, scalloped) focussing
ring, and had reproduction ratios up to 1:1 marked on the chrome barrel
between the focussing ring and the aperture ring. This lens, I believe,
came out in the early to mid 60's. This lens did go to 1:1 on its own (but
had no auto diaphragm).
The next version is the one to beware of. It looked similar, but only went
to 1:2, and needed an extension tube to get to 1:1. It had and auto
diaphragm, _BUT_ it had an auto-compensating diaphragm. That meant that as
you focussed closer, and had the diaphragm set at leas to 5.6, the
diaphragm opened up further to compensate for the effective f-stop change.
This was advantageous if you used a separate light meter. It's a real pain
if you have through the lens metering, so very few lenses ever had this.
Stay away from this one, other than collecting.
The next version had a regular auto diaphragm, a chrome barrel between the
focussing ring and the aperture ring, a black focussing ring with very hard
rubber trapezoidal dimples for grip, a black front barrel ahead of the
focussing ring, went to 1:2 by itself and is quite useable.
The earliest Micro Nikkors were very good at close-up photography, but not
quite so good at infinity. The last of the three mentioned above was better
at infinity.
The reason that the first one went to 1:1 and the next models for over 15
years only went to 1:2 is that the first one did not have to have an auto
diaphragm linkage, which Nikon felt was not going to be reliable enough if
extendable to 1:1.
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
