Opinion sought: Micro-Nikkor 55macro F/2.8

Please opine on this lens. A friend has spotted one for sale.

Justin K.: BTW there is also a 105 f/2.8 Micro (!!) available.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote:


Please opine on this lens. A friend has spotted one for sale.

BTW: I'm not sure yet if it is the MF or Af version... should have a reply shortly.



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:


Please opine on this lens. A friend has spotted one for sale.

BTW: I'm not sure yet if it is the MF or Af version... should have a reply
shortly.

No AF version of this lens.

Every review i've seen suggests it's Nikon's sharpest standard lens, if you
can live with an f2.8 max aperture. I had a look, but I like wider aperture
lenses and already had a great macro lens at the time.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:


Please opine on this lens. A friend has spotted one for sale.

BTW: I'm not sure yet if it is the MF or Af version... should have a reply
shortly.

No AF version of this lens.

Every review i've seen suggests it's Nikon's sharpest standard lens, if you
can live with an f2.8 max aperture. I had a look, but I like wider aperture
lenses and already had a great macro lens at the time.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:07:06 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Please opine on this lens. A friend has spotted one for sale.

The AI-S version had a reputation for oiling, but was optically
top notch. Never heard about the problem with the AF version,
which has the additional advantage of going to 1:1. However,
I seem to rememmber that the AF version has the hard plastic
vestigial focus ring. If so, that's a real minus in my book.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Alan Browne wrote:
Please opine on this lens. A friend has spotted one for sale.

Justin K.: BTW there is also a 105 f/2.8 Micro (!!) available.

Cheers,
Alan

It's a great lens. However since you asked about the 105, it makes me
think you might not know macros really well.

All else being equal the 105 is the more convenient lens. It allows you
to work twice as far away from the subject, which reduces lighting problems
and other problems. As a macro, it is seldom an negative.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Alan Browne wrote:
Please opine on this lens. A friend has spotted one for sale.

Justin K.: BTW there is also a 105 f/2.8 Micro (!!) available.

Cheers,
Alan

It's a great lens. However since you asked about the 105, it makes me
think you might not know macros really well.

All else being equal the 105 is the more convenient lens. It allows you
to work twice as far away from the subject, which reduces lighting problems
and other problems. As a macro, it is seldom an negative.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Martin Francis wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Alan Browne wrote:


Please opine on this lens. A friend has spotted one for sale.

BTW: I'm not sure yet if it is the MF or Af version... should have a reply

shortly.

No AF version of this lens.

Every review i've seen suggests it's Nikon's sharpest standard lens, if you
can live with an f2.8 max aperture. I had a look, but I like wider aperture
lenses and already had a great macro lens at the time.

AF version:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...F55mmmicro.htm

The lens is for a lady at the photoclub. I'm trying to push her to the more
expensive 105 f/2.8 ... which alas is not the f/2.5 v., but there you go...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Martin Francis wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Alan Browne wrote:


Please opine on this lens. A friend has spotted one for sale.

BTW: I'm not sure yet if it is the MF or Af version... should have a reply

shortly.

No AF version of this lens.

Every review i've seen suggests it's Nikon's sharpest standard lens, if you
can live with an f2.8 max aperture. I had a look, but I like wider aperture
lenses and already had a great macro lens at the time.

AF version:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...F55mmmicro.htm

The lens is for a lady at the photoclub. I'm trying to push her to the more
expensive 105 f/2.8 ... which alas is not the f/2.5 v., but there you go...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
It's a great lens. However since you asked about the 105, it makes me
think you might not know macros really well.

All else being equal the 105 is the more convenient lens. It allows you
to work twice as far away from the subject, which reduces lighting problems
and other problems. As a macro, it is seldom an negative.

The lens she is more interested in, prob'y due to price, is the 55. But if it
is the MF version, she doesn't want it. I'm urging her towards the 105 f/2.8
for the 'convenience' factor, but the price might be too rich for her. (The
asking price is almost 3X the asking for the 55mm ... but we're working on the
price too).

[BTW: I have a Maxxum 100mm f/2.8 macro which, at least according to photodo, is
sharper than the 105 f/2.8 | f/2.5 and sharper than the 55 f/2.8 as well.]

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--