Long post about Micro Nikkor 55/3.5

[fferreres]

I am very impressed by the Macro Topcor 58/3.5. My copy has significant cloudiness due to fungus etching in the front, many many scratches and other minor wear in the rear optics. It is by all means a rescued lens that I almost gave up on. Until I tested it, and I got this WOW factor that had only happened with very few lenses. It reminded me of the effect it caused me to use the Zeiss QBM 85.2.8. I was in disbelief that I had zoomed into the EVF wide open.

After much research, I must say very little is written about this optic. Almost nothing at all. The only thing that is evident, is that besides the extremely rare lenses, it seemed like a collector lens, that people would maybe pay $300 to $600 for. Topcor of course is those brands that moves quite slowly. Sellers expect high prices. And buyers often look for them as great lenses to actually shoot with. It has this "second rate collector"stigma, as a serious collector will usually focus on Zeiss or Leica optics, very rare lenses, etc.

My post however is about the Micro Nikkor. I've seen it described in this forum as an excellent macro lens, a bargain good macro. However, in researching the Topcor, someone had noted the optic of the Topcor and the Nikkor have lens diagrams that are almost the same. Both lenses also seemed to have been launched around the same time (1963). One is 55mm and the other 58mm. Maybe they are actually the same optic? Whatever the answer is, they have the same 5/4 design.

In researching more, I hadn't noted, but SLRs had changed the landscape of macro photography. Thru the lens and depth of field preview where absolutely needed for macro work, and range finders were severely limiting. Macro lenses were a huge selling point, almost as if SLR was invented to solve macro work.

The Micro Nikkor is a lens that can easily be found for $40 USD. It has the same optic. So I kept reading more. There a huge lot more written about this lens, while nothing about the Topcor. But as much as some mention it's an excellent lens, there's also praise that goes beyond normal. Let's take some quotes from Casual Photophille. The obvious:

It’s an unglamorous, old, slow specialty lens

Or

it’s cheaper than even the cheapo Nikon Series E 50mm f/1.8

Or

It’s an old speciality lens and should exhibit some kind of weakness.

Or

On paper, this lens should not have aged well. Lenses were quite good in the ’60s and ’70s, but today we often forgive these lenses’ technical shortcomings by labeling them “vintage” and “characterful.” Pre-Ai lenses are notorious for this.

But then reading closer, one has these kind of confessions and observations:

It technically outperforms all of my other Nikkor lenses

Or

In terms of raw performance, it reminds me of the ungodly expensive Leica Summicron V3 I tested a while ago

Or

Four years and hundreds if not thousands of shots later, I’m still not sure of what I’ve gotten myself into. This particular Nikon Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 was supposed to be a stopgap until I got a better macro lens, but it’s still here. It’s taken nearly every single product shot I’ve ever made for my article on this site and it remains perpetually mounted to one of my cameras, forever ready to shoot. It’s practically a fact of life for me at this point, but one that baffles me every day.

Or

The only explanation is that the Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 is it’s own kind of paradox. The lens is old, yet the images look startlingly new. It’s slow, yet more capable than most of my other lenses.

Or

This should surprise no one. What’s really surprising (and on occasion, frightening) is just how good this lens is, not just at its job, but at absolutely everything.

Or

Owing to the simplicity and compactness of its lens elements, this lens also exhibits high contrast and an unbelievable color rendition. Colors are rich and vivid, yet contain none of the hyper-real colors we often receive from more modern multi-coated lenses. Colors all look natural, and the heavier contrast ensures that these colors pop off the image as they should. I rarely, if ever, have to do any kind of color correction on any image made with this lens because the colors are naturally great.

Or

I kind of like it that way. It means that the humble Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 will forever be the most enigmatic lens in my bag. After years of shooting with it I know what it does, how to use it, and how it works, yet it still manages to surprise and confound me at every turn.

I am not sure who computed it. There are extremely amazing macro lenses which are better now. Faster. But again, one thing that got my attention about the Macro Topcor, is the extreme naturality of the images. The flawless character of the pictures up to the 80 lp /mm of the 24 MP A7 II. This from a very poor copy.

Here's the full review:

https://casualphotophile.com/2020/02/10/nikon-nikkor-55mm-macro-lens-review/

Note Josh seems to have the first version, the one launched in 1963. The later version changes the optical scheme to be flatter at infinity, with asome sacrifice of erformance at closer distances. And later versions add floating element to optimize all distances. However, all these versions were rated as 4/5 except the original version with 5/5, I don't recall where I've seen it posted. Also note there had been no resolution tests, as most like Popular Photography would conduct at infinity, where this lens naturally exhibits some field curvature. And preferred not to test for resolution. And I am somehow glad they didn't. If they had, I am not sure why would anyone in the same mind even ever consider for example the Rokkor or any other Macro normal.

I will be ordering this one if only by extreme curiosity. In my tests wide open vs the Topcor, very good lenses like 50/1.4 Nikkor-S stopped down to F4...it doesn't even come close to the resolution and contrast of the battered Topcor. And based on reviews, it seems to be the lens I'd have acquired should I have a small budget and expecting some miracles.

Of course, the traditional normal will have better corners for landscape photography. But in here, one can stop down easily to F11 or F16, and not note much of a difference. And the slow speed, at least the Topcor, is a paradox. It seems to have such a shallow DOF. More than lenses even one stop lower. Is it the kind of optic? It is so well corrected, and DOF jumps from illegally crips and nitid to a blurry image, almost to abruptly.

Anyway, I have no idea how this and the Topcor macros cme to be. But I can say the Topcor at f3.5 is the best normal lens I got. And if this Micro Nikkor is as good or better, it will be an instant favorite. It's the antithesis of soft. Yet it has very nice bokeh. It renders modernly. It has fantastic colors. Complemented with a good Sonnar that has the right amount of spherical and is undercorrected (giving longer DOF but very very nice 3D like images), this one gives an image that seems to be almost like being here there in the original scene, as it was right there in front of you. And hope to find out more about the Nikkor, based on review, the same optical scheme as my battered Topcor, the ridiculously low price, the sames, the unusually comments, and of course my admiration when I find a lens that I consider may be appreciated, yet not clearly admired in the right proportion.

For now, the Topcor stands as my most unusual normal lens. It's slow, battered, very old, bellows type with odd shape when I add the variable extension add on...what I though was an overpriced macro for collectors, which I got in UGLY form. And also, by far, the best normal from several dozen I've got. So I have high expectations for the Nikkor, in addition to having renewed my interest in normal lenses shots.

 

[aidaho]

However, in researching the Topcor, someone had noted the optic of the Topcor and the Nikkor have lens diagrams that are almost the same. Both lenses also seemed to have been launched around the same time (1963). One is 55mm and the other 58mm. Maybe they are actually the same optic? Whatever the answer is, they have the same 5/4 design.

I'm ultra-wary of such claims. I think they hit the nail on the head about as often as one can throw sixes on a pair of dice.

If one looks at something widely described as "the same scheme", like Rokkor 58/1.2 and Rokkor 50/1.4, they are nothing alike in a real world pics.

For something to be good, it doesn't need to be "secretly the same", as it's more famous counterpart.

 

[D Cox]

I haven't done much with the Micro-Nikkor on the fp, but generally my impression is that these two lenses are equally good.

The advantage of Nikkors is that the aperture markings are big and clear, and it's easy to open up a couple of stops for focussing and close down again by using the "rabbit's ears".

Here's the Micro-Nikkor on a NEX-5N in 2012.

 

[fferreres]

You really need to try these with ISO. The loss of 3 stops of light severely masks the most interesting property of this lens which is the crispy contrasty detail at the pixel level. I am not saying it matters in this shot, but rather that that’s what impresses me in the topcor, in addition to the very natural colors and short DOF. Like f3.5 seems seems like other lenses f2.

 

[Lightshow]

However, in researching the Topcor, someone had noted the optic of the Topcor and the Nikkor have lens diagrams that are almost the same. Both lenses also seemed to have been launched around the same time (1963). One is 55mm and the other 58mm. Maybe they are actually the same optic? Whatever the answer is, they have the same 5/4 design.

I'm ultra-wary of such claims. I think they hit the nail on the head about as often as one can throw sixes on a pair of dice.

If one looks at something widely described as "the same scheme", like Rokkor 58/1.2 and Rokkor 50/1.4, they are nothing alike in a real world pics.

For something to be good, it doesn't need to be "secretly the same", as it's more famous counterpart.

--
I like to shoot with manual lenses. Here are some of my photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/

They are similar but not identical. Both are high quality lenses. Most macro lenses fall into that category.

Nikkor 55/3.5 Micro (camera to the right)

The Nikon Micro Nikkor 55 mm f/ 3.5 non-Ai (PK-3) Lens. Specs. MTF Charts. User Reviews.

allphotolenses.com

Topcor RE 58/3.5 Macro (camera to the left)

http://www.topgabacho.jp/Topconclub/lenscut.htm

I have a number of macros...

Auto Takumar 55/4 macro 1:1

S-M-C 55/4 macro

X-Fujinon EBC 55/3.5 Macro

OM 50/3.5 MC Macro

Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS Micro

Nikkor 55/3.5 AIS Micro

Rokkor MC QF 50/3.5 Macro

Rokkor MC QE 100/3.5 Macro

FD SSC 50/3.5

FD SC 100/4 Macro

Topcor RE 58/3.5

Konica AR 55/3.5 AE macro

Yashica ML 55/2.8 Macro

Leica-R 60/2.8 Macro

Leica-R 100/2.8 Macro APO

I will easily recommend any of these except possibly the Yashica as that one is only optimized for close focus(it's soft beyond a few meters).

--
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.

James

Explore James’s 520 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

[My Lens list](http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewprofile.php?Action=viewprofile&username=LightShow)
####Where's my FF NEX-7 ?????

https://flic.kr/p/Q2b9mq

https://flic.kr/p/PgwEjs

Firmware request:
-A button map for toggling the EVF & LCD
-Still waiting for the minimum shutter speed with auto ISO for my NEX-7 and A7r. I know it will never happen.
-Customize the display screen layout, I'd love to have both Histogram and level at the same time.
-More peaking options, being able to set peaking sensitivity and a threshold level.
-An RGB overlay on the histogram

https://flic.kr/p/wQd7zp

-An option to return the focus assist zoom to one button press
-An option to return to how the NEX-7 handled playback, ie. center button to zoom, then you could use the control dial to zoom in and out, then center button to exit the zoom mode.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

You really need to try these with ISO. The loss of 3 stops of light severely masks the most interesting property of this lens which is the crispy contrasty detail at the pixel level. I am not saying it matters in this shot, but rather that that’s what impresses me in the topcor, in addition to the very natural colors and short DOF. Like f3.5 seems seems like other lenses f2.

I obviously don’t know but can be corrected by those that have better knowledge.

I seem to recollect somewhere that lens manufacturers had a tendency at times to round their lens statistics to commonly accepted benchmarks. As f3.5 is more unusual aperture then maybe another manufacturer might have rounded it to “f2.8” but as both Topcor & Nikon probably set out to be superior quality firms and this was a macro lens they might not have wished to be found out as fudging - hence f3.5 might be as best as they could reasonably lay claim to. But it is certainly nowhere near f2.0.

Furthermore macro lenses wide open need more dof and there may not have been much love generated by making the aperture any larger.

Of course the designed aperture may well have been made for purpose because a larger aperture might not have played dof very well.

In any case this is an interesting article and certainly gives the vibes that some lenses have a higher quality than their common reputation might indicate.

Micro Nikkor 55/3.5 futures just improved substantially ....

 

[fferreres]

The Topcor 58/3.5 diagram is this from the same source. You referenced the 3.5cm one. See how this one really is the same structure, not just the on a similar double gauss vector.





Chances are this macro was already the best design and know in very specialized niches in its application to macro work. At the time, it had to be important because of the animosity and adversity made espionage so critical, as well as during any war, worm or cold.

So chances are both companies had ready access and the tools to do a very good computation. It’s not they invented the lens design. It draws from first Planar (and even Biometar) and some incarnations of Xenotars. It’s strikingly in look like Rollie’s 75/3.5 Xenotar.

If all macros are like this and even better, then count me in. I feel a bit like the blogger at Casual Photophille. This lenses are too good for 1960, and my Topcor 58/3.5 has this way of getting back into the E mount of the camera and staying there. It is no like my other Macro lenses. It is even more than just a slow macro, even if just a slow, old humble optic.

 

[fferreres]

I think it definitely is f3.5 but the way the OOF areas of different lens design are quite different so how they transition varies. The other likely cause is that the contrast at tiny scale is very high, but with a macro one also wants all contrast peaks to align. That is to say, they largely focus all color channels in a very tight plane, and try to optimize so it’s also flat at closer distances. So looking at the center, these end up usually being close to perfect.

Not all macros are made equal. The Rokkor macros are nothing like the Topcor. Soft wide open, lower contrast, uninteresting to me photographically although may be a great choice for reproduction as it is very flat. I tried to like it many times, each of them. I do believe most macros are optimized and can be good. It just surprised me how this particular design is both cheap, and a favorite lens of some people.

I have a handful of favorite lenses. I am not sure how many have a macro lens as a favorite lens of them, but I wasn’t expecting to become one.

 

[Alan WF]

Those are clearly similar but different. Look at the central thicknesses in the doublet.

Regards,

Alan

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I have the fairly rare Canon EF 180mm f3.5 Macro which has to be designed to be a far different beast. Makes a quite good sharp, albeit heavy, normal lens as well.

 

[Lightshow]

The Topcor 58/3.5 diagram is this from the same source. You referenced the 3.5cm one.

Thanks for pointing out my oops. Thats what happens when you open to many tabs and don't pay enough attention, I should have clued into my error when I realized the diagrams were different than I was expecting but was thinking I was mistaken.... sigh. I blame Covid syndrome (stuck in the house for far too long).

See how this one really is the same structure, not just the on a similar double gauss vector.





Chances are this macro was already the best design and know in very specialized niches in its application to macro work. At the time, it had to be important because of the animosity and adversity made espionage so critical, as well as during any war, worm or cold.

I would love to find out which company designed it.

So chances are both companies had ready access and the tools to do a very good computation. It’s not they invented the lens design. It draws from first Planar (and even Biometar) and some incarnations of Xenotars. It’s strikingly in look like Rollie’s 75/3.5 Xenotar.

If all macros are like this and even better, then count me in. I feel a bit like the blogger at Casual Photophille. This lenses are too good for 1960, and my Topcor 58/3.5 has this way of getting back into the E mount of the camera and staying there. It is no like my other Macro lenses. It is even more than just a slow macro, even if just a slow, old humble optic.

I feel that way about a few of my Topcor's, but when I review the results, I find myself wowed mor often than most other brands.

--
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.

James

Explore James’s 520 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

[My Lens list](http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewprofile.php?Action=viewprofile&username=LightShow)
####Where's my FF NEX-7 ?????

https://flic.kr/p/Q2b9mq

https://flic.kr/p/PgwEjs

Firmware request:
-A button map for toggling the EVF & LCD
-Still waiting for the minimum shutter speed with auto ISO for my NEX-7 and A7r. I know it will never happen.
-Customize the display screen layout, I'd love to have both Histogram and level at the same time.
-More peaking options, being able to set peaking sensitivity and a threshold level.
-An RGB overlay on the histogram

https://flic.kr/p/wQd7zp

-An option to return the focus assist zoom to one button press
-An option to return to how the NEX-7 handled playback, ie. center button to zoom, then you could use the control dial to zoom in and out, then center button to exit the zoom mode.

 

[fferreres]

Chances are this macro was already the best design and know in very specialized niches in its application to macro work. At the time, it had to be important because of the animosity and adversity made espionage so critical, as well as during any war, worm or cold.

I would love to find out which company designed it.

Me too. I remember being very bored of memorizing battles, random people's names, and all the things that seemed important regarding history. It comes as odd my interest in the history of optics. I am less inclined to learn about the history of cameras themselves though, but a bot more about sensor technology.

So chances are both companies had ready access and the tools to do a very good computation. It’s not they invented the lens design. It draws from first Planar (and even Biometar) and some incarnations of Xenotars. It’s strikingly in look like Rollie’s 75/3.5 Xenotar.

If all macros are like this and even better, then count me in. I feel a bit like the blogger at Casual Photophille. This lenses are too good for 1960, and my Topcor 58/3.5 has this way of getting back into the E mount of the camera and staying there. It is no like my other Macro lenses. It is even more than just a slow macro, even if just a slow, old humble optic.

I feel that way about a few of my Topcor's, but when I review the results, I find myself wowed mor often than most other brands.

I find them extremely fun and seriously capable. I am ...



... every day. Just

 

[dockil]

I own an Ai converted pre AI Nikkor 55 f 3.5 which according to serial number is from sixties , compensating type diaphragm. I always enjoy shooting with it. After going through this thread took these two shots with it today.

 

[fferreres]

I own an Ai converted pre AI Nikkor 55 f 3.5 which according to serial number is from sixties , compensating type diaphragm. I always enjoy shooting with it. After going through this thread took these two shots with it today.

I find that with flowers, their odd shape and angles and usually low contrast, makes a macro or any other lens be apt. That it’s hard to showcase a macro with flowers. And insect, a coin, a person eye, fabric, things with more small contrasty detail, then you can really tell macro from non macro apart.



If at all possible, and if you have time, maybe shoot some other object than flowers? With the Topcor, I also tried flowers and again, it was hard to know how good, unless very particular flower. In general, pistoles with polen, great for macro. They need very small details to showcase the macro true power.