I need to use this lens to do some copy of 11x14 B&W prints to slides, and my only reflex lens is this one, any sugestion on flatest close distence f/ number.

May be a post to be made on the Nikon page, but I prefer to ask someone I know.

I also have the summicron M to 70 cm. but I like reflex for this kind of work.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001

Answers

This lens is my most-used lens, but it's not exactly what I would choose for flat-field work. Try f/8 and it should be good enough. I've used it for some architectural subjects and really don't notice any geometric distortion, so you should be OK in that deparment.

The Nikkor 50/1.4 gets a bum rap from quite a number of people for bad bokeh and field curvature and being not so terribly sharp at f/1.4 and myriad other reported issues. My sample, however, has served me well.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001.

Roberto,

I use the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens, and I like it for my type of shooting. I would agree with most of the literature that it is not the best lens for copy work though. I have every version of Nikon normal lens, and would list a hierarchy of desirability for your photographing a print as follows: 1. 55mm micro, 2. 50mm f/2.0, 3. 50mm f/1.8 ( the real one, not the toy series E model), and then the 50mm f/1.4.

There is a fine line between using words like "the best for..." and something that would be unusable. If all that you have is the f/1.4, then use it. I agree with John, f/8.0 should serve you well. Incidentally, if I wanted the best quality from a standard 50mm lens, I would use the slower f/2.0 lens reversed on the camera body via an adapter ring. Short of a true macro, this give a very good image. The f/1.4 lens reversed is not so effective, according to Nikon's literature and my experience. Generally, slower is flatter, and a flat field is what you want for copy work.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 23, 2001.

Why not go to a camera store that sells used equipment and buy a Nikkor 50 f/2 AI, or a 50 f/1.8 AIS. They are very inexpensive and also good for copy work. Nikon does not recommend using the 50 f/1.4 for copy work.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), May 23, 2001.

Checking my Chasseur d'Image Lens test Nikon File, the Nikkor 50/1.4 AIS is rated poorly only a two star lens, it has very visible vignette at f1.4 and f2 and 0.7% barrel distortion. Its best performaing aperture is F4, which however may not have enough DOF for copy work, if stop down to increase the DOF, but resolution will be down.

The Nikkor 50/1.4 is also **, the 50/1,8 is much better, a **** lens has only 0.3 % barrel distortion

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 23, 2001.

Roberto:

You'd be a lot better off with the 55 or 60 macro lens -- maybe you can borrow one? The 50 f1.4 will go pretty soft at the edges that close, even at f8. Alternatively, have you considered scanning the originals and generating a digital slide?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 23, 2001.

Thank´s for your fast answers, unfortunately I´m in Mazatlán, Mexico, and no chance to get a Nikkor 50/2 in no store, I don´t know no one who owns a micro, but I also have at hand a 50/1.4 Canon with an A1 body, but as time seems to be the real problem I´ll take the f/8 short way with the Nikkor.I´ll may do some f/5.6 brackets.Thank´s

-- R Watson (AL1231234@HOTMAIL.COM), May 23, 2001.

Is realy funy, all those years of developing a rangefinder technick, with all that maybe involved, and here I am limited for some silly copy work, my next lens will be a minimal enough copy lens, the idea about scaning and put then into slides is good, but no tools around, any way thank´s.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001.

The Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 is an outstanding ***** lens (as good as Leica Macro-Elmarit 60/2.8 )with zero distortion, best performamce at F4 and f5.6

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 23, 2001.

>>> The Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 is an outstanding ***** lens (as good as Leica Macro-Elmarit 60/2.8 ) <<<

Not if you consider color quality and flare control. I have used both lenses and I'd much rather use the 60 Elmarit-R than the 55 Micro-Nikkor.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), May 23, 2001.

Martin:

The 55 f/2.8 is the only piece of junk that I have purchased from Nikon [I have 10 or so lenses]. The thing worked for 2 years and then it became a permanent f2.8 lens. I sent it back to be repaired. It worked for 6 months and then the same thing. I sent it back again. It worked for 3 months. We can plot this and understand why I didn't send it back a third time.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 23, 2001.

Douglas and Art

Macro -Elmarit is my favourite lens, very sharp and contrasty

martin

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 23, 2001.

The Nikon lens that gives me the best results is the old 55 f3.5 Micro Nikkor P. I bought one on ebay for $100 and notched it for AI myself. My favorite Nikon lens and I swear its better than the 2.8 version and also has none of the mechanical trouibles.

-- Andrew schank (aschank@flash.net), May 23, 2001.

After rereading what I wrote, I didn't want to leave the wrong impression. I use a lot of Leica glass as well as Ziess & Nikon.

For Nikon, I have lenses from about 15 through 180 [I really don't pay much attention; I would have to open my cabinet]. I should add that the 105 f2.5 Nikon, IMHO, is better than anything Leica has made. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of the folks here.

My experience with the 55 mm f2.8 is probably an isolated case. But it is real. Optically, it was good. Otherwise it was garbage. Just one person's experience.

Cheers,

Art

-- Art (AKarr@aol.com), May 23, 2001.