Lincoln Head Penny: Old Lincoln head penny. Nikon D3100 at 1/2 second, 100 iso, f22 on a tripod with 10 second delayed shutter. Lit with desk lamp. Nikkor E Series 100mm f2.8 manual...

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Old Lincoln head penny. Nikon D3100 at 1/2 second, 100 iso, f22 on a tripod with 10 second delayed shutter. Lit with desk lamp. Nikkor E Series 100mm f2.8 manual film lens. Used a $20 add on macro extender lens to allow me to focus from about 5 to 6 inches above the penny. Unprocessed jpg.

(Download)

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Your Nikkor 100-mm lens has a curved field-of focus, which is typical of a standard lens. This is noticeable by comparing Lincoln's fairly sharp ear with the less focused edges & corners. While this is an affordable alternative to a true macro lenses, the images only superficially compare as non-enlarged images. They do not hold-up to enlargement. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/100f28E.htm

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Nikonian72 wrote:

Your Nikkor 100-mm lens has a curved field-of focus, which is typical of a standard lens. This is noticeable by comparing Lincoln's fairly sharp ear with the less focused edges & corners. While this is an affordable alternative to a true macro lenses, the images only superficially compare as non-enlarged images. They do not hold-up to enlargement.

Thanks for the info. I wondered why the depth of field seemed so shallow.

jrb1213 Loc: McDonough GEorgia

More stuff I didn't know how to explain. Thanks

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Nikonian72 wrote:

Your Nikkor 100-mm lens has a curved field-of focus, which is typical of a standard lens. This is noticeable by comparing Lincoln's fairly sharp ear with the less focused edges & corners. While this is an affordable alternative to a true macro lenses, the images only superficially compare as non-enlarged images. They do not hold-up to enlargement.

I tried a couple of other manual film lenses with the same setup, the Nikkor F 50mm f1.4 and the Nikkor Q 135mm f2.8, and got similar results. I could not get a sharp image over the entire penny. Getting the beard super sharp caused less sharpness of focus along one or more edges. Do you know of any Nikkor or other f-mount manual film lenses that are true macro lenses?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Bobspez wrote:

I tried a couple of other manual film lenses with the same setup, the Nikkor F 50mm f1.4 and the Nikkor Q 135mm f2.8, and got similar results. I could not get a sharp image over the entire penny. Getting the beard super sharp caused less sharpness of focus along one or more edges. Do you know of any Nikkor or other f-mount manual film lenses that are true macro lenses? Bob

ALL standard prime lenses and all zoom lenses have curved arcs of focus, equal distant from lens front element. ONLY true macro lenses have flat planes of focus. Nikkor macro lenses, unfortunately, are labeled 'Micro'. I still own a Nikkor 55-mm macro lens purchased new in 1972. Here are all new lenses currently available. You will find Nikkor lenses scattered throughout:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-190768-1.html#3230336

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Nikonian72 wrote:

Nikkor macro lenses, unfortunately, are labeled 'Micro'. I still own a Nikkor 55-mm macro lens purchased new in 1972.

Thanks. Why unfortunately?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Bobspez wrote:

Why unfortunately ("Nikkor macro lenses, unfortunately, are labeled 'Micro'." )?

Technically, Macro-photography is 1:1 magnification (life-size) to about 10:1 mag (<10x life-size). Micro-Photography, aka Photo-Micrography, is 10:1 mag (10x life-size) and greater, usually requiring a microscope objective lens.

Macro lenses are not capable of 10:1 mag without hefty optical assist. I consider the use of the term 'Micro' on a standard macro lens to be an unfortunate marketing choice.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Thanks. I'm waiting to see if my ebay bid will be successful. When I get my micro-macro lens I'll try the penny again. I also do microscope photography. I'm interested to see if the micro-macro will get more of the slide in focus as well.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Nikonian72 wrote:

I still own a Nikkor 55-mm macro lens purchased new in 1972.

How do you rate your Nikkor 55m micro-macro lens? Is it the f3.5 or the f2.8? Is either one significantly better glass than the other?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Bobspez wrote:

How do you rate your Nikkor 55m micro-macro lens? Is it the f3.5 or the f2.8? Is either one significantly better glass than the other?

In 1972, the Nikkor 55-mm was only available as an f/3.5. Per http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikmicro55f35.html
"The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 AI, is considered one of Nikons sharpest lenses. This lens is sharper then the Micro-Nikkor f/2.8."

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Nikonian72 wrote:

In 1972, the Nikkor 55-mm was only available as an f/3.5. Per http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikmicro55f35.html
"The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 AI, is considered one of Nikons sharpest lenses. This lens is sharper then the Micro-Nikkor f/2.8."

Thanks, I just bought the earlier version on ebay, the Nikon Micro Nikkor P Auto 1:3.5 55mm (non AI) Lens and the Nikon M2 extension tube which is supposed to make the 55mm a 1:1 Macro lens. Will be interesting to see how it will all work.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Just got the Nikkor Non-Ai Micro Macro 55mm f3.5 lens and the Nikon M2 Extension tube today and retook the Penny shot without the additional Macro extension lens, but with the same settings (f22, 1/2 second exposure, iso 100, tripod and 10 second delay shutter). Much clearer than the previous shot across the whole frame.

One thing I still notice after having taken several shots is that if the top of the penny is super sharp, the bottom is still a tad less sharp and vice versa. So the image shown here is a compromise to get all of the penny approximately the same sharpness.

Is there an issue with the table and camera lens needing to be exactly level and parallel/centered to each other, or is this basically as good as the lens will get?

(Download)

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Bobspez wrote:

One thing I still notice after having taken several shots is that if the top of the penny is super sharp, the bottom is still a tad less sharp and vice versa. So the image shown here is a compromise to get all of the penny approximately the same sharpness.
Is there an issue with table & camera lens needing to be exactly level and parallel/centered to each other, or is this basically as good as the lens will get?

Even at f/22 your DoF is very narrow, and your coin is at a slight angle to the lens. Shooting perpendicular to coin face will improve focus. Using a small aperture, like f/22, can reduce resolution through small aperture diffraction. Aperture f/5.6 is best resolution, but less DoF.
Read more here:
FAQ: Why are my Digital Images Sharper at f/8 than f/22?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-59819-1.html

Nikkor 55 f3.5 Resolution vs. Aperture
Nikkor 55 f3.5 Resolution vs. Aperture...

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Nikonian 72,
For all practical purposes I guess this is as good as it gets. I tried some shots at lower f stops and with the lens line of sight parallel to the table and centered above the coin. No noticeable difference on the focus although there was more detail shown. Didn't want to take out levels and shims to make it exact. It also occurs to me that shooting outside, I'm not going to be in a position to get more level than the penny was. Still, a vast improvement over the previous shot.
Thanks for the info and help.