Macro Nikkor 65/4.5 vs. Zeiss Luminar 63/4.5

[Tonikon]

Hi everyone,
just yesterday I have published on my website a complete comparison test between the Macro Nikkor 65mm f/4.5 and the Zeiss Luminar 63mm f/4.5 (last version).



The complete test can be consulted here:
http://www.tonipuma.it/tecnica/63vs65/index.htm
Unfortunately, this test is in Italian language, but conclusion are in English language and the images speak for themselves...
As you can see, the Macro-NIKKOR is only slightly better than the Zeiss Luminar (expecially at corners and wide open), but both of them give stellar performance.
I have also tested them in comparison with a more conventional Micro Nikkor AFD 60mm f/2.8, but at 3x it simply don't keep up with the two competitors.
I believe that the Macro Nikkor 65mm f/4.5 is the best choice for 3-6x macrophotography.

Ciao

Toni

[Joseph S. Wisniewski]

Interesting review. Thanks for posting it...

One silly question. Did you reverse the 60mm micro-Nikkor and set the lens's magnification ratio to something approximating your reproduction ratio? For 3x, set it to 1:3 when reversed. Or course, due to the moving front node when you do this, actually finding the proper 3x extension can be a bloody pain, but I've found it to be worth it.

I still prefer a reversed 55mm f2.8 micro-Nikkor.

Ciao!

Joseph

[Tonikon]

Ciao Joseph,
thanks for your appreciation.
I have used the micro Nikkor 60 not reversed, because I haven't a reverse adapter ring for 62mm filter size.
I prefer reverse the older 55mm 3.5, too. But even a reversed 55mm don't match these excellent macrolenses.
What's more, I have compared to my Macro Nikkor 65 also a Rodenstock 50mm f/2.8 (right and reversed) and it don't gives the same results of the Nikkor.

Ciao

Toni

[elf]

Wouldn't the Macro-NIKKOR 65 be somewhat diffracted at max aperture on 2x (Olympus 4/3rds) sensors at 3x and very diffracted at 6x?