I have the 60mm f/2.8G macro lens, but rarely do 1:1 with it. Instead, I got it for shooting closer than a 50mm, or my 58mm, allows. I find that to be more effective, and less trouble, than using an extension tube or close-up filter.
Jerry Heitschmidt
February 27, 2025 9:28 am
I’ve used two of these lenses fairly extensively along with the 60mm f-mount D and G versions and the f-mount 105mm. In practice, they are on par with the 60mm G version, but with less vignetting. The 50mm focal length was perfect for a multiyear pathogen growth project, whereas the 105mm, though sharper, would’ve required modifications to our copy stands to achieve the proper working distance. Using a pair of Z7II cameras, the resulting 8K timelapse videos were just as good as those captured with a D850 and 60mm G lens. I can see this small, lightweight lens also serving very well for wedding detail shots (e.g., rings), since you only need a handful of those shots.
Naim Islam
February 25, 2025 9:20 am
I don’t have a camera.. But i Love photography content. I wish i have one to start my photography career. But it’s expensive here in my country.. Good work for giving more information about lens and camera.. God bless you🖐️🖐️
Thank you, Naim! Even a phone or a simple point-and-shoot camera can lead to great photos, it’s just a matter of how you use it. I hope you’re able to get something that lets you start your photography career.
Nightjar
February 25, 2025 7:29 am
Thanks for this review! I recently began to consider this lens, and was waiting for your review.
While I agree that the price is a little on the high side for what it offers, and 50mm might not be the ideal focal length, I really appreciate the compact size of this lens. I guess everyone knows the saying that the best camera is the one you have with you, and the same also goes for (macro) lenses. Personally, I leave my 105mm Macro (I still have the F-mount version) behind quite often for size and weight considerations and end up taking macro-ish pictures with a standard-zoom lens, which isn’t really great. So I think instead of upgrading to the 105mm mirrorless version, I’m going to keep the F-mount one for the few times I use it and get this 50mm as a lightweight alternative.
You’re very welcome! It sounds like it would be a good lens for you. The weight makes it very easy to leave in your bag or carry with you, which is always better than a lens left at home!
James W
February 25, 2025 7:12 am
An interesting comparison might be made between this lens, and the 50mm/1.8S on an extension tube. The latter combination is occasionally recommended for macro photography on a budget, and does seem to produce competent results.
Of course, that would also be useless for anything but macro until you remove the extension tube, but it does cover some uses.
As to the lens itself, I looked at it hard, before biting the bullet for the 105MC. Still the best lens I’ve ever had the pleasure to use.
Good point, I’d like to test that combo! The 50mm f/1.8S is so sharp – I’d expect it to continue to do well on an extension tube.
Joe
February 24, 2025 3:53 pm
I have this lens and purchased it for use with the ES-2 kit to photograph old 35mm negatives and old slides. In this role it is quite useful given. Given the less than stellar quality of my 30-55 year old negatives, this lens is great. I could use a 60mm on my D850 but those lenses are getting harde to find and the 50mm is more than adequate. It works for me!
Had the same consideration for use on the ES-2 negative duplicate. However, I opted for the AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f 2.8G, which is available second-hand for very little money. The big drawback with the Z9 is that, compared to the D850, there is no color negative conversion in the camera. It is a pity that Nikon has not included this function in the Z8 or Z9! Unfortunately, I have not yet found an article on this site about negative conversion, although this topic would certainly be of interest to many.
I would definitely prefer the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f 2.8 to the 50mm Macro, especially as the price difference is no longer that great. I personally still use the Nikon 105mm AF-S.
Robert Bouknight
February 24, 2025 3:44 pm
How would it stack up vs the classic 50/3.5 Micro? Sorry, I could not resist this question. I have both the early “compensating” and later versions, use them all of the time.
All good, it’s an interesting question, and I haven’t tested the old 55mm Micro in the lab.
In one of the comments below, our reader Isaac mentioned that the old 55mm Micro is sharper. This would go against my past experiences comparing modern lenses (even “ordinary” modern lenses) against classic glass. Generally, older lenses can be quite strong in the center but tend to have very weak corners, especially at wider apertures. The 55mm Micro may be an exception to the rule, but until I test a copy in the lab, my expectation would have been that the Z MC 50mm would outperform it.
Hi Spencer, your website actually have tested nikkor 55 3.5 micro before: photographylife.com/lense…-55mm-f3-5 although it is tested on D800, but it seems extremely sharp.
I’ve scanned a great many slides using a Nikkor 60mm AF with the ES-2 using a D610. I would say it resolves all the detail to be had on a good slide. Several hundred Kodachrome slides from the 50’s up through the 90’s. Now I’m curious if any Z cameras (which I do not own) have built-in utilities for converting color negatives.
bg5931
February 24, 2025 3:33 pm
The wide-open sharpness is disappointing, IMO. But then, macro is shot stopped down quite often, so this may not be much of a liability for this use case. However, for use as a general-purpose 50 mm lens, better f/2.8 performance would have been nice.
isaac
February 24, 2025 2:36 pm
Thank you Spencer for another excellent review. This lens is a bit disappointing, I have bought it before, compared to old Nikon micro 55 3.5, the old lens is sharper and cost only $50, so you can save $500 if you don’t need autofocus and f2.8.
Jan
February 24, 2025 11:45 am
Thanks for the review, I was looking forward to read your opinion on this lens. Btw, just a small thing at the end of lens comparison, I think the 50/1.4 should be four times brighter ;)
I have the 60mm f/2.8G macro lens, but rarely do 1:1 with it. Instead, I got it for shooting closer than a 50mm, or my 58mm, allows. I find that to be more effective, and less trouble, than using an extension tube or close-up filter.
I’ve used two of these lenses fairly extensively along with the 60mm f-mount D and G versions and the f-mount 105mm. In practice, they are on par with the 60mm G version, but with less vignetting. The 50mm focal length was perfect for a multiyear pathogen growth project, whereas the 105mm, though sharper, would’ve required modifications to our copy stands to achieve the proper working distance. Using a pair of Z7II cameras, the resulting 8K timelapse videos were just as good as those captured with a D850 and 60mm G lens. I can see this small, lightweight lens also serving very well for wedding detail shots (e.g., rings), since you only need a handful of those shots.
I don’t have a camera.. But i Love photography content. I wish i have one to start my photography career. But it’s expensive here in my country.. Good work for giving more information about lens and camera.. God bless you🖐️🖐️
Thank you, Naim! Even a phone or a simple point-and-shoot camera can lead to great photos, it’s just a matter of how you use it. I hope you’re able to get something that lets you start your photography career.
Thanks for this review! I recently began to consider this lens, and was waiting for your review.
While I agree that the price is a little on the high side for what it offers, and 50mm might not be the ideal focal length, I really appreciate the compact size of this lens. I guess everyone knows the saying that the best camera is the one you have with you, and the same also goes for (macro) lenses.
Personally, I leave my 105mm Macro (I still have the F-mount version) behind quite often for size and weight considerations and end up taking macro-ish pictures with a standard-zoom lens, which isn’t really great.
So I think instead of upgrading to the 105mm mirrorless version, I’m going to keep the F-mount one for the few times I use it and get this 50mm as a lightweight alternative.
You’re very welcome! It sounds like it would be a good lens for you. The weight makes it very easy to leave in your bag or carry with you, which is always better than a lens left at home!
An interesting comparison might be made between this lens, and the 50mm/1.8S on an extension tube. The latter combination is occasionally recommended for macro photography on a budget, and does seem to produce competent results.
Of course, that would also be useless for anything but macro until you remove the extension tube, but it does cover some uses.
As to the lens itself, I looked at it hard, before biting the bullet for the 105MC. Still the best lens I’ve ever had the pleasure to use.
Good point, I’d like to test that combo! The 50mm f/1.8S is so sharp – I’d expect it to continue to do well on an extension tube.
I have this lens and purchased it for use with the ES-2 kit to photograph old 35mm negatives and old slides. In this role it is quite useful given. Given the less than stellar quality of my 30-55 year old negatives, this lens is great. I could use a 60mm on my D850 but those lenses are getting harde to find and the 50mm is more than adequate. It works for me!
Had the same consideration for use on the ES-2 negative duplicate. However, I opted for the AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f 2.8G, which is available second-hand for very little money. The big drawback with the Z9 is that, compared to the D850, there is no color negative conversion in the camera. It is a pity that Nikon has not included this function in the Z8 or Z9! Unfortunately, I have not yet found an article on this site about negative conversion, although this topic would certainly be of interest to many.
I would definitely prefer the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f 2.8 to the 50mm Macro, especially as the price difference is no longer that great. I personally still use the Nikon 105mm AF-S.
How would it stack up vs the classic 50/3.5 Micro? Sorry, I could not resist this question. I have both the early “compensating” and later versions, use them all of the time.
Sorry, 55mm, manual focus. I knew the post looked wrong but hit enter too quickly!
Then just saw the post right below.
All good, it’s an interesting question, and I haven’t tested the old 55mm Micro in the lab.
In one of the comments below, our reader Isaac mentioned that the old 55mm Micro is sharper. This would go against my past experiences comparing modern lenses (even “ordinary” modern lenses) against classic glass. Generally, older lenses can be quite strong in the center but tend to have very weak corners, especially at wider apertures. The 55mm Micro may be an exception to the rule, but until I test a copy in the lab, my expectation would have been that the Z MC 50mm would outperform it.
Hi Spencer, your website actually have tested nikkor 55 3.5 micro before: photographylife.com/lense…-55mm-f3-5
although it is tested on D800, but it seems extremely sharp.
I’ve scanned a great many slides using a Nikkor 60mm AF with the ES-2 using a D610. I would say it resolves all the detail to be had on a good slide. Several hundred Kodachrome slides from the 50’s up through the 90’s. Now I’m curious if any Z cameras (which I do not own) have built-in utilities for converting color negatives.
The wide-open sharpness is disappointing, IMO. But then, macro is shot stopped down quite often, so this may not be much of a liability for this use case. However, for use as a general-purpose 50 mm lens, better f/2.8 performance would have been nice.
Thank you Spencer for another excellent review. This lens is a bit disappointing, I have bought it before, compared to old Nikon micro 55 3.5, the old lens is sharper and cost only $50, so you can save $500 if you don’t need autofocus and f2.8.
Thanks for the review, I was looking forward to read your opinion on this lens. Btw, just a small thing at the end of lens comparison, I think the 50/1.4 should be four times brighter ;)
Great catch, thank you, Jan!