43-86 f3.5 nikkor, I hope it's as bad as they say!

[StepheKoontz]

Recently started shooting B&W film again and have been drawn to using some of the really early rangefinder 35mm cameras and early glass.

I've been reading about how horrible everyone says the first generation (especially lower serial numbers) of the 43-86 f3.5 nikkor is, so I picked one up and am looking forward to seeing what sort of interesting stuff I can get from it. I'm suspecting the ends of the zoom ranges, focused fairly close wide open should be the most interesting?

I've also been toying with the idea of buying various cheap lenses and removing an element or two to see what that would look like, any tips on lenses that work well for that?

 

[KN4SMF]

Please... do yourself a very great favor and forget about the experimental ideas you have put forth. Just go ahead with your original idea of using the camera and lens you have chosen and take (or make) pictures. The wheel has been re-invented countless times before your arrival on the scene and has each time left the experimenter unfulfilled. "The most interesting" you say. In other words, the worst than can be achieved. Why would you want to waste your time on such a pursuit? Frankly i'm annoyed to have even clicked on such a post, as I feel my precious time has been wasted responding at all. Use that lens and the camera you mounted it on and go shoot the best pictures you can with it. You may surprise yourself.

 

[mshchem]

Try shooting everything hand held at a 1/2 second , or longer. Lean up against a post or tree. Capture motion. Nikon sold a bazillion of those lenses. Must not be so terrible . I would work with what you have.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Please... do yourself a very great favor and forget about the experimental ideas you have put forth. Just go ahead with your original idea of using the camera and lens you have chosen and take (or make) pictures. The wheel has been re-invented countless times before your arrival on the scene and has each time left the experimenter unfulfilled. "The most interesting" you say. In other words, the worst than can be achieved. Why would you want to waste your time on such a pursuit? Frankly i'm annoyed to have even clicked on such a post, as I feel my precious time has been wasted responding at all. Use that lens and the camera you mounted it on and go shoot the best pictures you can with it. You may surprise yourself.

What has been done a bazillion times is the pursuit of super sharp perfection with the best optics one can buy. Been there, done that. Hard to beat what the modern zeiss 135mm F2 APO sonnar I have can deliver. I've been shooting for over 40m years and looking to do some new things with my photography. I'm sure you would see the attached shot as a waste as the tree isn't sharp and the background is strangely out of focus effect, I love it. Shot with a 3 element 85mm f4 lens on an old contax rangefinder.

 

[narsuitus]

When I worked for a newspaper, I routinely used a Nikon 35mm f/2 and a Nikon 85mm f/1.8.

The Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 AI zoom (serial #958521) was the first zoom I purchased. I purchased it to replace my two primes during the times when there was enough light. However, the image quality of this lens was so poor that it soured me to zooms for decades.

Before I sold it, I used it and tested it with the hope of finding some redeeming quality. I could not.

I will follow this thread with interest to see what sort of interesting stuff you discover.

 

[Eric Rose]

Why poo poo someone wanting to play around and create something for themselves. Who cares if someone else has done it before! It's a HOBBY! We are meant to have fun with it!

It seems some people need a ladder to get on their horses.

 

[jim10219]

I bought one that came with a camera once. Then got another that was thrown in with another lens I purchased. They worked. I used the first one for a while before reading how bad it was on the internet. My conclusion at the time was that it wasn't a good lens. But I didn't think it was as bad as everyone was saying. It's not the right kind of soft to be a decent soft focus lens. It doesn't get wide enough to be useful as an all purpose zoom. It's just hard to find a use for it.

Long story short, I sold both because I didn't see myself ever choosing to use them. Now, reading your post, I kind of wish I kept one so I could disassemble one and play with the lens elements or maybe the focusing helix. In any case, a good photo isn't made because of a sharp lens. It's made because of a sharp eye for composition, tone, texture, detail, subject, rhythm, and light.

 

[markjwyatt]

What has been done a bazillion times is the pursuit of super sharp perfection with the best optics one can buy. Been there, done that. Hard to beat what the modern zeiss 135mm F2 APO sonnar I have can deliver. I've been shooting for over 40m years and looking to do some new things with my photography. I'm sure you would see the attached shot as a waste as the tree isn't sharp and the background is strangely out of focus effect, I love it. Shot with a 3 element 85mm f4 lens on an old contax rangefinder.

View attachment 219807

The Tirotar may be 3 elements, but they are shaped and positioned in such a way to produce a nice image. The triotar is known for its "bubble" bokeh. I have a Fujinon 50mm f2.2 which is basically a triotar design. Removing an element will potentially, if not likely make the lens not produce a coherent image. The idea of experimenting with different lens designs is interesting, but the lens should at least produce an image, at least in my opinion.

 

[Fin]

"Garbage Nikkor zooms?"

Please... do yourself a very great favor and forget about the experimental ideas you have put forth. Why would you want to waste your time on such a pursuit? Frankly i'm annoyed to have even clicked on such a post, as I feel my precious time has been wasted responding at all.

Wow! Nice constructive response there! Well... Allow me to waste some of my precious time by responding in a useful way!

Yes, most early zoom lenses were pretty much crap! There's a considerable amount of engineering that goes into moving groups of elements around in a barrel that is designed to be as thin, light and small as possible, which was probably quite a lot more difficult in the 60s. Not to mention the improvements in lens coatings over the years.

I bought a Nikkor zoom off eBay a couple of years ago thinking that it was a 43-86. When it turned up, I used it and it was fairly rubbish, but it turns out that it's a later 35-105 AIS Macro. It's a mid 80s lens I think and doesn't seem to have a flat focus across the focal range. Usually the center of it seems to be a bit blurry compared with the outer areas. Meh, it was cheap! I don't use it and will probably move it on as a job lot at some point...

I've also been toying with the idea of buying various cheap lenses and removing an element or two to see what that would look like, any tips on lenses that work well for that?

Here's an answer I can help with. I bought an old Nikkor 135mm 2.8 (also very cheap) a few years ago. I knew there was an issue with the focus, but couldn't sort it out. I thought the helicoil was re-assembled wrongly so I opened it up and re-aligned it with no luck. I shot a few pics with it and was annoyed that it didn't focus properly so I sold it on eBay.

Then a year or so later, I looked again at the pics that I'd taken with it. Here are 3:

I kind of wish I'd kept this lens now! I think that the effect was caused by the one of the elements being the wrong way round, which I never thought to check when I owned it.

Anyway... There are loads of cheaper quality lenses around, particularly with stiff helicoils, fungus issues and sticking iris problems. If messing around with them gets you results you like and this makes you happy, as long as you are supporting the film industry all is good!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Recently started shooting B&W film again and have been drawn to using some of the really early rangefinder 35mm cameras and early glass.

I've been reading about how horrible everyone says the first generation (especially lower serial numbers) of the 43-86 f3.5 nikkor is, so I picked one up and am looking forward to seeing what sort of interesting stuff I can get from it. I'm suspecting the ends of the zoom ranges, focused fairly close wide open should be the most interesting?

I've also been toying with the idea of buying various cheap lenses and removing an element or two to see what that would look like, any tips on lenses that work well for that?

It is really a shame. This is a lens I always wanted from the start.The room range is ideal for my type of photography but, reportedly, the optical performance of this lens isn't even worth tying it ,and I didn't. I ended up with theAF Nikkor 35-70mm- f/3.5-4.5 instead and it's optical quality is poor too but, Ikept it because, It is light and versatile.at f/8 it is usable.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Wow! Nice constructive response there! Well... Allow me to waste some of my precious time by responding in a useful way!

Yes, most early zoom lenses were pretty much crap! There's a considerable amount of engineering that goes into moving groups of elements around in a barrel that is designed to be as thin, light and small as possible, which was probably quite a lot more difficult in the 60s. Not to mention the improvements in lens coatings over the years.

I bought a Nikkor zoom off eBay a couple of years ago thinking that it was a 43-86. When it turned up, I used it and it was fairly rubbish, but it turns out that it's a later 35-105 AIS Macro. It's a mid 80s lens I think and doesn't seem to have a flat focus across the focal range. Usually the center of it seems to be a bit blurry compared with the outer areas. Meh, it was cheap! I don't use it and will probably move it on as a job lot at some point...



Here's an answer I can help with. I bought an old Nikkor 135mm 2.8 (also very cheap) a few years ago. I knew there was an issue with the focus, but couldn't sort it out. I thought the helicoil was re-assembled wrongly so I opened it up and re-aligned it with no luck. I shot a few pics with it and was annoyed that it didn't focus properly so I sold it on eBay.

Then a year or so later, I looked again at the pics that I'd taken with it. Here are 3:

I kind of wish I'd kept this lens now! I think that the effect was caused by the one of the elements being the wrong way round, which I never thought to check when I owned it.

Anyway... There are loads of cheaper quality lenses around, particularly with stiff helicoils, fungus issues and sticking iris problems. If messing around with them gets you results you like and this makes you happy, as long as you are supporting the film industry all is good!

I could see that being a fun lens to use, especially on B&W film. One thing I have learned is with B&W you can filter out part of the -really bad- color channels and sometimes get a different effect that you will in color. I hadn't thought of flipping over a lens element in a prime, I'll give that a shot. Years ago I removed a couple of the middle elements from a soviet 80mm f2.8 lens and got some interesting results. I plan to do some cross processing of some old E-6 film and I think a funky lens will just add to the surrealist effect.

 

[trendland]

Recently started shooting B&W film again and have been drawn to using some of the really early rangefinder 35mm cameras and early glass.

I've been reading about how horrible everyone says the first generation (especially lower serial numbers) of the 43-86 f3.5 nikkor is, so I picked one up and am looking forward to seeing what sort of interesting stuff I can get from it. I'm suspecting the ends of the zoom ranges, focused fairly close wide open should be the most interesting?

I've also been toying with the idea of buying various cheap lenses and removing an element or two to see what that would look like, any tips on lenses that work well for that?

Cheap lenses "russian made" from the period cccp !
But caution you will need the tools you use for car repair to remouve a single lens element!
Ähhm but you don't look at zooms exclusevly ? I can't remind but from russian technology
(to that period I should add - because "Putin" build up Russia up ....)

....yes from remind there was no zoom - because russian technology was allways 20 years behind!

with regards

PS : before Putin - so friends "I mentioned it" - better not come into serious conflics again!

 

[trendland]

It is really a shame. This is a lens I always wanted from the start.The room range is ideal for my type of photography but, reportedly, the optical performance of this lens isn't even worth tying it ,and I didn't. I ended up with theAF Nikkor 35-70mm- f/3.5-4.5 instead and it's optical quality is poor too but, Ikept it because, It is light and versatile.at f/8 it is usable.

It has to do with the maths (from the original design of that lens) because the glasses, the technology of manufacturing a.s.o. CAN'T be such bad (in the Japan of the midt 50th)

That is not said :There was a big failure from lens optical calculation !

But the type of lens was a bad bad choise for a zoom - it seams to be!

with regards

PS : I have an idea that my 1927 Voigtländer is superior from what you stated about the Nikon!

 

[Nokton48]

Tear it apart and have fun. You know what you're doing!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I could see that being a fun lens to use, especially on B&W film. One thing I have learned is with B&W you can filter out part of the -really bad- color channels and sometimes get a different effect that you will in color. I hadn't thought of flipping over a lens element in a prime, I'll give that a shot. Years ago I removed a couple of the middle elements from a soviet 80mm f2.8 lens and got some interesting results. I plan to do some cross processing of some old E-6 film and I think a funky lens will just add to the surrealist effect.

apparently a waste of my time too; won't happen again(blocked!)

 

[Ap507b]

Bought one a couple of years ago out the the same curiosity. It's an early one marked Nippon Kogaku.

Found it OK at the middle of the range but terrible distortion at each end of the zoom range at the edges . Lamp posts banana shaped.

For me a curio well worth having.

 

[jtk]

That was a very popular lens with Nikons years ago. I think most photographers ditched it when they went to the bigger zoom monsters... Not a good lens. Unsharp.

 

[Eric Rose]

Well I most be the only person who ever received a good copy. I used it as my main lens when I was doing newspaper work. Great little lens. I shot a lot of Kodachrome with it too and was always happy with the results. Sure you don't shot it wide open but in the days it was sold no one was doing all this zero DOF stuff that has become so boring. Heck in the olden days anything less than f8 wasn't even considered for the most part.

I still have my 43-86 and will probably use it again just for giggles. I have a Nikkor 24-120 that lives on my camera right now so the lowly 43-86 hasn't seen much action. I should scan some of the chromes I shot with the 43-86. You will be amazed. I have made very large prints from negs exposed using this lens and they were awesome. Obviously for most of you YM will V.

 

[jtk]

Well I most be the only person who ever received a good copy. I used it as my main lens when I was doing newspaper work. Great little lens. I shot a lot of Kodachrome with it too and was always happy with the results. Sure you don't shot it wide open but in the days it was sold no one was doing all this zero DOF stuff that has become so boring. Heck in the olden days anything less than f8 wasn't even considered for the most part.

I still have my 43-86 and will probably use it again just for giggles. I have a Nikkor 24-120 that lives on my camera right now so the lowly 43-86 hasn't seen much action. I should scan some of the chromes I shot with the 43-86. You will be amazed. I have made very large prints from negs exposed using this lens and they were awesome. Obviously for most of you YM will V.

I think Stephen, of the OT, should go ahead and butcher it, as he suggested. Nothing to lose. Who knows, maybe it'll make interesting Photrio-style blurs and wiggles

 

[Dennis-B]

The version of the Nikkor 43-86 with the engraving inside the filter ring, was a real dog. I owned one, and it was soft on the edges, even stopped down, and suffered from some poor color correction, which was more noticeable with Ektachrome films.

The second version, with the engraving outside the filter ring, is much improved, although it's not a top performer. I carry it occasionally, but it doesn't have the performance of later models. It's still a bit soft, until it's stopped down to about f/8-f/11. As Eric Rose noted, I used it stopped down as far as possible. I wanted depth, for the most part, and didn't really care about shooting wide-open unless I was shooting for our local newspaper in B&W, and pushing Tri-X.

 

[StepheKoontz]

apparently a waste of my time too; won't happen again(blocked!)

Did I miss something here? I didn't mean to make anyone mad by having some fun with my photography...

 

[BradS]

I had the infamous 43-86mm f/3.5. It never seemed that bad to me. Certainly, it doesn't deserve the bad rap it gets on the internet. It was about as good as one could expect from a 1970's era zoom. My only real complaint about it was the considerable mass.

 

[George Mann]

I ended up with theAF Nikkor 35-70mm- f/3.5-4.5 instead and it's optical quality is poor too but, Ikept it because, It is light and versatile.at f/8 it is usable.

My late model 35-70 is a solid 4.2 @ F8 throughout its zoom range. It has just enough sharpness, contrast and resolve to correctly render the scenes I shoot, without leaving me wishing I had shot it with one of my primes.

I prefer it on my F90x for daylight slide-film shooting due to its diminutive size and weight.

 

[John Koehrer]

Did I miss something here? I didn't mean to make anyone mad by having some fun with my photography...

Nah! just a bunch of disgruntled, oversensitive cranky pantses.
There thankfully only a couple that like to complain about their preferences over yours. If you want you can egg them on.

 

[abruzzi]

I've also been toying with the idea of buying various cheap lenses and removing an element or two to see what that would look like, any tips on lenses that work well for that?

I recently saw some stuff abought reversing the front element on a Helios 44. Of course it turns it into a one trick pony, but the effect is interesting, especially with lots of bright vivid colors.

Some examples:

https://dominik-photography.com/2018/06/10/bali-photos-with-a-modified-helios-44-2-vintage-lens/