Any Nikon 43-86mm users?

[agnosticnikon]

Yeah I know, this wasn't one of Nikons great lenses, but I've always seemed to have one or two around. It's a weird focal length, based on 43mm being the perfect normal lens for 35mm cameras I guess. I picked up an original model off my shelf, and got to thinking, should I try to shoot this again? It's been years since I've used this, as I use the newer designed ai lens if I decide to use one. Zoom lenses have changed a lot since then, but this was a nicely built lens, fairly small, push-pull zoom-focus in one ring, and a constant 3.5 aperture.
I actually compared the two lenses years ago when I picked up the newer model, and was surprised at the difference! The older lens was much softer around the edges, even when stopped down a couple of stops. But I do remember using this to an advantage when taking portraits wide open at 86mm. The newer design is a much better lens, but I think the damage to the lenses reputation was already done, as nobody ever seems to have anything good to say about either of them.

Does anybody still use this lens, and if so what do you think about it?

 

[Vonder]

I received the newer, non-AI version of this lens for Christmas. I've shot one roll with it as the exclusive lens and I think it's ok... not exceptional, but certainly worth using. I may fool around with it some more on my D3000 before passing final judgement though.

 

[ArtO]

I have an AI version of this lens and use it once in a while. I find the results to be quite good. I usually shot more in the f8 - f5.6 range.

 

[Steve Smith]

I used to have one about twenty five years ago when it was the only lens I had for a Nikon FG.

This was back when I only owned one camera (hard to imagine now!).

I still have the FG but not the lens.


Steve.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

The newer Ai version is much better than the older one, but the older one has its charm especially with the older ladies. Clinically sharp is not always welcome.
Also remember that Bob Guccione used one extensively in his "coverage" as his main lens in the 1970's magazine Penthouse.

 

[bdial]

Years ago, when there weren't any other wide to normal or wide to tele zooms, I heard that it was a popular lens with photojournalists because you tweak your framing without "zooming with your feet", which isn't always feasible.

 

[removed-user-1]

The original 43-86mm was the first lens I used extensively while learning photography as a teenager in the late 80s (it was the only lens in my Dad's Nikon F kit that he would usually let me use). I got my own Nikon F in 1992, when I was in college, and it came with a 50mm f/2 Nikkor, which frankly blows the socks off the zoom. But I did like the 43-86 and made some fairly nice pictures with it. We still have it, and that particular example flares easily, is not sharp, and has some noticeable distortion of straight lines, especially at close distances (or maybe it's just more noticeable then). Now I prefer the 35-105mm Nikkor for a general-purpose zoom, and that's the only lens I have for my F3.

There are a few older threads on APUG discussing this lens; just search 43-86 and you should find more info.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Yeah lots of discussion on this lens here earlier.

Bottom line is if you're going to shoot test charts and use a tripod and enlarge to full size and sharpness is your most important aspect then consider a different lens. If you'll use it mostly for shooting and taking nice photos then its not a bad lens at all:

 

[Alex Muir]

I had one of the older versions, and funnily enough it was used on an F that I had in the late 80's/early 90's. I thought the image quality was very poor. I didn't have much spare cash at the time, but thought that investing in a Nikon branded lens was the best option. I persevered with it for a while, but the poor image quality was very frustrating. I now have various other Nikon lenses, most of which are excellent. (although I still don't have a lot of spare cash!).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

i've never seen older ladies in a penthouse magazine. anyway, i replaced mine with a nikkor 35-70f/3.3-4.5, which s terrible at any fstopeven oon my d800.

 

[agnosticnikon]

i've never seen older ladies in a penthouse magazine. anyway, i replaced mine with a nikkor 35-70f/3.3-4.5, which s terrible at any fstopeven oon my d800.

This is an interesting comment. I've used the Nikon 35-70mm 3.3-4.5 lens mentioned, and have had very good results with it. In fact I've had other photographers ask what lens I used to take the photos they've seen me show them, because they thought they were very sharp. I've seen good comments on it and bad comments on it. Moose Peterson thinks its a sleeper lens giving very sharp results, while Ken Rockwell thinks it's a piece of crap. Given my experience with it, I can only assume that there must be a lot of manufacturing variance between lenses.
Never heard about the Penthouse magazine connection with the 43-86 lens. Thought it was mostly vaseline on the filter. (to cover the old ladies wrinkles)

 

[agnosticnikon]

Yeah lots of discussion on this lens here earlier.

Bottom line is if you're going to shoot test charts and use a tripod and enlarge to full size and sharpness is your most important aspect then consider a different lens. If you'll use it mostly for shooting and taking nice photos then its not a bad lens at all:

I agree, very nice shot by the way!

 

[narsuitus]

Many years ago when I was shooting for a newspaper, I thought a mid-range zoom lens might be useful for the times when I only wanted to carry one camera body and one lens. Up to that time, I had only used prime lenses. The 43-86mm f/3.5 Nikon lens was my first zoom lens.

However, it was a big disappointment because it was too slow, its images were not sharp, and there were many times when 43mm was just not wide enough. In fact, the optical performance of this lens was so bad that it soured me to zoom lenses for decades.

 

[blockend]

Talking inexpensive Nikon zooms, 28-80 AFD is actually a good lens. Often came as kit on consumer SLRs.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2880.htm

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Well, in the back of many 1970 issues there is a small blip on photo details, he shot with Nikon F2 43-86mm lens (specifically mentioned lol) and tiffen filters.
As the Nikon One Thousand and One Nights article about this lens, around 60mm focal length works very well. I use mine for bikini work LOL, see one shot at
http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/10/27/another-nikon-d600-bikini-post/

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Sorry I think that one was the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5.
This one should be the 43-86mm
http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/09/26/nikon-d600-and-bikinis/

 

[benveniste]

I purchased a 43-86mm f/3.5 AI for something like $22 simply to twist people's noses a bit on other forums. Those people were talking about how the D800 "required" certain lenses and I wanted to demonstrate otherwise.

In one notable thread, a troll accused me of lying about a 43-86mm shot. He claimed it clearly had to come from a prime lens because it was so much sharper than his shot with a 24-70mm f/2.8. In reality, all that the shot really showed was that the 43-86mm didn't have much field curvature near minimum focus; my shot had more resolving power at the edges but overall contrast was noticeably lower.

Distortion is another matter. Don't ever take a brick wall shot with lens at either of the extremes -- you'll wince at the results. In all, I doubt I'll shoot any film with the 43-86mm. Instead, when the Nikon FA comes out to play, so will the 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 that I've been using for 25+ years.

 

[LJSLATER]

Sorry I think that one was the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5.
This one should be the 43-86mm
http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/09/26/nikon-d600-and-bikinis/

Well, there's no such thing as posting too many bikini photos.

I don't have the 43-86mm but it's on my list. I want a first gen; it's an important part of history for Nikon users.

 

[Jim Rice]

Wasn't the first gen the only lens that Nikon publicly apologized for?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

why?it started a popular trend of short range zooms. the zoom range was ideal!for general use.

 

[Steve Smith]

I purchased a 43-86mm f/3.5 AI for something like $22 simply to twist people's noses a bit on other forums. Those people were talking about how the D800 "required" certain lenses and I wanted to demonstrate otherwise.

I like the way you think!!!

I don't have the 43-86mm but it's on my list. I want a first gen; it's an important part of history for Nikon users.

Until this thread appeared, I didn't want one - now I do!. I would like one to put my Nikon FG back to the way I first had it twenty five years ago.


Steve.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

I purchased a 43-86mm f/3.5 AI for something like $22 simply to twist people's noses a bit on other forums. Those people were talking about how the D800 "required" certain lenses and I wanted to demonstrate otherwise.

In one notable thread, a troll accused me of lying about a 43-86mm shot. He claimed it clearly had to come from a prime lens because it was so much sharper than his shot with a 24-70mm f/2.8. In reality, all that the shot really showed was that the 43-86mm didn't have much field curvature near minimum focus; my shot had more resolving power at the edges but overall contrast was noticeably lower.

Distortion is another matter. Don't ever take a brick wall shot with lens at either of the extremes -- you'll wince at the results. In all, I doubt I'll shoot any film with the 43-86mm. Instead, when the Nikon FA comes out to play, so will the 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 that I've been using for 25+ years.

Michael,

A friend of mine who works at one of the local Seattle-area camera pushers popped one of the original 43-86's on his D800E. It was sharp, but very flat, contrast-wise. My own experience was with the C version. Ok lens, but, not great. Part of the reason may've been due to the 1st generation Velvia I was using. Had been frozen for many years, but that may not've been enough to prevent things from going bad.



Anyway, a shot of waterlillies in Lake Washington at Juanita Bay Park in Kirkland, WA. Taken with said 43-86, mounted to my F FTn body.

-J

 

[newcan1]

I have an AI version and a non AI version. They are actually among my favorite lenses. I use the non-AI on my older Nikkormats and the AI on newer bodies. The attached shot used the AI version.

 

[benveniste]

I found my "brick wall" shots, for anyone who's interested:

 

[PhotoJim]

Pretty sad that I can see the distortion on the thumbnails.

My short-ratio Nikkor is my 35-80/4-5.6D (first gen). It's a really nice lens, if you don't mind it being so slow. It sure is sharp.