Loving the Nikkor 43-86

[DonW]

Oh I can feel the fingers already hitting the keyboards! This lens is the worst lens Nikon ever made, soft, pincushion and barrel distortion all for the price of one, flare and on and on. It kind of like Woodstock, if as many people actually went to Woodstock as say they did 10 million would have been there. The same goes for haters of the 43-86. Most have never actually used one and just parrot what they have read on the net.

Well I have had one since the 70's when it was my standard newspaper lens. Worked great for what I needed it for. I also used it a lot with both VPS, E6 (yuk I hated Kodak E6 films) and Kodachrome. I knew how to use the lens and it never let me down. I still have a 16x20 hanging on my wall that was made from a Fujichrome slide.

Anyway the reason I am bringing this up is that I just bought one of my old friends, the Nikon F with the Photomic head. It's the camera I started my professional career with and I needed to fill a space in my camera collection.

I have dug out my trusty old 43-86 Ver 1 and attached it to the F. Ah the memories .... Covering hostage situations, riots, car crashes, shootings and kiddy birthday parties. Oh and the odd indiscretion committed by the then rich and famous. Fun times, but lousy pay.

Here is a link to photographs taken with the venerable Nikkor 43-86 on Flickr. Lots of great stuff. Take a chance on one and learn how to use it. You just might be surprised. Your success with it will probably boil down to whether you are a pixel peeper or a photographic artist.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/nikkor 43-86/

Don

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Oh I can feel the fingers already hitting the keyboards! This lens is the worst lens Nikon ever made, soft, pincushion and barrel distortion all for the price of one, flare and on and on. It kind of like Woodstock, if as many people actually went to Woodstock as say they did 10 million would have been there. The same goes for haters of the 43-86. Most have never actually used one and just parrot what they have read on the net.

Well I have had one since the 70's when it was my standard newspaper lens. Worked great for what I needed it for. I also used it a lot with both VPS, E6 (yuk I hated Kodak E6 films) and Kodachrome. I knew how to use the lens and it never let me down. I still have a 16x20 hanging on my wall that was made from a Fujichrome slide.

Anyway the reason I am bringing this up is that I just bought one of my old friends, the Nikon F with the Photomic head. It's the camera I started my professional career with and I needed to fill a space in my camera collection.

I have dug out my trusty old 43-86 Ver 1 and attached it to the F. Ah the memories .... Covering hostage situations, riots, car crashes, shootings and kiddy birthday parties. Oh and the odd indiscretion committed by the then rich and famous. Fun times, but lousy pay.

Here is a link to photographs taken with the venerable Nikkor 43-86 on Flickr. Lots of great stuff. Take a chance on one and learn how to use it. You just might be surprised. Your success with it will probably boil down to whether you are a pixel peeper or a photographic artist.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/nikkor 43-86/

Don

Lens obviously worked for you. It was always attractive because of its ideal focal range. However, at the time it let me down with its optical quality compared to other Nikkor lenses.

 

[neeksgeek]

In praise of cheap standard zooms!

I’ve used two of the 43-86mm lenses. When I first got into photography I got one of the first-generation (Nikon F-era) ones, which wasn’t wonderful but I enjoyed the focal length range. It flared like crazy in any strong light. More recently I picked up one of the later examples, that came from the factory as an AI lens. It’s really quite nice, and lives on my FM.

Canon EF has its equivalent: the obscure little 38-76mm f/4.5-5.6. Makes a nice light walk-around lens, and it might not get any respect but I’ve exhibited images made with it and nobody complained.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I think it was the Nikkorex version that cemented its reputation.

 

[flavio81]

Oh I can feel the fingers already hitting the keyboards! This lens is the worst lens Nikon ever made, soft, pincushion and barrel distortion all for the price of one, flare and on and on. It kind of like Woodstock, if as many people actually went to Woodstock as say they did 10 million would have been there. The same goes for haters of the 43-86. Most have never actually used one and just parrot what they have read on the net.

Well I have had one since the 70's when it was my standard newspaper lens.(...)
I have dug out my trusty old 43-86 Ver 1 and attached it to the F.

Let's hope people specify which version of the 43-86 we're talking about because there are two radically different versions.

I had the later (more advanced) version and didn't like it -- objectionable distortion and the 43mm side wasn't too wide for me. Otherwise no issues.

 

[flavio81]

I think it was the Nikkorex version that cemented its reputation.

But that version is supposedly the exact same version that went into the pre-AI 43-86/3.5, all the way up to the mid 70s...

 

[flavio81]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/nikkor 43-86/

This just underlines that you're a great photographer, and that this is more important than lens quality (proof is what good photographers can do with a Holga lens).

Complimenti!

But I can see the aberrations, even in the shots that look very sharp such as the 3rd one in the gallery. However, you got a very good sample... and you love to pump up the sharpness and saturation in post processing.

Anyways, thank for the gallery... makes me want to get back my 43-86 (i gave it away to a cousin)

 

[DonW]

Those aren't my photos they are flickr photos that have been tagged with the 43-86. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

My lens is the ultra icky ver 1 lol.

Would I use this lens on a commercial product shoot? Nope. But it sure is a great general purpose walking around lens imho.

Don

 

[narsuitus]

The same goes for haters of the 43-86. Most have never actually used one and just parrot what they have read on the net.

Back in the early 70s 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 lens was too slow, at times the 43mm focal length was just not wide enough for my tastes, and the images were not sharp. In fact, the optical performance of this lens was so bad that it soured me to zoom lenses for decades. This lens shattered my opinion of the "Nikon" and "Nikkor" brand which up to that time, I thought was a guarantee of excellence.

Before I sold it, I used it, I tested it, and I hoped that I would find some redeeming quality. I could not. Only in hindsight can I say that the one good thing about this lens is that it contributed to my appreciation for the much improved zooms that came decades later.

 

[jim10219]

I've owned both the first and second versions. While I'll freely admit that they weren't as bad as their reputations suggest, they were both pretty bad. You can take a decent photo with either. They're good for family reunions, vacations, kid's birthdays, press photography and stuff like that. The focal length is really handy. But at the end of the day, they never could produce a decidedly sharp photo and the contrast was always pretty low.

My point being, if you're using one to post photos on the internet or make wallet sized prints, then they're fine. They will still surpass many point and shoot cameras of the era. But I would never buy one (both came to me as part of a camera package, and both were sold by me as part of a camera package). Mainly because just about any other lens you can buy will have better sharpness and contrast. It's hard not to find a Vivitar, Soligor, Tamron, or some other brand of lens that doesn't outperform them in every possible metric, and for around the same price. The biggest disappointment with those lenses isn't their performance, because their performance is still mediocre. It's the Nikkor name on them. And with that name, you expect better than just mediocre.

 

[randyB]

I came across one about 15 years ago at a yard sale. It was dirty, after cleaning, it did produce a decent image, not stellar but decent. I have other lenses that cover the fl range so I let this one go.

 

[dynachrome]

I have two AI models and they are OK if stopped down a little. At the time that the first version came out, no manufacturer made a short range zoom which was as sharp as the 35/2 Nikkor O at the short end or the 85/1.8 Nikkor H at the long end. I have and sill use those lenses but I use the 35/2 'K' (converted to AI) and the 85/2 AI more often now.

 

[DonW]

I love all the comments! The 43-86 is kind of like the VW Bug, not the best at anything but had a lot of heart lol.

 

[foveon_m]

and the contrast was always pretty low

but color rendition was great
(shooting digital decreased the need for this)