Nikkor 43-86 Push pull zoom, worth keeping? What say U?

[Scott Murphy]

I have the multicoated AI version not the old amber coated non-AI. From what I understand, the later version was noticeably improved when it came to sharpness and especially contrast, due in great measure to the much improved coatings. I really have no gripes about the lens. It is very small and light and works great on the F3HP and even on my D850. When this lens came out, it was somewhat of a novel. But it's focal length range is rather limited by modern standards. I am not a huge range of zooms, preferring to opt for fast primes but if I a just going out walking around Charleston, SC, I will usually take my 24-50mm AIS and 50-135 AIS. If I anticipate I will need something longer, I will take the 50-300 AIS intead of the 50-135mm but it is somewhat bulky and heavy.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

My pro parents got a 43-86 zoom in around 1965 when I was 10. It was our second Nikkor lens after we'd begun with a Nikkorex F and 50mm/f2 a couple of years earlier.

That was the first zoom lens we'd ever seen, and it was briefly exciting... But its results were seriously disappointing: most of its images were too soft for "real" work, and it was quickly consigned for use only for family vacation slides. We next got a 105mm/2.5, which was of course wonderful... and I'm still getting beautiful shots with that lens today.

But count me as one of those photographers who was ruined for zooms forever by the 43-86: I have NEVER personally bought a zoom lens. Not for my pre-AI Nikon gear, not for my Olympus OM gear. I remain a prime lens guy. Of course, zoom lenses quickly got much better and became more common than prime lenses... but I wasn't interested. (I'm a bit of a luddite. I never made the leap to autofocus SLRs either, and I've never owned a decent digital camera.)

And our old 43-86? Its zoom mechanism had seized up years ago and it just sat in the equipment cabinet. In 2011, we mounted it on an also long-broken Nikkormat FTN body and put in our father's coffin. He'd been a photographer since the 1930s and it seemed appropriate.

 

[Chan Tran]

I guess you should keep it in your drawer as it's not very good and you wouldn't get much money selling it either.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Dear APUG Members,

Upon the wife's insistence of doing some spring cleaning in the garage, I found in a drawer a clean 43-86 pushpull zoom NON ai for my Nikkormat FT2, I remember using it and found it un-inspiring as the 50mm 1.4 that I have on the camera is brighter, sharper and more contrasty......I think if I were going on a weekend trip, the 43-86 would have more versatility, but I defer to those with more experience on this....

a) If I keep it are there any tips to get better sharpness, detail etc.
b) if I sell it, it is not one of the Nikon crown jewels.
c) As a second lens for it would most go for the 105. 2.5 or the 85mm?
d) Seems like Nikon manufactured this lens for a good 15-20 years, if it wasn't that great, how come
they kept it in their lineup?
e) Any portraits taken with this lens I would love to see the images, as I find the primes better all round.

What say You?


Regards,

Harlequin

probably Nikon's worst lens and the one that gave all zooms a bad rep. It was kept because its zoom range was highly attractive to newcomers to the system and wasn't that expensive, As to the choice of a second lens, I would go for the 85mm f/2, which is a terrific portrait lens but, the 105mm is a good choice as well!

 

[GregY]

"the second one sucked a little less."..... not one of Nikon's star performers. As far as the range goes. 43-86 is about two steps. I'd rather have one good lens than this one. I'd sell or give it to someone who might use it. You can always replace it for $20 at Keh.

 

[chuckroast]

Dear APUG Members,

Upon the wife's insistence of doing some spring cleaning in the garage, I found in a drawer a clean 43-86 pushpull zoom NON ai for my Nikkormat FT2, I remember using it and found it un-inspiring as the 50mm 1.4 that I have on the camera is brighter, sharper and more contrasty......I think if I were going on a weekend trip, the 43-86 would have more versatility, but I defer to those with more experience on this....

a) If I keep it are there any tips to get better sharpness, detail etc.
b) if I sell it, it is not one of the Nikon crown jewels.
c) As a second lens for it would most go for the 105. 2.5 or the 85mm?
d) Seems like Nikon manufactured this lens for a good 15-20 years, if it wasn't that great, how come
they kept it in their lineup?
e) Any portraits taken with this lens I would love to see the images, as I find the primes better all round.

What say You?


Regards,

Harlequin

I've had several of these and they were uniformly awful.

A better choice in that regard is the 35-105mm Macro. It's a considerably better performer.

Realistically, while the old Ai-S primes were superb, none of the zooms were great. The computational power required to design a good zoom didn't really exist until around the same time autofocus was becoming a thing. That combined with demands digital placed on a lens drove zoom design to very much better place in the ensuing years.

(Coincidentally, I happen to have a 35-105mm for sale in the Classifieds here

 

[mrosenlof]

Another old thread resurrected!

Herbert Keppler of Modern and then Popular Photography magazines reported using it often in his 1970s columns. He did admit that it had never passed Modern's standards for a lens review due mostly to linear distortion. And yes, photos taken to showcase linear distortion *really* show it.

IMO, it's a great zoom range, but ya not a great lens. I'm going to guess Nikon sold a boatload of them to newspaper photographers. It's still a lot sharper than 1960s/70s newspaper halftone reproduction.

 

[MarkS]

There are plenty of superb Nikon lenses, but the 43-86 is not one of them.
(I bought one at a garage sale price and upon seeing the results, wrote it off as a loss.)
Don't waste your time, film, and pictures with it.

 

[xkaes]

There are plenty of superb Nikon lenses, but the 43-86 is not one of them.

And so many other NON-Nikon lenses, in the same range, that will fit. Vivitar made a 35-85mm f2.8, but for my money it's the Vivitar one-touch 35-70mm f2.8/3.5 -- MUCH smaller and sharp.

http://www.subclub.org/minman/lenstable.htm

 

[r_a_feldman]

And so many other NON-Nikon lenses, in the same range, that will fit. Vivitar made a 35-85mm f2.8, but for my money it's the Vivitar one-touch 35-70mm f2.8/3.5 -- MUCH smaller and sharp.

http://www.subclub.org/minman/lenstable.htm

The Olympus 28-48mm f4 is a very good wide-to-normal zoom lens. Not very fast wide open and less than a 2:1 zoom ratio, but it is small (it uses 49mm filters like most OM-1 lenses), fairly light (300g), and of good optical quality. I use mine on both my Olympus Pen FT (40-69mm equivalent) and Fujifilm X-E1 (42-72mm equivalent), as well as my OM-10.

 

[dalahorse]

My father used the non-AI version for wedding photography to put himself through college. For his purposes, it was a workhorse.

When I turned 30, he passed along his FTn, 50/1.4, and 48-86 to me. The 50 is great! I'll always cherish the zoom. But I'll never use it.