Nikon Nikkor-C Zoom 43-86

[Curt]

Is this a decent, ok, or great lens? I'm looking for something in this range among the multitude of lenses out there.

 

[BillBingham2]

It's a so-so lens. The newer version is said to be better but I'm not sure.

I'm more of a prime guy myself so I might not be the best guy to ask.

B2

 

[Curt]

Yea me too, primes, thought this might do for situation where a zoom would help.

 

[fstop]

Not the best choice in mid range zoom. 35-70 is better

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

The C means its the multicoated earlier optical version, which helps a bit, but that older one was not a very good lens overall, although it does have its charm as a portrait lens when set at 60mm at or near wide open. Yep, the improved 43-86 is very good and perhaps a match for some primes, it does have a crazy good color rendition.

 

[John Koehrer]

It's an early zoomer and though the later ones may be OK the older ones had visible distortion.
Pincushion at one end and barrel at the other.

 

[narsuitus]

My first zoom lens, a Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5, had such horrible image quality that I sold it and did not use zooms again for decades

 

[CGW]

It suffers from an urban legend rep as a dog, usually promoted by people who a)never knew there were two versions, and b) never shot either one. The later Ai version is no slouch, sharp with good contrast and a nice "walk-around" lens. The Ai is often available in EX shape for very little money, thanks to the early not-so-great NAI version.

 

[Bob-D659]

You want the AI or pre AI, K version with the black filter ring and the s/n of 774071 or higher around the outside of the filter ring thread, see http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I've was given 2 of these and bought one for 18.00, all the newer Ai versions. Astoundingly decent for the price.
My understanding for the older version was that it was good as a portrait/body lens because you could vary the barrel vs pincushion distortion ever so slightly to enhance or reduce.....It was Bob Guccione's favorite lens when he shot Pet's for Penthouse (NSFW!!) I think for this reason.

 

[Curt]

Thanks, it's a crapper then, I'll look for another lens to go with my 55mm Micro Nikkor, which I bought new, and know what it produces. I'm thinking in the range of 105mm now. I bought the F3hp and 55 for medical photography, brand new, and it still is. It's a great setup. As for picking a lens I haven't looked at Nikon 35mm in a long time.

 

[BradleyK]

Insofar as the short teles are concerned you may want to test out four before making your decision. The 105 f/2.5 AI/AIS is generally regarded as one of Nikon's best. That said, the newer 105 f/1.8 AIS would seem to match the former in sharpness while offering a minor gain in speed (even though you probably won't shoot wide open, the brighter image in the viewfinder is often appreciated). Weigh the gain in speed against the additional cost. Alongside the 105s, you should also give consideration to the 85 F/2 AI/AIS and the 85 F/1.4 AIS. Again, both are excellent lenses; the issue comes down to one of whether or not the one stop gain in speed is worth the price premium.
As an aside, I have owned/or own the following: 85mm f/2 AI, 85mm f/1.4 AIS, 105mm f/2.5 AI and 105mm f/1.8 AIS. My personal favorites remain the 85 f/1.4 AIS and the 105mm f/1.8 AIS. Although I have yet, if memory serves, to shoot wide open, I do appreciate the brighter viewfinder image in the faster lenses. For me, ease of use is the foremost consideration.:munch:

 

[cmo]

The only problem with the 105mm lenses is their price. They just went through the roof on ebay. Some people ask for 300 Euros for a lens that cost less than that 20 years ago.

The 135mm lenses are a good choice, too. I own a 2.8 and two 3.5 lenses, and they are all excellent and do not cost much.

If you like zooms, the 4.5 /80-200 is a great lens, and it's often sold for next to nothing.

 

[CGW]

The little E series 100/2.8 is killer. Small, light and very affordable--gives very little away to the bigger, heavier, and pricier 105/2.5. Use one with a 50/1.8E on an FG body for street shooting.

 

[PtJudeRI]

It's a stinker for sure, well, in the traditional sense. For Lomo style work, this lens is a $40 steal. Depends on what you like. The reviews were SO bad for this lens, that I had to get one. It has lived up to all the hype. But it has its place as a novelty lens.

ps.. whoops on the date!

 

[f/16]

It's a stinker for sure, well, in the traditional sense. For Lomo style work, this lens is a $40 steal. Depends on what you like. The reviews were SO bad for this lens, that I had to get one. It has lived up to all the hype. But it has its place as a novelty lens.

ps.. whoops on the date!

Which version did you get? I have an early AI'd one that is crap and an AI that is decent. And the AI does really good for macro with a 14mm tube from 43-60mm.

 

[Curt]

I did not acquire another lens. It is doubtful I will in the future, my needs have changed and my 35mm days have past.

 

[SafetyBob]

I got my AI version of it a long time ago because honestly, it was dirt cheap so I figured if it didn't work out so what. Got good solid shots from it from my FA, FE and the F4S. Shots were of kids playing in the back yard so no critical work here, but for fun shooting it worked for me and was lucky I got a good copy.

I can also say the 100 E works nicely too. Still want to get the "real" 105 lens, but so far the old cheap "E" lenses have worked well....

Bob E.

 

[benveniste]

The later 43-86mm was okay for sharpness, but distortion control left something to be desired. Here are a couple of "brick wall" shots from my 43-86mm f/3.5 AI.

View attachment 62933 View attachment 62934

 

[Curt]

I did not acquire another lens. It is doubtful I will in the future, my needs have changed and my 35mm days have past.

Curt is resting comfortable at home now, I think he sold that camera.

 

[Xmas]

Thanks, it's a crapper then,

You should be able to get one real cheap, it is big and it needs the hood, and I don't use it wide open.
If you are going to shoot test charts using a heavy tripod you would be dissappointed...

 

[GarageBoy]

That's hilariously bad distortion on that brick wall

Now...how do you use it to your advantage?