the focal range was a very compelling feature.The Nikkormat with a 43-86 was a popular combination for average users. It provided just enough range to make it easier when using slide film. It’s compact size was a bonus. Despite its reputation, Nikon made a whole lot of them.
I would be curious to know what the market was in, say the 70s. Were its primary buyers newspaper pros. amateurs, or some other group?
I did the same but my 35-70 is also autofocus and if set to at least f/8 it is very decent.Back in the early 1970s, I was a newspaper press photographer who only owned and used prime lenses. I routinely used a 35mm f/2 and an 85mm f/1.8 on a Nikon SLR (F then F2).
At the time, I thought a mid-range zoom lens might be useful for the times when I wanted to carry only one camera body and one lens. I bought the Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5 (serial #958521) as my first zoom lens.
However, the 43-86 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 for my tastes. This lens shattered my opinion of the "Nikon" and "Nikkor" brand which up to that time, I thought was a guarantee of excellence. In fact, the optical performance of this lens was so bad that it soured me to zoom lenses for decades.
Thirty plus years after I dumped my first zoom, the 43-86 Nikon f/3.5, I purchased my second zoom, a Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8, in October, 2005.
I have since replaced the 35-70 with the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 auto focus. The 28-70mm is my current one-lens solution.
I did the same but my 35-70 is also autofocus and if set to at least f/8 it is very decent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?