The venerable Nikon 43-86 zoom

[CMoore]

I had a bunch of "Undesirable" Nikon Lens.
Slower telephotos and a few Zooms.
I had 3 or 4 of the 43-86 zoom lens.
I put them up for sale on Craigslist. It has been a few years now, i cannot remember the price, but they were priced cheaply. I simply wanted to get rid of them.

I had quite a few emails about them and one guy that wanted a look and then he bought them.
Everybody commented about how bad the 43-86 was.
A couple guys wanted to know what i would sell the lens for WITHOUT the 43-86.
I told them the price was the same.
The guy that bought them said he was selling some Nikon bodies...he did not say which ones... and that he would screw the 43-86 onto those bodies to make the sale go easier

Shortly after i sold them i started to read that...........Gee Whiz, the 43-86 was not THAT bad...or that there was a second generation of them that was quite good.

So what IS the real dope on the 43-86.?
Just curious. I do not own any zooms.

Thank You

 

[bdial]

They have never had a good reputation optically.
But, back in the day, when Nikon F’s reigned, they were said to be popular with press photographers because they were light and compact and allowed easy fine tuning for framing and composition while working in a fixed position like in the press box at a news event. Just like we see now with photos that will mostly be seen on web pages, photos mainly intended for newspaper publication didn’t need a lot of technical quality, but the pictures had to get made, and needed to look compelling on the front page. And the 43-86 could deliver the goods in that context.

 

[madNbad]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

the focal range was a very compelling feature.

 

[narsuitus]

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

I passed on the 43-86, when I bought my F3P I had ordered a FA, I was out of the country on assignment when the FA arrived, the salesman sold it to another JP, I was pissed. The owner offered an FG kit at cost, came with FG, TTL flash and 35 to 70 E zoom. The 35 to 70 was slow but in good lighting or with the TTL flash was pretty good. Build quality was not much, I upgraded to 35 to 70 2.8 which I quite liked.

 

[mrosenlof]

Herbert Keppler of Modern Photography (in the 70's when I started subscribing, at Pop later) wrote about using that lens a lot. He occasionally wrote that it had never passed the magazine's test standards, mostly because of linear distortion.

I've never used one. It's on many "worst of nikon" lists. I hear rumors that later versions are better, mostly sharper, still with the distortion.

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?

 

[Wallendo]

I have one that came with a Nikkormat. I rarely used it. The images were a little soft, but I think the real reason I didn't use it much was that I found it awkward to use. At one time, pushing or pulling on a lens to zoom was routine, but I have become used to twisting the lens and the Nikon 43-86 lens didn't feel right to me. I have one of the original versions.

Maybe I should get it out and try using it on an FE to see it I like it better now, but I suspect I would still be happier with my 35-70 AF lens.

 

[DonW]

I used one for years with Kodachrome. It suited my needs very well.

 

[macfred]

When I sold one of my three F2 I put the 43-86 mm in the package as a free gift - buyer sent it back ...

 

[gone]

It's good for what it is, and what they sell for. In other words, it zooms in and out and makes an image on the film. If you want more than that, the 28 105 is miles sharper and has an even more useful focal length range. It also costs more. If it just wasn't so darned slow I'd get one for the versatility.

 

[Huss]

There were two versions. The version 1 with the silver ring on the front was crap.
The 2nd version was great.

Taken with the v2 and my just sold FM:

 

[benveniste]

I still have one of the later improved AI versions for which I paid about $20. The main flaw I find is distortion, as you can see in the "Air Conditioning" shot Huss posted. I presume that's at or near 86mm, at the "wide" end barrel distortion is about as bad. My own pics on request, although I think I posted examples here years ago.

 

[AZD]

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?

One example doesn't tell the whole story, but it's an interesting bit of Sherlock Holmes detective work:

Earlier this year I picked up a silver FE for cheap. The pictures in the classifieds were bad. The camera was dusty, but for $50 I was willing to try. I brought a fresh battery with me and the shutter speeds all sounded good. The seller was the original owner's son, getting rid of it as-is. Turned out to be a good deal as it cleaned up nicely and works perfectly. Anyhow, attached to it was an improved 43-86mm, well used but with perfect glass. The aperture ring detents are loose, external scuffs, miscellaneous crud in the crevices, etc. Chances are the lens and camera had been together since new (lens mounts on both had zero wear). One detail on the FE is revealing. There's a film door release interlock on the ISO dial, so you have to move the lever before pulling up on the rewind crank to open the door. Each time the interlock lever is actuated it rubs on the ISO dial. By the looks of it, this camera spent its entire life loaded with 200 speed film, and lots of it.

So, there's your user - an advanced amateur who, in the late 70s or early 80s, wanted exposure automation, fewer lenses (or precise framing), and used a lot of Kodacolor 200 or Ektachrome 200 (zoom lens framing makes me think the latter). None of that slow Panatomic-X or Kodachrome for him. He also liked the camera and paid to have it serviced in the early 1990s (repair sticker from a local shop inside film cannister recess) rather than invest in new equipment. He used both camera and lens frequently until setting them down permanently. It didn't stop working, so digital? Dirt nap? Don't know.

Hopefully it's not a terrible lens. I haven't used it much, but did take it to Yosemite along with my 24mm and 55mm, thinking I could use the 86mm end until I fill that out with a prime. Haven't made any prints yet, but they should be okay as I kept it around f/8-11 where possible. Only used it on subjects without straight lines, as the distortion is obvious even through the viewfinder. Does that make it a "character lens"?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Ok tribe here's my take.

It's a feature not a bug.

Over the years I've come across this quirky lens, Chrome Nose all the way up to the last Square Baffled NIC model, took them all apart and paired them with F's, FM's and Nikomats and passed them along back into the currents of used camera gear. It's a reasonable lens, but I found something interesting with this lens regarding the distortion. As everyone loves to rip on this lens comments(usually 3rd or 4th down on the list below Sharpness and Flare) the distortion from the modest wide to modest tele moves from barrel to pincushion, raging the infernal fires of brick wall shooting testers out there.
However, I thought about how this could be useful, and in particular happened to notice this exact lens being used quite a bit in a type of photography that would not be thought appropriate for such an obvious consumer lower quality optic.
The Photographer using this humble lens was Bob Guccione for shooting his model for his (men's) magazine, where it is somewhat commonly listed along with other camera gear he used for that month's layout.
I thought how odd, that a publisher who had a (then) successful magazine, who could conceivably use any camera and lens on the market (mid to late 1970's), why the hay would he choose this (ahem) Turdburger of a lens. (and not even the C or improved one.)
Well, as I found out when I had a catalog style shoot for a friend who had a bikini line (yeah I know rough), where the bikini models were of different sizes; with more body variety and variations than what would be cast for this type of faster pace volume type of product shooting. A bit stumped with the set up and recognizing the amount of work needed just to get thru the day and the need for a consistent body size in the final files, I whipped out a 43-86mm Ai New version. I had my pick of a couple of 50's, 85's, 105's, 135's, 80-200 so I wasn't limited by choice.
What I learned from my shooting was that in terms of sharpness it was perfectly adequate on an FX body (I recall perhaps a D610) and considering I used it at solid apertures 5.6-8 with strobes outside the sharpness in the files was perfectly fine.
What was very interesting was that if I started at roughly 60mm focal length at a distance to give me a 'upper thigh to just above the hair' framing of the model in camera, if I very slightly move the zoom either slightly wider or slightly narrower I could 'squeeze or stretch' using that dang lens's distortion on each model to give a consistent size, or subtly alter the size. Now, keep in mind I had models that ranged from around 5 feet/150cm and willow thin to 6 foot/ 180cm athletically muscular, so keeping everyone within a range really helped out the production of the catalog. I found I could also 'trim or fill' out individual models; plumping slim or slimming a bit, all with that small bit of distortion control. After going back and forth a few times and seeing what worked with each model I drew pencil marks on the zoom ring so I could work even quicker. All the marks showed I worked roughly between 70 and almost 50 (52-3).
I surmised that B. Guccione had a found his own use for this lens's distortion, seeing as he would be doing essentially the same type of shooting, (in my case with some amount of clothing). If you have one of these lenses you might want to try a test in this style, you may have a refreshed outlook on this lousy lens.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

 

[narsuitus]

I did the same but my 35-70 is also autofocus and if set to at least f/8 it is very decent.

Yes, when I bought my Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 autofocus, I set the aperture to f/8 and could use only it for shooting an entire wedding.