Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5 Zoom

<p>I wish, al the people, beginners and advanced amateurs read the post. Specially, those "technically superior minded". I started my serious photography, with a purchase of Nikon F2 Photomic, + 18, 24, 50mm, 43-85mm/3.5 zoom, 105, 135, and 300mm lenses, when I was 34 year old. Now I'm over 70 and going strong. I have the latest, and the best equipment possible, for my mostly landscape work. But, . . . a nostalgic felling hunting me lately, and started to buy back my very old equipment, to use film again, and test those lenses, specially the lenses having a bad reputation as the worst ever Nikons. To my surprise, some of them not bed lenses after all. My latest pick is the worst reviewed Nikon lens, the 43-85mm f/3.5 Zoom. I find one on eBay, in a almost new like condition, (the shipping cost was more, then the lens) and just get in Friday, and to day, nice and bright day, put the lens with a deep hood (!?) to my D700, and get a couple of shots from my 16th floor balcony. I was expecting something terrible bed images. To my surprise, the lens produced excellent sharpness, very nice color and contrast, both end of the zoom range, full open and different smaller aperture. Having a bunch of all lenses, some non AI and some I converted to AI, and all of them performing extremely well, on the D300 or on a D700. And those old lenses cost a fraction of new lenses, some of them almost free, the only thing, you has to know, how to use them. For those whom my don't believe me, I attaching some of the images, just shot them an hour ago. Never mind the very corners, who the hell looking in the corner, when you see an image, only the pixel piping techno freaks.<br>

 

 

</p>

<p>Bela,<br>

I think you are quite right. Many of the older Nikkor lenses are quite good, but we have all been accustomed to AF, and think we have no more time for manual focusing. It's a pity, but on the other hand, you can get the Ai-lenses quite cheap.</p>

<p>An image with the 43-86</p><div></div>

<p> Did you get the silver or black-nosed version? The black-nosed ones are much sharper. However, the silver-nosed ones have a distinctive optical signature rich with optically flawed character. The lenticular equivalent of a beautiful loser.</p>

<p>I had a 43-86mm (AI or AIS, not sure) lens, but it had too much barrel distortion. It was very noticeable in photos of doors in New Orleans' French Quarter.</p>

<p>My observation is not of the quality of the lens, which on film was not that great and certainly not up to the usual Nikon standards of the other lenses of the time , such as the 24mm 2.8, 55 macro,105 2.5 and 180 2.8. I think you will find that just about any lens that is put on the D3 or D700 sensor, will be more than sharp because of the quality of the camera, not necessarily the lens. </p>

<p>The fact is Per-Christian Nillsen, is, . . we become lazy, spoiled by technology. Focusing manual or AF, never saved any time for me, exception, in action photography, moving subject and such. . . . But! . . . How come those photographers produced beautiful action images when AF was non existent? Or! Sometime you can't rely on AF, you have to selectively using focusing, and close-up photography is an absolute no-no, on AF! You can chose the focusing area where you needed, but much faster if I have the lens/camera in a manual focus setting, and just focusing myself where ever I like it. I shoot all those test images in aperture priority, the only different is, I don't set the aperture on the camera, I did it on the lens aperture ring. </p><div></div>

<p>Hi Luis. I get the black-nosed version. S# 811056.</p>

<p>Michael! I have the same barrel distortion on my 24-70mm 2.8 . . . 2000 dollar lens then on this 24 dollar lens. I always known, this lens is a junk in every way. How wrong I was. Only one fact is thru. Do not point the lens to a bright light, Sun for example. The flare is very bad. But! How many time you need to include the Sun? Almost never. And I know very expensive lenses, having this problem. My AF-S 80-200/2.8 vas like this. Sold.</p>

<p>OH! One more thing. I don't have any filter on the lens. Usually I using filters only, when necessary! And I don't using this lens, it vas for my curiosity only, and to prove, the old lenses very good lenses after all, even some of the so called junks. I talking abut NIKONs of-course. Now, I going to test the lens on my D40. Bet, it going to be good too.</p>

<p>Hi Bela,<br>

Yes, we are spoilt by technology, and we set even higher standards for our equipment and ourselves. <br>

I also think we have to differentiate between pros and consumers/prosumers. For pros making a living of their photos, the demands from stock agencies for example, is set higher and higher, and to be able to deliver, they have to invest more in better equipment.<br>

For consumers/prosumers, we want the best quality, because we tend to compare our photos with those of the pros, and because we believe the marketing departments of the camera makers, who tell us we need the same equipment as the pros. Sure, I'd like to have a D3x instead of my D300, but do I take better photos with it? - probably not (yet), and will I pay for it? - No!.</p>

<p>Maybe we should sit down and consider - is it the final pictures or the equipment that is the most important to us?</p>

<p>On a D40. . . . It is ridiculous. Unbelievable, almost better then on the D700. At F8. And I checking on a LaCie 24" color calibrated monitor.</p><div></div>

<p>I love mine on the D40x, on ff film (F3) it does show a lot of distortion, but b/w images are very Leica old glowy image looking. Great lens. I use with the HN3 hood.</p>

<p>Bela,</p>

<p>I bought my 3.5/43-86 mm lens, s/n 528476, last year for my D40x camera body and it worked wonder. Your image has proved this. I can't mount this lens onto my D700 camera body, however. If I remember correctly, this lens was redesigned and the serial number is at about eight thousands or so. So, it's good to know that the second version of this lens does mount onto the D700 camera body. I had a choice between the first and second version of this lens and I went with the first version.</p>

<p>Since you mentioned the 2.8/24-70 mm lens, I was surprised and disappointed to find that my copy of the 2.8/24-70 lens performed worser than my 1.4/50 mm AF-D and 1.8/85 mm AF-D in terms of speed and accuracy. This happened a few times at low light conditions. By low light I mean EV values between 4 and 7 at 100 ASA.</p>

<p>I had one of the later 43-86 Nikkors (I was only shooting film then) and felt it was an excellent lens--especially at the long end. Shot my daughter's engagement picture with it and it was tack sharp. Wish I had it to use on my D300.</p>

<p>I'm glad to hear, you guys using this lens and happy with it. Yes it is a very good consumer lens and on digital it is performing very well. One of the advise for your guys is, always use a very deep lens hood to get the front element well shaded, all the time and your images going to be sharp and contrasty all the time. I using a Nikon HN-24 hood with a step down ring to fit to the 52mm lens tread. Never use a filter if it is not necessary! Lens hood is not a fancy thing, it is a very important gadget to get the lens well shaded of any light entering from the side to the front element. So many amateurs has no idea about this.</p>

<p>The various versions of the 43-86 ranged from very mediocre to acceptable when used with film cameras. The earliest version had really bad bokeh, the newer model improved significantly in this respect. Corner sharpness needed liberal stopping down, though. You coul put a 4T close-up lens on it and get very decent close-ups. On DLSRs, the 43-86 is not bad at all with the FX bodies, less so with the various DX Nikons. Again, the version to be preferred is the "black-nosed" with serial numbers above 774xxx.</p>

<p>A little known secret is that the 43-86 performs excellent in IR, if you're into that kind of photography. That's why I kept my sample, now CPU-modified, to this day.</p>

<p>Hi Bjorn. What a wonderful surprise. A comment from you is a honor to me. I highly pricing you reviews and opinions and your skills as a photographer and a electro/ mechanical genius. I wish I had the tools for all those modification you have. You have the 43-86 with a CPU ! . . . I am darn jealous for it. I have the skill for fine mechanical works, but don't have the tools and spare material to do all those CPU modification as you do. Thank you for the tip for using this lens as a closeup lens, I will try it.</p>

<p>Best regards; Tak so muket.</p>

<p>Bela</p>

<p>The original 1963 design of 9 elements in 7 groups was apparently not a winner. A lot of shooters don't seem to be aware that this lens was radically redesigned for the 'K' version in 1975 (s/n 774071 and higher) as a 11 element / 8 group lens, and this was carried over to the AI version in 1977 (s/n 810001 and higher). It is <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#MF43-86">apparently much improved optically</a> , as you have yourself confirmed.</p>

<p>Much of the "this lens is a dog" comments on this lens that you see is related to the early versions, and is often parroted information posted by users that haven't actually used it. And I'll admit that I haven't used it. I did have one in my possession for several weeks while brokering it on eBay for a friend, but never got a chance to shoot with it. A beautifully built lens, but the 43~86mm range seems a bit of an odd duck to me.</p>

<p>Yes, Michael, it is an odd duck. But you have to handle like a 50mm normal, with a chance to play a little bit, up and dow if you don't have an other chance. For those people, whom like to have a little bit of longer reach, the 86mm is a good chance, and the lens is performing very nicely on the 86mm range. I used to own the earlier version 40 year ago, sold, forget it, and now all those memories back, and against all those bed reviews a good surprise, how good is this lens is really. I had an AI-s version, can be mounted on the digital bodies D40, D300 & D700. </p>

<p>I suspect that part of the reason many of these older lenses perform well is because they have to be manually focused. Always relying on AF produces a fair share of out of focus shots...at least that's been my experience.</p>

<p>Hi Jim. . . . I believe also, on those times, 20 - 35 years ago, companies like Nikon, developed, manufactured the best they can, available on this time, build everything solid to last for ever, more strict quality control, not as mass produce as cheep as possible, like to day. Contracting out to third word countries, just to have a cheeper labour fees. Using mass produced plastic lens and camera bodies, or part of it, some cases even the most expensive items. Those days, those items where more expensive, not to many people had and buy Nikons, Canons, Pentax, or Leicas. To day, almost everybody running all over with big name equipments, - nothing wrong with that, when those days, only the pros and a couple of rich or well of guys had such an equipment. Those lenses where optimized for film, and they where much better then a film can bring out, and you can see to day the real quality with those digital bodies. Not really the AF is the answer for those lenses excellent quality. You right, many people relying to mach, or so mach on the automatization, they don't know noting about plying with light, adjusting cameras by manually. I see this many time, out there with a group. Those old lenses is darn good, not just because we producing so mach AF-ed unsharp images.</p>

<p>I have one too, given to me for free. I dont use it much, because I dont like its range; but when i do, the results are always good. I shoot almost only film, and have never used it with digital, but i might pop it on my D1h now that you mention it. At 86 it might make a good length medium tele after DX crop.<br>

Thanks Bjorn for the IR tip! That is a good reason to hold onto a copy of this lens.</p>

<p>Please visit my gallery. all picture with Panasonic G1 and canon fd MF lenses no need for AF, in fact much better Mf more freedom and precision . Cheers</p>

<p>Hi Andrew and Alex. A lens, an "odd duck" a "paper weight" turn out, not so bed after all. A good lens for IR photography, a close-up lens with a close-up attachment lens, an almost perfect medium zoom lens on a DX format camera, 64.5-129mm f/3.5. And if you have the one with a serial No. 80....... it is a sharp lens not more distortion then a AF-S 24-70/2.8 super expensive midrange zoom, and a monster compared to the size of 43-86. And as Alex mentioned, AF not really a necessary thing, ( blind men and action photography an exception ) in the way, make us lazy photographers, using all the time needed or not all the automatizations, we become a point & shooters, instead of a creative photographers. Many amateurs in my group don't even know, how to use they camera ( expensive Nikons & Canons) with "Manual' mode. Ones I had a lady with me, she can't even find the light mater in the camera, after visually explained to her, and several try, still didn't find it and get hysterical, and let her photograph "A" priority as she used to it, when the subject required manual operation. Back to the 43-86. I didn't checked out on a DX D300, but to day I going to grab the D300 and the 43-86 and get out for a couple of shoots. I guess, using on a DX camera, the lens using only the sweet middle spot, going to be even better.</p>