Nikon 43-86mm zoom, junk?

I have seen so many comments on this lens that it is total junk and to

stay away from it. Certainly the range it offers isn't very

attractive to me, I tend to like a zoom that goes down to at least

28mm, but I can get one of these for just $50 and am thinking of using

it with my FM2n as a "go anywhere, anytime, any weather" combination.

Sometimes I want to photograph in a somewhat sketchy area, or in

sketchy weather, and I want more than a fixed focal length lens. This

seems to be the cheapest Nikon zoom that has some semblance of build

quality. I don't like the later plastic AF entry-level zooms. I want

a lens that if worse comes to worse, and some dude tackles me and it

gets damaged, I won't cry over it.

 

Any opinions? Anyone else have a set like this? I want to walk

around the industrial district and other weird areas in the city and

photograph and not worry about losing my precious F3HP.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

I tried one in 1988. Even in postcard prints the quality was comparable to my focus-free point-n-shoot. Far cry from the 50/1.8. This may well have been the worst zoom I've used.

 

If I were in your situation I'd choose a 35mm Canon AF zoom P&S or even better the Pentax WR models.

Dave , as a lifelong Nikon person, I do have to admit that this lens is not up to Nikon standards.It never was a very useful range and it much better suited to keeping papers from blowing off your desk. I would feel bad for the person who stole this lens from you . If they ever used the lens, you might have them trying to find you, to do bodily harm in retaliation for soft photos.

You might find that third party lenses in that range are not so bad, and also pretty cheap. Sigma, for example, made a 35-70/ 2.8-4 which, at least in its Konica mount variant, I have found pretty reasonable, and they're dirt cheap these days. Or if you must have a Nikon lens, how about a 35-105 AIS? More money, but a pretty good range.

Actually, it depends how old it is. The early versions of this zoom were extremely low contrast crap. But, over it's life, Nikon did significantly improve it. In my experience, examples in the later part of it's life time, say with Serial numbers in the 9xxxxxxxx range, are useable decent lenses, especially if stopped down to at least f5.6,

Try one of this. Should be less then $50. My copy yields good results. Why use a 43-86mm when you want a 28-70?<div></div>

Yeah I think I want to stay with Nikon. I find the build quality on Nikon lenses so way beyond Tokina Sigma and the like. The thought here is rugged. I may be leaving this camera in a ziploc under the seat of my car for days on end, just to have it with me. I've seen Tokina lenses and I know they are good, but I just feel that what's the use shooting with a Nikon body when Nikon is so famous for its optics?

 

I'd really like the Nikon 25-50mm zoom, but those seem to sell for mucho deniros lately...

 

Dave

If you want a cheap zoom, another candidate would be the 35-70 f3.3-4.5. It's cheap but really sharp and covers a better range. I've used this lens and like it. But I am selling mine since I've switched to all primes. Email me if you are interested and I'll let you have mine well under $50.

Or the Nikon 36-72mm f/3.5 Series E manual lens, compact and constant aperture, push and pull zoom, very hany and fast focusing action, sharp AND cheap but quite good build quality.

According to what I've read from some credible sources the later versions of the 43-86 weren't bad. But since the early version had a bad rep you should be able to pick up a later version cheap.

 

Heck, if nothing else it's a cool looking zoom. It just looks right on a Photomic FTN.

 

If you want a good midrange zoom for your FM2N, try to locate a Vivitar Series 1, something like the 28-90/2.8-3.6. I've had two of these, one in Olympus and one in Canon FD mount. You should be able to pick up one for around $100 or less. It's solid optically with a few flaws. There's quite a bit of barrel distortion at 28mm and noticeable light falloff until it's stopped down to f/5.6. It has a pleasant softness wide open at 90mm. Its sweet spot is at around 50mm where color saturation is very vivid and it's almost too contrasty, but makes for some really punchy photos. Iris shaped ghosting can be a problem in tricky lighting but it's resistant to veiling flare.

I still own the 43-86mm/f3.5 AI that I bought back in 1977, as it is the very first Nikon lens I own. The serial number is 818***. It is indeed a very soft lens. Back then, most zooms were those 80-200mm type; it was rare to have a zoom that went shorter than 50mm.

 

Are your photography opportunities important to you? With a rather soft lens and a limiting range, you may wish you had a different lens a lot of times. If it were up to me, I would rather have a modern cheap plastic lens with a better zoom range and most likely better optics. If that cheap plastic lens falls apart, just get another lens.

A second to Anupam on the 35 - 70 3.5 - 5.6. It is really quite sharp, no color cast, is lightweight and small. It was one of two lenses I bought with my first SLR. I still have it and use it when it suits.

 

Conni

This photo was shot with a later ai version of the 43-86 lens. It produced decent photos but I couldn't get excited about the focal length.<div></div>

The later, AI version is a perfectly acceptable lens that's really compromised only by its offbeat zoom range. The early non-AI version sucked but the later AI works nicely as a walk-around lens. Most who dis the lens never owned this version and simply parrot the urban legend rep of the early NAI samples. It's not blindingly sharp wide-open and benefits from a lens hood--the little Nikon rubber hood for the 50mm works fine.

I still have my FE-2, 50mm f1.8 and 43-86mm f3.5 (both AIS lenses)

although I don't use them anymore having gone digital (D-70 and coolpix 5400 as backup). I originally bought the 43-86 as I loved the range (slightly wide angle to slightly portrait) and I have always liked the perspective. Serial no. is 104... so I guess it was advanced enough at the time to be one of the better ones. This lens has usually been considered one of Nikons worst lenses (but a bad Nikon lens can often be better than some others good lenses!).

You did mention not really liking the zoom range of this lens so I would say that if that's the case, you probably should not get it. regards, cb

There was a tweaking of this lens, and performance was improved from the initial formula, so to dismiss it as "bad" might not be fair. I have a late (serial number over a million) version that is not too bad. It would not be my only Nikkor, but I still keep it in my line up for the things it does well.

 

To be sure, this lens would not look impressive if you were to simply read graphs or charts about line pairs per millimeters or percentages of distortion, but not everything can be summed up by raw specifications. The things that make this lens look bad on paper can make it a good tool for certain things. The 43-86mm zoom can be a very effective "people" lens. It had a slightly soft image at the first aperture that can render people with less than perfect complexions in a more flattering way. The lens at f/3.5 and at 85mm can be used as a portrait lens that can give images that would be more complimentary to people that can't stand the scrutiny of a more modern lens. A sharp lens and a portrait lens are not often the same thing for real people with less than perfect faces.

 

For general photography 43-86mm might not fall into a range of usefulness for many subjects, it is not truly wide or truly long, but if you think of it as a 50mm lens with some ability to play with the framing, it is not too bad. At the middle of the aperture ring, it gets nice and sharp. I keep an HN-3 hood on my lens which is the listed proper hood.

 

Mechanically, this lens would make some users of the more modern (plastic) lenses envious. My 30 year old lens is as sound and precise as the day it was bought.<div></div>

I certainly agree with everything Albert just said (my serial no. is also over a million so it's a good one); I would just say that if you like the zoom range, get it-it's a very good walk around lens-if you don't like the zoom range, then don't get it as you will not be happy with it even if you like the quality. cb

For 10 years the 43-86 zoom was my only lens. It came with the FE I bought in 1989. I

was and am quite happy with it. It is not outstanding, but a good general lens. It has been

said that there were quality issues and that some lenses were better than others. In my

opinion, it is far better than the more modern, lightweight 35-70.

 

Attached is photo of the mechanism of a steam engine<div></div>

Mr. Smith, it is always a pleasure to read your reviews, which are so rational and balanced, and reflect your hands-on experience rather than what you read somewhere. Many thanks for your contributions here and elsewhere!

Remember; those ancient 1963 amateur low contrast 43-86mm's were used on Nikkorex Zooms with high contrast Kodachrome II or Kodachrome-X.

I got one of these for next to nothing in a pawn shop. It is the chrome nose Nippon Kogaku (has been AI'd) first model. The problem with this lens is that most people ran around shooting it wide open or barely stopped down. And soft results would happend in larger (5x7-8x10) prints.

 

I tested mine with chrome film, shooting with the sun behind me at F:8 and F:11. The results were very sharp under a 4X loupe. Even with a cheap 8X loupe, they were acceptable.

 

The later ais lenses were redsigned and, I think added another lens element.

 

If you can live with 43mm at the wide end ( I would need at least 35mm) then it should be a great walk around lens...especially stopped down.

Wouldn't it be a good portrait lens then, on a digital body with its 1.5 crop? 65-130 mm equivalent and no need for softar.

The worst lens I've ever owned and the only Nikon lens I ever sold was the Nikon 35-70mm f3.3-4.5 AF (sold it for $35 when it was 6 months old, it only sold for about $70 brand new)...I've still got my Nikon 43-86mm AI which is FAR superior and a very nice portrait lens. Ignore the parrots who've never used the lens and/or don't know the negatives apply to the lens permanently affixed to the old Nikkorex AND the pre-AI versions only. If the lens is the AI version, TRY it for a few shots and see what you think.

 

George

George,

You might very well have had a bad sample. I have owned and used three different examples of those 35-70 AF3.3-4.5 Nikkors and every one was very, very sharp. I also have the two of the 35-70 manual Nikkors that preceded them (I understand the optics are identical), and have never been disappointed with them either. The focal length is not ideal, but the size sure is.

I have a 43-86 Non AI, and it might be just a particularly good one, but it seems to be sharp enough. Its by no means perfect, but for portraits I think it makes people just ever so slightly soft.

 

How is it a bad range? Many people buy a 50 and an 85. True, that combo is much faster, but the range is very good for portraits on a film or digital camera.