Getting the best out of the 43-86mm zoom

[Ian Rance]

<p>My Father has just got himself a used F100 and also a used 43-86mm f/3.5 zoom to go with it.</p>

<p>I have cleaned both items carefully and now they both look almost new. I have not used or seen this zoom before, but is seems very nice (looking at the serial number it dates from around 1973). The lens has been factory ai'd.</p>

<p>I am interested to know what apertures it is best at and also any user info from those who have it. Does it also benefit from a lens hood?</p>

<p>Just looking through the viewfinder of my F3, I am very impressed with the distortion control - at wide angle setting and minimum focus distance, straight lines look straighter than any zoom lens I have ever seen. In my 1963 Wall Street Cameras price list I see that this lens was priced the same as the 105mm f2.5 so it would not have been cheap by any means.</p>

<p>Thanks for any input.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>It was not one of my favorite zooms. I found it to be a bit on the soft side. If you get a chance, borrow or buy a 50mm f/1.8, or f/2 and see what you think. There is quite a bit of difference. But then those were pretty early days in the world of zoom lenses. That's not to say you can't get good images from it.</p>

[gogu]

<p>Hi Ian!<br>

IIRC from the film days, the 43-86mm was one of the worst zoom lenses (if not the absolutely worst) Nikon ever made! I remember to be quite soft, I had to close it down to 8 or 11 to get some acceptable results.</p>

<p>rgrds</p>

[georg_rademacher]

<p>There are two different versions of this lens, and the second one is MUCH better than the first!</p>

<p>Best regards</p>

<p>Georg</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ian,</p>

<p>You have much better lenses!</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Thanks for the input. Just to clafify, this is not my lens - I have other lenses in that range - but a lens purchaced by my Dad to get into the Nikon system (him being a canon (FD/EOS) user). Georg - the lens he purchaced is the first version (1971-1974).</p>

<p>From what you say it needs stoping down a bit - any other hints? Do you have any photos to share taken with this lens to share?</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I've used it, by today's standards, it's awful. Don't know what you want to stop it down to, but it handles awful and is really nothing special... Even the range is kinda funky.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> If it has a chrome nose, it's the one with the bad rep. It is at its best at around f/9-11. For a regular snapper, it is a perfectly usable lens with faster films. When it came out, all the journalists loved it, BTW.</p>

<p> The black-nosed one is a lot better, btw.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>Serial numbers 774071 and above have an entirely different optical design (11 elements, 8 groups) than the early design from 1963 (9 elements, 7 groups) that gave this one the reputation as a "dog". The later one was apparently much improved and a pretty decent zoom by the standards of the time. And although the early versions were apparently pretty lackluster, you do need to put it into context. It was one of the first zooms from Nikon, and zoom quality from all makers was pretty second rate in 1963.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>The model you have definately isn't one to write home about. The later ai version, however, isn't that bad a lens--especially for portraits--despite what the naysayers claim.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>This seems to be the earlier, 1963 43-85mm zoom--it was the first "normal" zoom made by Nikon. It is not a good sign that it was originally designed for the ill-fated Nikkorex (otherwise known for the fact that Nikon would have preferred that they had never made it).<br /> It was, like so many first attempts, only marginally successful, and many people blame it for the poor reputation of zoom lenses in general in the years that followed.<br /> A revised version from 1975 was better, but the peculiar range of its reach was probably a factor in its being dropped after 1982.</p>

<p>In short, this is an historically important lens for a collector, but not for a user.</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>The 43-86 was my first Nikon lens. I hated it. I wondered why the guy who sold it to me had an evil grin on his face. When I got my first prints back, I knew. If your father's lens is as bad as my old one, he'll get the best use out of it as a paperweight.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I never used the first version, but used the latter version of the lens, and it was a dog. I'd hate to see how bad the first version was.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>When the roll has finished I will share the results with you.</p>

[dave_brooks1]

<p>I have used a very late version of the lens for about 15 years, and find it to be very satisfactory. I have sold cityscapes shot with this lens, some as large as 16 x 20 , on several occasions. Not as sharp as primes, and it does have some pincushion & barrel distortion at the extremes of the zoom range , but overall a quite useful short zoom.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Much maligned but still a very good performer in IR. So I kept mine (second version), added a CPU to it, and use it with my Fuji S3 UV IR camera.</p>