Who wants Nikkor Ai's?

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Ralph, Steve. I read a lots of fancy expert opinion on the Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5 Zoom lens.<br>

My experiences was at that time terrible. I had a Nikon F2 that time, and get the 43-86/3.5 zoom, my firsts zoom ever and the last. It was the new silver-nosed version and after a couple of rolls of film, I never used again. Many years past, then the digital era started, and computer, internet, more and more information flying around to read, including KR. Regardless all the bad comments about him, from some of the people in the net, I like the person. I like the strait forward talk, technical and practical experience, knowledge this guy have. Hi is a supper knowledgeable engineer on many field, and his advise is right most of the time. His opinion of photo gears is right most of the time but not all the time. <br>

Back to the 43-86/3.5.<br>

I learned from other photographers, the so called Nikon 43-86/3.5 is redesigned, nikon admitting they first attempt to design a zoom lens failed. The reputation was all ready on, on this so called pig lens. But, after the newer version, some people started using them, which I forgotten completely.<br>

And someday, after one of my best friend past a way of cancer, a dedicated Olympus user, remembering him and his Olympus, and by this time eBay existed and C.L., I find in Toronto somebody selling the old OM-1 mint, with two lens and a flash light. I get it for 80 dollar the whole package, bought for a respect to my memory for my long gone friend, and some other sentimental reason, including curiosity.<br>

Then, the nostalgia get on me, about my old photo gears, Nikon all the way from the first Nikon F, and all those lenses, specially those later created beautiful engineered AI and AI-S lenses, which was engineered and made like a Swiss watches.<br>

Started to buy all my lost lenses which ones I sold or treaded in for some new stuff. The first lens was the 43-86/3.5 AI, at that time I learned the redesign story, and I heard some positive comments from some user. <br>

All the bed reputation of this lens, I find out this new "black nosed", and now, AI or AI-S lens, not as bed after all. Bought one, second, third and tested them on D70, D90, later on D700, then on D3s, D4 and find out they are not as bed as many people thinking of it. It is a relatively good sharp lens for average use, like family or other social photography. I believe those people never get to grab one and test it today, they just repeating some of other guys comments as an expert on everything, known nothing. I remember meeting a young photographer, talking about old AI lenses and he shown me his daughter graduation images, all are very nice and sharp, done with some of Nikon DX format camera, and guess what . . . . With the NIKON Nikkor Zoom 43-86/3.5 lens. . . . The lens reputation so much ruined, even the newest version, nobody wanted. I wanted to sell one of my 3 sample, all AI, for 45 dollar on C.L, nobody wanted. If I haw a young guy around me, whom just started photography with little money to spend, I would given to the guy for free.<br>

More story to learn, I have a couple of old Nikkor-Q 135mm and 105mm lens, some of them in a very bad shape, and one has a spider web like fungi inside and lots of dust. I tested the lens, and to my surprise, I get a very nice sharp picture with it, on the D700 camera. The only thing you not supposed to do, to shoot against a bright light, and no problem at all. I wanted to sell for a guy, whom can afford even a 100 dollar lens for a new 135/2.8, for 30 dollar. The guy seen the lens and don't wanted even for 20 bucks. I tried to show him, mounted on my camera and shoot something, to shown, you cant see of those fungi in the picture.<br>

Yes, the pre AI, silver nosed is bad, but the new AI-AI-S version, black nose, is entirely different lens in the same housing and AI or AI-S. <br>

Ralph. Don't think the 28mm f/1.4 ( extremely expensive lens) is a very sharp lens or sharper then the 28/3.5 or the slightly, only slightly better 28/2.8 AI-S lenses. I have plenty of photographs of the 28/3.5 AI-S, some, the Nikkor-H converted to AI, and all of them razor sharp. I noticed lately, Nikon's old lenses prices gone up in the last two years, specially the last one year.<br>

The lens designers was as good 50 years ago as they are today, and certain lens design never changed only the body, coating, and added AF to it in the new, plastic shell. Ask Nikon to produce the so called "Holly Grail," 13mm f/5.6 AI-S super wide angle, perfect rectilinear<em> (no lens distortion at all)</em> hand polish lens. The guy whom polished this fantastic lens, the aspherical elements specially, is not exist anymore. If you ever seen a video, specially images made with this lens, you would understand what I mean. No comparable, similar lens exist today. It is not only the creasy collectors, for the price of this AI-S lens 50,000-80,000 BP price tag. A 100,000 Canadian dollar+shipment and custom charge.</p>

 

[luke_kaven]

<p>Ralph, you will flip over the 75-150 f/3.5 Series E, the cult classic. You can get these for $125 in good shape. Get the one with the silver ring if you can find it. This is one of the most beautiful drawing lenses ever...ever. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe even the uber-28mm f/1.4 AI-s?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's actually an AF-D - which in this case also is an Ai-S - there never was a purely manual focus 28/1.4 though. <br>

Still own the 105/2.5 Ai that I purchase as my first lens in 1979; it's going to see some more use now that I have a D700; the lens didn't work that well for me on a DX body. I also have the 28/2.8Ai-S and the 75-150/3.5 Series E (with the usual "loose-as-a-goose" zoom ring). Sold the 20/4 Ai last year because on FX it vignettes too much. The 80-200/4 Ai-S was OK but not a lens I really felt I would get much use out of. No plans on acquiring any more Ai/Ai-S lenses though.</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>Dieter said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>It's actually an AF-D . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, yes! I stand corrected! I love its crinkle-finish metal barrel, similar to my same-era, AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Luke said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ralph, you will flip over the 75-150 f/3.5 Series E, the cult classic.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Luke! I'll check it out!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Bela said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>With the NIKON Nikkor Zoom 43-86/3.5 lens . . . The lens reputation so much ruined, even the newest version, nobody wanted. I wanted to sell one of my 3 sample, all AI, for 45 dollar on C.L, nobody wanted.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for that detailed commentary, Bela. I deliberately sought out the more flawed version for its signature flare. I paid $40 for it on Ebay, and was glad to have one in such good condition for that price (looks like new). Hope to get the D3200 on Monday so I can try it out.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Ralph, congratulation for your Nikon D3200. Use a good hood, HN-3, for the 43-86/3.5 and avoid direct sunlight falling on the front element. Then, you going to have relatively nice sharp, contrasty images. Would be better and sharper the black nose version.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Luke said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ralph, you will flip over the 75-150 f/3.5 Series E . . . Get the one with the silver ring if you can find it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow! A 112.5-225mm equivalent, f/3.5 constant-aperture, compact zoom! I love it! Do you know how many different versions were produced? What is the desired characteristic of the "silver ring" models? Thanks!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you know how many different versions were produced?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two - one with a black ring and one with a silver one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is the desired characteristic of the "silver ring" models?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Optics is identical, it's just the looks (make them more similar to the Ai/Ai-S Nikkors of the same time). The lens was actually made by Kiron - there's also a Kiron70-150/4 that is just as good (and a Vivitar 70-150/3.8 (also made by Kiron).</p>

 

[luke_kaven]

<p>This is a Nikon-designed lens, but manufactured by Kiron. Amazing bokeh, not just for a zoom, but for any lens. Extremely low flare! Great for low-light portraits. Basically, no discernible compromises.</p>

<p>http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/42/</p>

<p>Silver ring is metal, black ring is plastic. It's the knurled ring you use for mounting/dismounting the lens. The silver is slightly easier to use. As Dieter says, they are optically the same. You will have to get the floppy zoom ring fixed, since the friction pads have long since worn thin. It's a small price to pay for this gem.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>The Nikon series E 75-150mm f/3.5 AI never had a silver ring version. I mean it, the nose ring. All of them black. So far, I newer heard or see of it, and not shown in any Nikon brochure or other places. The 43-86mm f/3.5 NON AI had a silver ring nose. And the 74-150 is a 112-225mm <strong>CROP-equivalent</strong> on the <strong>DX</strong> body.<br /> You guys mixing up the <strong>43-86/3.6</strong> and the <strong>series E 75-150/34</strong> lenses. if you mean the mounting silver ring, to grab, which is all the AI and pre AI lenses haw it , a very small exception. 100mmf2.8 has two version too.</p>

 

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Addendum; If you mean the silver ring at the close rear end, close to the aperture ring, for easier mounting, grab, then you right. Some of the lenses, like the 100mm f.2.8 has two version too.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>That's the one, Bela.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Dieter said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Optics is identical, it's just the looks (make them more similar to the Ai/Ai-S Nikkors of the same time).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your reply, Dieter! Thanks for all of that additional info as well, Luke, Bela! Much appreciated!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just as an addendum to this surprisingly persistent thread:</p>

<p>Neither Nikon nor Canon (nor most others, for that matter) have substantially changed the formulae/designs of many of their prime lenses since 1970 or so.</p>

<p>There have been improvements related to new and better optical glass(es), aspherical elements, and better lens coatings; but the old Double-Gauss, Sonnar, and retrofocus designs still underlie the new whiz-bangs.</p>

<p>That's not the least of the reasons to doubt the initial conclusion that the old lenses were "unsharp".<br>

Autofocus and electronic controls have been introduced, but the optics themselves are surprisingly constant.</p>

<p>And even the best zoom lenses, much less the "kit" lenses, <strong><em>still</em></strong> have trouble equaling a prime lens at any given focal length. Through the miracle of modern computer-aided design, they come astonishingly close on occasion.</p>

 

[scott_murphy5]

<p>Who says they are not as sharp? As sharp as what? The AI/AIS lenses still hold their own against any of the newer lenses and they are built <em>far better</em>. I would say the photographer is more of a limiting factor than the lenses themselves. All of my Nikkors, all 17 of them from 16mm fisheye to 600mm super-telephoto are AI/AIS and I would not trade a single one of them for the crappy plastic AF ones of today. The biggest limitation using MF lenses on DSLR's is the focusing screens on most DSLR's <em>generally suck</em> for critical manual focusing and I would never rely on the focus indicator dot, especially in low light. I have a microprism screen in my D700 and have no problem whatsoever getting <em>critically sharp</em> focusing with it.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00cM7w"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1998172">Louis Meluso</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 01, 2014; 08:24 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nobody wants those dino lenses. I mean all the newly designed zooms are modern and fresh. Maybe some crusty old movie guys but sharpness isn't important to them. Let's face it. Sharpness is everything, right? I run an old Nikkor AI lens disposal service. Just send me that junk and I'll take care of them for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is one of the most ignorant and mis-informed posts I have ever read on this site. How many of these "dino lenses" do you actually own?</p>

 

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Scott, please engage your sarcasm and irony filter.</p>