Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,500   Posts: 1,543,319   Online: 901
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    550
    The Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5 (serial number 958521) was my first zoom lens. This lens was a big disappointment to me because it was too slow, its images were not sharp, and there were many times when 43mm was just not wide enough. In fact, the optical performance of this lens was so bad that I sold it and did not use zooms again for years.

  2. #12
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,976
    Images
    1
    I feel a strange personal challenge coming on. I think I need to mount this lens to my F3 or FM2 and shoot a few rolls. Help me decide just how awful this lens truly is.... ;-)
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  3. #13
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,976
    Images
    1
    Neat two-part writeup on this lens here for anyone who cares to see:

    http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...sMF/4386mm.htm
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    23
    I had both the old, silver-nose non-Ai version and the newer Ai type. Both lenses live up to their reputation. While the Ai version was 'better', I never considered it a good lens, let alone an excellent one.

    The silver one is plain bad, one of the worse standard zooms for sure. Soft wide open and stopped down one stop, lacks contrast (it was single-coated), lots of distortions.

    The Ai version was considerably sharper and more contrasty, but never up to the level of some of the better standard zooms (e.g. the excellent Olympus Zuiko 35-70/3.6, or even the lower-grade S Zuiko 35-70/4). Let's say it's passable unless you do enlargemens. To me, it was still not worth using considering the huge selection of very affordable old glass we have today. I sold both for $10 and $15 respectively.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    501
    Images
    12
    Interesting .... mine is neither silver nor AI, as best as I can tell it was probably one of the last non-Ai ones. Maybe there was a version in between that was not so bad? I just acquired a Nikon AI 35-135 and just shot a roll with that and will compare results, but I confess I do still like the 43-86. I have not made any print enlargements with it, but scans hold up well when magnified to the equivalent of approx 11 x 14 or so.

  6. #16
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,976
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by newcan1 View Post
    Interesting .... mine is neither silver nor AI, as best as I can tell it was probably one of the last non-Ai ones. Maybe there was a version in between that was not so bad? I just acquired a Nikon AI 35-135 and just shot a roll with that and will compare results, but I confess I do still like the 43-86. I have not made any print enlargements with it, but scans hold up well when magnified to the equivalent of approx 11 x 14 or so.
    You mention yours as a 43-86/3.5-4.5? I only see 3.5 versions discussed online, and this lens was famous for being 3.5 thru it zoom range. Can you confirm? Maybe post photos of the lens?
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    501
    Images
    12
    My bad - it is a 3.5 - sorry - I think I was mixing it up with the 35-135 which is variable aperture).

  8. #18
    Chris Nielsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    490
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by narsuitus View Post
    The Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5 (serial number 958521) was my first zoom lens. This lens was a big disappointment to me because it was too slow, its images were not sharp, and there were many times when 43mm was just not wide enough. In fact, the optical performance of this lens was so bad that I sold it and did not use zooms again for years.
    I am impressed - I can't even tell you what the serial numbers of my current lenses are, let alone my first ever zoom lens!

  9. #19
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Nielsen View Post
    I am impressed - I can't even tell you what the serial numbers of my current lenses are, let alone my first ever zoom lens!
    I am glad my record keeping impresses you.

    My wife prefers to describe me as anal.

  10. #20
    Chris Nielsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    490
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by narsuitus View Post
    I am glad my record keeping impresses you.

    My wife prefers to describe me as anal.
    Nice. I think I can cheat here because I recently got back the first camera I ever used in about 1980 which I have not used since then, so I can record the serial numbers finally

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin