Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,228   Online: 755
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    agnosticnikon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Mississippi mud
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    i've never seen older ladies in a penthouse magazine. anyway, i replaced mine with a nikkor 35-70f/3.3-4.5, which s terrible at any fstopeven oon my d800.
    This is an interesting comment. I've used the Nikon 35-70mm 3.3-4.5 lens mentioned, and have had very good results with it. In fact I've had other photographers ask what lens I used to take the photos they've seen me show them, because they thought they were very sharp. I've seen good comments on it and bad comments on it. Moose Peterson thinks its a sleeper lens giving very sharp results, while Ken Rockwell thinks it's a piece of crap. Given my experience with it, I can only assume that there must be a lot of manufacturing variance between lenses.
    Never heard about the Penthouse magazine connection with the 43-86 lens. Thought it was mostly vaseline on the filter. (to cover the old ladies wrinkles)

  2. #12
    agnosticnikon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Mississippi mud
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    Yeah lots of discussion on this lens here earlier.

    Bottom line is if you're going to shoot test charts and use a tripod and enlarge to full size and sharpness is your most important aspect then consider a different lens. If you'll use it mostly for shooting and taking nice photos then its not a bad lens at all:

    I agree, very nice shot by the way!

  3. #13
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    552
    Many years ago when I was shooting for a newspaper, I thought a mid-range zoom lens might be useful for the times when I only wanted to carry one camera body and one lens. Up to that time, I had only used prime lenses. The 43-86mm f/3.5 Nikon lens was my first zoom lens.

    However, it was a big disappointment 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 it soured me to zoom lenses for decades.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    606
    Talking inexpensive Nikon zooms, 28-80 AFD is actually a good lens. Often came as kit on consumer SLRs.
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2880.htm

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    715
    Well, in the back of many 1970 issues there is a small blip on photo details, he shot with Nikon F2 43-86mm lens (specifically mentioned lol) and tiffen filters.
    As the Nikon One Thousand and One Nights article about this lens, around 60mm focal length works very well. I use mine for bikini work LOL, see one shot at
    http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/10...0-bikini-post/

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    715
    Sorry I think that one was the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5.
    This one should be the 43-86mm
    http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/09...0-and-bikinis/

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    78
    I purchased a 43-86mm f/3.5 AI for something like $22 simply to twist people's noses a bit on other forums. Those people were talking about how the D800 "required" certain lenses and I wanted to demonstrate otherwise.

    In one notable thread, a troll accused me of lying about a 43-86mm shot. He claimed it clearly had to come from a prime lens because it was so much sharper than his shot with a 24-70mm f/2.8. In reality, all that the shot really showed was that the 43-86mm didn't have much field curvature near minimum focus; my shot had more resolving power at the edges but overall contrast was noticeably lower.

    Distortion is another matter. Don't ever take a brick wall shot with lens at either of the extremes -- you'll wince at the results. In all, I doubt I'll shoot any film with the 43-86mm. Instead, when the Nikon FA comes out to play, so will the 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 that I've been using for 25+ years.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Utah Valley
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    275
    Quote Originally Posted by RidingWaves View Post
    Sorry I think that one was the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5.
    This one should be the 43-86mm
    http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/09...0-and-bikinis/
    Well, there's no such thing as posting too many bikini photos.

    I don't have the 43-86mm but it's on my list. I want a first gen; it's an important part of history for Nikon users.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Jackson. MS, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    225
    Wasn't the first gen the only lens that Nikon publicly apologized for?

  10. #20
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,533
    Images
    1
    why?it started a popular trend of short range zooms. the zoom range was ideal!for general use.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

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