I have Both Versions of this lens, One is from 1969 in which I also bought a Nikon Ftn made in 1969 as it was motor drive compatible, and came with the lens, and the other on was from either 1978 or 79, as as I found that both lenses are sharp, and when placing on my Digital SLR & Mirrorless that I was very much please with the Contrast, and Colors, as the sharpness still holds even though that focusing Manually. Still I found both lenses very good on over cast days, gives it a film look onto on my digital models..
I never heard any bad press about the 43-86 AI when I bought a new one for my FE in '79. IT was my most used lens, shot so many yearbook portraits & candids with it, travel photography, landscapes etc. Wide open with backlit hair shot the most beautiful B&W & color portraits I ever took in those days. Blew up a Kodachrome 64 of some horses in a field before a vintage barn to 30x40, still sharp, still hangs on my dining room wall 40 years later. Awesome lens!
I believe the earlier (name inside the filter ring) and later (name outside the filter ring) are two different optical formulas, or atleast heavily revised. The 43-86 was originally for the Nikkorex Zoom-35 camera, one of Nikon's cheapest cameras in the early 60s and one which had a leaf shutter. I assume building a compact zoom around a shutter is partially to blame for the originals poor performance.
Thanks for your comment Matt. I see the early 43-86 was indeed a fixed lens on the Nikkorex Zoom 35, and that may well be responsible for optical compromises (and perhaps the slightly whacky zoom range). I think if folks who are interested in this lens only go for the multicoated version - to be fair, the only version I've seen offered for sale in the UK lately - they will avoid disappointment.
I paid $17 for the 43-86mm and ended up shooting parts of an Emmy award winning documentary with it. I also shoot with Leica, Zeiss, and Mamiya medium format lenses. I choose lenses for shoots based on the “look” I want. Sometimes the 43-86mm has the look i want. Overall, i LOVE this lens! The trick of course is buying the 2nd Edition of this lens and avoiding the initial release. People could be led to believe its a garbage lens based on its price and lack of popularity BUT it is sharp with excellent color rendition. Its slightly lower in contrast than one may be used too but it is truly a GREAT lens and still currently a bargain!
I'll have to keep an eye out for one of those lenses in the Danish camera shops, I shop camera gear at. Perhaps I can use it on the F4s, I ordered the other day.
I paid £14 on ebay for a boxed 43-86 ai version in excellent condition and found it gave similar results to yours in this video , it does not deserve the bad press it usually gets and gives images that I like and many more photographers should try one.
We are lucky to have an abundance of parks much like yours here in Seattle. We don’t have the swans though - just a few wild ones. I love to get out and photograph the seasonal blossoms, birds, Rainier, etc.. Think I might give that lens a try!
the swans and ducks at Hollow Ponds are adept at getting food out of passers by, so every year they are pretty successful at making more swans and ducks!
KR is the last person I'd go to for advice....And there's a saying in certain circles....There's no such thing as a bad lens only someone who doesn't know how to use it....The bad reputation for this historic lens was started by those who don't know shit....
I don't know why people crap on Ken. Probably because he's more well-known than his jealous haters are. He's never steered me wrong, including in person when he considered my available equipment and gave me very good advice about how to shoot a super car for ad prints.
Never tried this one but my Dad was a Nikon obsessive and he always had stacks of Nikon books & brochures around the house until he died. I keep some - including a 1993 hardback Nikon Compendium [by Hillebrand & Hauschild]. About 3 years back, I bought the 24-50mm f3.5-4.5 AF-D (which I saw in a local shop) for £70 on the strength of the Compendium review. I have to say - things have moved on since 1993: I was bitterly disappointed with its lack of sharpness and returned it immediately.
Never tried the 24-50mm but I do find some of Nikon's zooms a bit on the soft side. The ones I have personal experience of are the 80-200 F2.8 which was one of the mainstays of my pro career and is probably my favourite zoom of all time (and one of the sharpest) . The 28-85mm f3.5/4.5 which sits on my F4 pretty much all the time, and is a very nice lens indeed (if a little slow) the 43-86mm mentioned in this episode and the 35-70mm f3.3/4.5 which I got on the F4 body when I bought it - and ditched as soon as I could because it was as plastic as a MacDonald's give away toy, and as sharp as a banana 🙂
In general I think it's the opposite: lenses designed for digital cameras are in a sense too sharp and clinical for - for example - some portraiture. Film grain helps add a texture that masks the flaws in the analogue process, but has an organic quality. I think it's in 'after processing' with digital that many photographers go too far. And don't start me on those horribly artificial 'high dynamic range' images that seem to dominate Instagram
I paid $35.00 for mine just recently and I'm very happy with the image quality on my 24mpix camera. Maybe really high mega pixel sensors will reveal flaws.
Not seeing issues with my 32mp D800 - mind you, I'm of the belief that there is such a thing as 'too sharp' and that many modern lenses, while amazing are too clinical for my taste.
I don't own this lens , but do have the 35-70 ai. it does have some weight to it. I could never understand why 43-86? why not a 40-85. enjoy your videos and thanks for the info.
Thanks for your comment Tom. The 35-70 I had was the narrow focus ring AF version ... I think that set me a bit against it 🙂I think the 35-70mm ai is probably bomb proof like the 43-86.
Grazie per il tuo commento. Penso che la distorsione sia simile ad altri primi modelli di zoom, tranne forse quelli super costosi dei film di Angenieux 🙂
Mine cost me the equivalent of 6 quid (400 Phil Pesos). Cosmetically excellent, with a little bit of easily cleaned fungus (easy lens to work on!). Bargain.
Your second version of the 43-86 lens is OK. The first version is often defined as “Nikon Worst (zoom) lens”. If you want a great lens, get the two primes 1. The Japan version 50mm f/1.8 pancake [Not a series E version] (better then the f/1.4 versions) and the AF 80mm f/2.8 AIS lens (One of the two F3AF, which will work on the F4 [with the MB-20 battery grip], but not on the F4s [Due to direct battery voltage usage of the lens]).
Hi and welcome to the channel Albert 🙂 I have the 'silver ring' 1.8 E pancake (not the plastic waffle' one) which is single coated, and I find that a great lens, so I will keep my eye out for the non E version at some point. I went with an 85mm f1.4 Samyang prime ... cracking lens, a 60mm Micro Nikkor and a 24mm f2.8 AF Nikkor. I do miss a long lens however - and when I was making my living with my camera I used to have the 80-200 f2.8 D - which I may hunt down again - a stunning lens.
@@ashsphotolounge the 80-200mm f/2.8 have multiple versions: the D version score 4 out 5, but the AF-S version score 5 out 5 according to a French author: Jean-Marie SEPULCHRE with a book: 137_tests_d_objectifs_pour_le_Nikon_D3s_ed1_v1 full of lens measurements with a DxO Analyser.
@@ashsphotolounge 85mm f/1.4 Samyang IF AS UMC lens score 4 out 5 by same author but different book: Le Nikon D850 - Réglages, tests techniques et objectifs conseillés. Only two Zeiss lenses score 5 out 5 in the 85mm focal length, the Milvus and the Otus.
Typical cause for people to down vote an old lens may in the film days is that they use them on modern digital camera sensors which will drag out any problems in the glass and the lens design - ie. they were not build for digital sensors. If you use them on analog cameras then it is a completely other situation since films and analog cameras are way more forgiven regarding flaws in glass and pour lens design. So before discarding an old lens try in on film first. Nice video by the way 👍
Thanks for the comment and ... quite right ... though the images in the video were shot on my Sony A7 digital body 24 Muggle Pixies or what ever they call the resolution - and that definitely shows up what old lenses are made of 🙂that considered I think the sharpness was not bad at all
Oh, this lens got its deserved reputation decades before digital cameras were invented. Of course, it's problem from the beginning was that it was compared to "prime" Nikkors of the day, where its label as "dog" would do injustice to canines everywhere. Compared to the Voigtlander Zoomar, its predecessor by a few years, it is a treasure. However, this lens was so relatively bad in all respects that it put the stink eye on zooms generally for years and caused them to be unreasonably avoided long past any rationale. Nikon went on to build a number of early zoom lenses, many of which were excellent by any standard if very expensive. Nikon redesigned the optics of the lens several times. With that and newer coatings it eventually rose from the status of a trivia question to a very modest performer. It was probably retained in the catalog for decades because it was very inexpensive compared to the Zoom Nikkor alternatives of the era.
I have Both Versions of this lens, One is from 1969 in which I also bought a Nikon Ftn made in 1969 as it was motor drive compatible, and came with the lens, and the other on was from either 1978 or 79, as as I found that both lenses are sharp, and when placing on my Digital SLR & Mirrorless that I was very much please with the Contrast, and Colors, as the sharpness still holds even though that focusing Manually. Still I found both lenses very good on over cast days, gives it a film look onto on my digital models..
I never heard any bad press about the 43-86 AI when I bought a new one for my FE in '79. IT was my most used lens, shot so many yearbook portraits & candids with it, travel photography, landscapes etc. Wide open with backlit hair shot the most beautiful B&W & color portraits I ever took in those days. Blew up a Kodachrome 64 of some horses in a field before a vintage barn to 30x40, still sharp, still hangs on my dining room wall 40 years later. Awesome lens!
When was using nikon film camera..... few yrs ago had this lens... and good results too on winter subjects......!!
I believe the earlier (name inside the filter ring) and later (name outside the filter ring) are two different optical formulas, or atleast heavily revised. The 43-86 was originally for the Nikkorex Zoom-35 camera, one of Nikon's cheapest cameras in the early 60s and one which had a leaf shutter. I assume building a compact zoom around a shutter is partially to blame for the originals poor performance.
Thanks for your comment Matt. I see the early 43-86 was indeed a fixed lens on the Nikkorex Zoom 35, and that may well be responsible for optical compromises (and perhaps the slightly whacky zoom range). I think if folks who are interested in this lens only go for the multicoated version - to be fair, the only version I've seen offered for sale in the UK lately - they will avoid disappointment.
I paid $17 for the 43-86mm and ended up shooting parts of an Emmy award winning documentary with it.
I also shoot with Leica, Zeiss, and Mamiya medium format lenses.
I choose lenses for shoots based on the “look” I want.
Sometimes the 43-86mm has the look i want. Overall, i LOVE this lens!
The trick of course is buying the 2nd Edition of this lens and avoiding the initial release.
People could be led to believe its a garbage lens based on its price and lack of popularity BUT it is sharp with excellent color rendition. Its slightly lower in contrast than one may be used too but it is truly a GREAT lens and still currently a bargain!
Totally agreed! Thanks for your comment 🙂
I'll have to keep an eye out for one of those lenses in the Danish camera shops, I shop camera gear at. Perhaps I can use it on the F4s, I ordered the other day.
Try and get the multi coated version - I think it's probably has a bit more contrast than the earlier version. Congratulations on the F4!
I paid £14 on ebay for a boxed 43-86 ai version in excellent condition and found it gave similar results to yours in this video , it does not deserve the bad press it usually gets and gives images that I like and many more photographers should try one.
I agree totally 🙂
We are lucky to have an abundance of parks much like yours here in Seattle. We don’t have the swans though - just a few wild ones. I love to get out and photograph the seasonal blossoms, birds, Rainier, etc.. Think I might give that lens a try!
the swans and ducks at Hollow Ponds are adept at getting food out of passers by, so every year they are pretty successful at making more swans and ducks!
Ken Rockwell said the Mk2 43-86 is fine.... so there you go..
KR is the last person I'd go to for advice....And there's a saying in certain circles....There's no such thing as a bad lens only someone who doesn't know how to use it....The bad reputation for this historic lens was started by those who don't know shit....
I don't know why people crap on Ken. Probably because he's more well-known than his jealous haters are. He's never steered me wrong, including in person when he considered my available equipment and gave me very good advice about how to shoot a super car for ad prints.
Never tried this one but my Dad was a Nikon obsessive and he always had stacks of Nikon books & brochures around the house until he died. I keep some - including a 1993 hardback Nikon Compendium [by Hillebrand & Hauschild]. About 3 years back, I bought the 24-50mm f3.5-4.5 AF-D (which I saw in a local shop) for £70 on the strength of the Compendium review. I have to say - things have moved on since 1993: I was bitterly disappointed with its lack of sharpness and returned it immediately.
Never tried the 24-50mm but I do find some of Nikon's zooms a bit on the soft side. The ones I have personal experience of are the 80-200 F2.8 which was one of the mainstays of my pro career and is probably my favourite zoom of all time (and one of the sharpest) . The 28-85mm f3.5/4.5 which sits on my F4 pretty much all the time, and is a very nice lens indeed (if a little slow) the 43-86mm mentioned in this episode and the 35-70mm f3.3/4.5 which I got on the F4 body when I bought it - and ditched as soon as I could because it was as plastic as a MacDonald's give away toy, and as sharp as a banana 🙂
Lately I have wondered if the image processing in digital cameras (distortion control, sharpness, etc.) smooth out errors that would be seen on film.
In general I think it's the opposite: lenses designed for digital cameras are in a sense too sharp and clinical for - for example - some portraiture. Film grain helps add a texture that masks the flaws in the analogue process, but has an organic quality. I think it's in 'after processing' with digital that many photographers go too far. And don't start me on those horribly artificial 'high dynamic range' images that seem to dominate Instagram
I paid $35.00 for mine just recently and I'm very happy with the image quality on my 24mpix camera. Maybe really high mega pixel sensors will reveal flaws.
Not seeing issues with my 32mp D800 - mind you, I'm of the belief that there is such a thing as 'too sharp' and that many modern lenses, while amazing are too clinical for my taste.
I don't own this lens , but do have the 35-70 ai. it does have some weight to it. I could never understand why 43-86? why not a 40-85. enjoy your videos and thanks for the info.
Thanks for your comment Tom. The 35-70 I had was the narrow focus ring AF version ... I think that set me a bit against it 🙂I think the 35-70mm ai is probably bomb proof like the 43-86.
Tom C ,you thought 43-85 was weird ,I have the 36--72 mm .lol .
I have the 36-72mm f3.5 main issue with it is poor close focus distance of 1.2 m , What is the min focus on your 43-86 mm ?
Same!
That's literally my only complaint about this lens
È stato ilmio primo zoom "standard" Nikon. Soffre, fastidiosamente, di distorsioni, in particolare alle focali più corte. La costruzione è ottima.
Grazie per il tuo commento. Penso che la distorsione sia simile ad altri primi modelli di zoom, tranne forse quelli super costosi dei film di Angenieux 🙂
Mine cost me the equivalent of 6 quid (400 Phil Pesos). Cosmetically excellent, with a little bit of easily cleaned fungus (easy lens to work on!). Bargain.
Your second version of the 43-86 lens is OK. The first version is often defined as “Nikon Worst (zoom) lens”. If you want a great lens, get the two primes 1. The Japan version 50mm f/1.8 pancake [Not a series E version] (better then the f/1.4 versions) and the AF 80mm f/2.8 AIS lens (One of the two F3AF, which will work on the F4 [with the MB-20 battery grip], but not on the F4s [Due to direct battery voltage usage of the lens]).
Hi and welcome to the channel Albert 🙂 I have the 'silver ring' 1.8 E pancake (not the plastic waffle' one) which is single coated, and I find that a great lens, so I will keep my eye out for the non E version at some point.
I went with an 85mm f1.4 Samyang prime ... cracking lens, a 60mm Micro Nikkor and a 24mm f2.8 AF Nikkor. I do miss a long lens however - and when I was making my living with my camera I used to have the 80-200 f2.8 D - which I may hunt down again - a stunning lens.
@@ashsphotolounge the 80-200mm f/2.8 have multiple versions: the D version score 4 out 5, but the AF-S version score 5 out 5 according to a French author: Jean-Marie SEPULCHRE with a book: 137_tests_d_objectifs_pour_le_Nikon_D3s_ed1_v1 full of lens measurements with a DxO Analyser.
@@ashsphotolounge 60mm Micro excellent lens, both versions AF-D or AF-S score 5 out of 5 according to Jean-Marie SEPULCHRE book again !!!
@@ashsphotolounge 85mm f/1.4 Samyang IF AS UMC lens score 4 out 5 by same author but different book: Le Nikon D850 - Réglages, tests techniques et objectifs conseillés. Only two Zeiss lenses score 5 out 5 in the 85mm focal length, the Milvus and the Otus.
@@alberte58 My love of this lens started with the stunning colour transmission 🙂
Typical cause for people to down vote an old lens may in the film days is that they use them on modern digital camera sensors which will drag out any problems in the glass and the lens design - ie. they were not build for digital sensors. If you use them on analog cameras then it is a completely other situation since films and analog cameras are way more forgiven regarding flaws in glass and pour lens design. So before discarding an old lens try in on film first.
Nice video by the way 👍
Thanks for the comment and ... quite right ... though the images in the video were shot on my Sony A7 digital body 24 Muggle Pixies or what ever they call the resolution - and that definitely shows up what old lenses are made of 🙂that considered I think the sharpness was not bad at all
Oh, this lens got its deserved reputation decades before digital cameras were invented. Of course, it's problem from the beginning was that it was compared to "prime" Nikkors of the day, where its label as "dog" would do injustice to canines everywhere. Compared to the Voigtlander Zoomar, its predecessor by a few years, it is a treasure. However, this lens was so relatively bad in all respects that it put the stink eye on zooms generally for years and caused them to be unreasonably avoided long past any rationale. Nikon went on to build a number of early zoom lenses, many of which were excellent by any standard if very expensive. Nikon redesigned the optics of the lens several times. With that and newer coatings it eventually rose from the status of a trivia question to a very modest performer. It was probably retained in the catalog for decades because it was very inexpensive compared to the Zoom Nikkor alternatives of the era.
Quick… To eBay for a 43 - 86 ! 😊
You won't regret it 🙂