NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: John Harkus on December 12, 2015, 16:06:58
-
Just had a quick look at my "new" 43-86mm, a "C" lens from late in that run circa. '76 - in spanking condition, looks hardly used. First impressions are the expected barrel distortion at 43mm, pin-cushion at 86mm and soft corners, and by modern standards just a small amount of vignetting at the wide end at f/3.5.
Attached is a pic on a PK-13, at 86mm I think. Waiting for some better weather for the outside stuff!
John H
-
Apparently it's bad form to reply to your own post (I don't know where these rules were made either) - by a nice coincidence today is International Poinsettia Day, woot!
-
John, it's perfectly fine to reply to your own posts.
I have been doing so in several of them for months now :)
-
Wish there was a "like" button a la Facebook
John, it's perfectly fine to reply to your own posts.
I have been doing so in several of them for months now :)
-
Sorry no "Like" button by design.
-
By the way, using the 43-86 with a short extension might be against the recommendations of standard textbooks, but works like a charm. I put a CPU in an E2 dedicated to the 43-86 when shooting IR, but most similar narrow extension tubes work just as well.
If you prefer using close-up lenses with zooms, a Nikon 4T fits perfectly.
-
The Zoom-Nikkor 43-86 mm is one of my favourite lenses for IR. It is also a really beautifully built and finished lens. The CPU makes it compatible with each and every Nikon (D)SLR.
-
Some shots from this morning at St Bartholomews church, Gloucestershire. While it obviously doesn't have the absolute resolution (I'm being kind . . ) of more modern lenses you just need to get the right subject.
-
I remember that zoom. I was working news when it came out and found the lens too unsharp and slow for news.
I found speaking to one's self, (as in responding to one's own postings), has a lot of positives ... firstly, you're in a much better crowd than normal and if there's a controversial subject ... then you just don't have to bring it up.
PS- Sometime I'll even quote myself.
-
The first version of the 43-86 branded the concept of "consumer zooms" as the essence of evil and poor quality. Fewer people are aware of the later version with an improved optical design and greatly bettered image quality. Fine with me as it helps keeping the price down. The popularity of the 43-86 in its time, and the fact most were used by amateurs who cared for their playthings and mostly kept a lens in its pouch, also means the second-hand market is flooded with cheap, nice samples these days.
It can be very helpful to discuss with yourself and don't be afraid of quarrels - one part is sure to come out on top :D
-
I've said it before, but I think it merits repeating. I bought this lens (second version) in November 1981 in Hong Kong and used it heavily with an FE.
It was a fun lens. What it lacked in sharpness it made up for in usability!
Still have it but never use it; I keep if because of my fond memories of using it.
And John, I think that your church yard series does the lens justice!
-
Cheers Frederick, it's by no means the pinnacle of sharpness but was very cheap and in lovely condition. I think Bjorn's post hit the nail on the head.
If you look in my other post - Sigma 24-35mm - I realised I made a mistake and accidentally added one of the 43mm shots as well. Fits in pretty well too!
John
I've said it before, but I think it merits repeating. I bought this lens (second version) in November 1981 in Hong Kong and used it heavily with an FE.
It was a fun lens. What it lacked in sharpness it made up for in usability!
Still have it but never use it; I keep if because of my fond memories of using it.
And John, I think that your church yard series does the lens justice!
-
I'm loving this discussion! The null hypothesis, in the full bloom of its expression. (A veritable "4T" of reason! But there I ago being a bad poet again. And among visual expressionists. Surely, I'll be burned at the stake -- or fed a burned steak. I'm always confusing the two... ) Onward.
I have noticed a recent upsurge in the popularity of this lens and, to date, was curious as to why. Like the many who have for years turned to Bjørn's unaffected, concise, lens reviews I was made aware of the superiority of the last iteration of this zoom. However, at the time I first considered this lens, that alone didn't seem a sound enough argument for acquiring one. (After all, better then dreadful is still no qualifier -- not that this lens was ever necessarily judged the latter. Just saying.) That, and assuming the purpose was to put it to its intended use and not merely to curate one's own Nikkor museum. Reading this thread I'm wondering now, will my own past reticence (okay, I was broke!) cost me a premium? (And what of the Micro 4/3 gang? Are they increasing the demand or inadvertently inflating prices? Hmm... ?! Perhaps that's best addressed in another thread, if not off-site.)
Thanks for those photos, everyone! They're a great help. And, John! Are you still with us? Pray tell, you didn't blink in the kirkyard?!
-
Here's another couple from this morning at Daglingworth, Glos. Mine is a pre-Ai version, and hence the worst possible combination, however it just goes to show that outright resolution isn't everything!
There's plenty of the 43-86 out there, and usually around the £25 mark - another option would be a 36-72 Series E (I have one of those as well).
John
-
i am currently servicing this lens. what a pain in the @$$. it feels like working on a puzzle. fixing a carburetor might be easier. :o :o :o
this was certainly marketed as a cheap lens back then but the engineering that they have put into it is just awesome. you have to tear one apart to appreciate the level of thought that they have put into it. i will admit that this is probably one of the most challenging lenses that i have serviced due to the rear minor helicoids as well as the interlocking parts. the Nikon F4 is probably a good match for this lens' complicated construction. the Ai version is a lot simpler but is still a pain...
-
A shot from this morning (far end, f/5.6, ISO 3200).
-
good to see people actually going out and enjoying this lens :o :o :o
this is from the first version. i hate the 1.2m minimum focus distance. the lens is so-so overall. makes for an OK street lens but lacking in the wide end. ::)
as you can see from the pic of my baby, it is not so bad at f/3.5 8)
-
Add an E2-ring to the 43-86. The plunger of the E2 makes for a rapid stop-down action.
Charming kid, by the way :D
-
Add an E2-ring to the 43-86. The plunger of the E2 makes for a rapid stop-down action.
Charming kid, by the way :D
Thanks! She is always mobbed by old ladies every time we go out. she is very friendly and would smile at every old lady she comes across :o :o :o
yes, i think I read that on your post regarding the series E zoom. i will keep one handy just in case. i am heavily reliant on the focus scale for street photography so i may need to recalculate the offset.
speaking of focus scales, i do appreciate lenses with a little bit longer focus throw. but this lens has a VERY long focus throw. so i used a lighter grease for this so that I can focus faster without too much friction.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1705/24630990210_c5faca78ed.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Dwygg1)HAW_7257 (https://flic.kr/p/Dwygg1) by mrBabaero (https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/), on Flickr
43mm is not wide enough for street but not so bad either...i usually shoot with a 50 or the GN anyways...
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1539/24833105511_1a78bf8845.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DQqa6z)HAW_7312 (https://flic.kr/p/DQqa6z) by mrBabaero (https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/), on Flickr
86mm also gives you intimate candid shots...
this lens offers flexibility more than anything i suppose and should be judged as that. however, i will only use this on a sunny day for obvious reasons
-
by the way, my wife just got this from the mail :o :o :o
going to do a test with the 3 versions and see how and where things were changed
-
Looking fwd to your triplet comparison. Meanwhile, here's a shot from my pad just outside Stavanger. Obviously, flare in this situation is unavoidable.
-
Hello, Sten
not sure if this is going to be a fair comparison just by looking at the pic below :o :o :o
(going to split the posts because I can only attach one pic)
-
now, i have cleaned everything so i ended up with this. but now, the problem is i have some balsam separation and a little bit of condensation in there. overnight with α-Bromocinnamaldehyde and silica might remove the condensation but the balsam separation is something that i cannot fix at the moment :o :o :o
i did some tests awhile ago and it seems to be not so bad. it has improved a bit as far as I can tell but the vignetting is still there (and still looks horrible). the falloff of the vignetting also seems to be less wide. i do notice that the sharpness starts faster and f/5.6 looks better and f/8 looks a lot better now
-
By the way, even with the iris wide open, some bits of the blade still show. :o :o :o
do you have this as well if you peep through the lens?
-
(going to split the posts because I can only attach one pic)
You can add up to 10 pics to a single post. However, there are size constraints: one for the single image (up to 2 MB), the other for the total (10 MB).
-
By the way, even with the iris wide open, some bits of the blade still show. :o :o :o
do you have this as well if you peep through the lens?
Remember this is a constant f/3.5 aperture design. Thus the aperture blades adjust during zooming to make the aperture f/3.5. At the wide end, the aperture opening is circular, at 86 mm, the blades will show.
-
Remember this is a constant f/3.5 aperture design. Thus the aperture blades adjust during zooming to make the aperture f/3.5. At the wide end, the aperture opening is circular, at 86 mm, the blades will show.
i don't think mine does that...
it's a bit polygonal at every FL wide open :o :o :o
it is not obvious but it is there. I tried rotating the rotation plate before and after I rebuilt the iris assembly and it's still the same. this is the 2nd time that I encountered this. the first one was on the 5.5cm f/3.5 which was easily fixed by drilling and tapping to make a new hole for the aperture post. this one is a bit difficult since the blades are actually extending :(
it is not obvious because the rear elements actually hide the extra bit, but you can still see it if you peek carefully. maybe it does not affect the actual f/stop?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1629/24833829232_53121d20e7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DQtSew)HAW_7387 (https://flic.kr/p/DQtSew) by mrBabaero (https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/), on Flickr
this lens is actually a pretty good walk around lens in that it gives you some flexibility. If i was using a 50 something prime just like everyday, this shot would have ended looking a lot different, 86mm gave me the ability to isolate the subject a bit as well as give me some distance so that he is not aware of what i am doing ::)
PS: this is the dirtiest lens that i have cleaned so far. looks like you can bake a bread with it!
-
Look into the front of the lens. The entrance pupil determines the light collection capability. You should see the edges of the blades towards 86mm setting.
Seen from the rear this isn't obvious.
-
Also just because you can see the blades wide open doesn't mean that the camera can,,,
How does OOF highlight look with the lens wide open.
Nice clean glass!
Balsam separation; Warm up in a pot of water slowly - the elements will separate at some point - Re-glue with 'glass clear' epoxy.
-
Also just because you can see the blades wide open doesn't mean that the camera can,,,
How does OOF highlight look with the lens wide open.
Nice clean glass!
Balsam separation; Warm up in a pot of water slowly - the elements will separate at some point - Re-glue with 'glass clear' epoxy.
Hi! have not checked the bokeh yet, later tonight i will have the opportunity for that 8)
Bjorn is right! at 86mm i cannot see the small edges of the blades but at 43mm, it is slightly polygonal. i will cross check with my other 43-86's and see what's up. the C version seem to have the same problem but I fixed it by moving the aperture catch 3mm from where it used to be. i suspect that this is probably how these lenses are designed so my C is probably now a bit faster at the wide end :o :o :o
thanks for the tip on the epoxy, i was actually contemplating on "astro". a clear glue that we use in watchmaking. if you have a datejust rolex (i am guessing that you know this model), this is what we use for gluing that tiny bubble to magnify the date on the dial. the magnifying lens is simply glued to the main crystal. as for the epoxy, does it yellow over time and how do i get rid of it if i dont want to anymore? canada balsam can be had for cheap here but that takes ages to cure :-[ :-[ :-[
-
It's not a problem it's a feature ;)
-
"my C is probably now a bit faster at the wide end "
Fat chance ... Even when the aperture blades are able to move further away, this doesn't entail the actual entrance pupil grows any larger. After all, its size is determined by the optical construction.
-
which is the one that determines the actual f-stop of the lens? the exit or entrance pupil? :o :o :o
ok, balsam separation is not as bad as i thought. condensation is all gone now and glass is clear. there are some residual stuff left by the fungus or whatever that might need cleaning again but so far lens is performing normally.
i hope that alpha-Bromocinnamaldehyde will prevent any further outbreak for this lens and the others that i have now.
-
The entrance pupil "collects" light on behalf of the entire optical system and hence determines the "speed" of a lens.
In technical terms, the entrance pupil is the image of the aperture opening and thus is a virtual quantity. It can actually be larger in diameter than the lens itself. Not many examples of that kind exists, but some for sure do and it is a little unnerving to look into such lenses and realise the "hole" is bigger than the lens :D
Further worth noting that the nominal aperture (thus "speed") of the lens always refers to infinity focus, whether or not the lens actually can reach infinity.
A well-known example is the famous Repro-Nikkor 85 mm f/1. It has an entrance pupil of 86 mm (it is actual focal length is, not coincidently, also 86 mm) and this is an f/1 lens. It is also perfectly symmetric so its pupil factor is 1 too. However, it is used at m=1 (or life-size 1:1 magnification), so its effective aperture at that magnification is f/2. Depth of field corresponds to f/1 though.
-
die, fungus die! >:( >:( >:(
not sure how much this will help but at least it might help irradiate them. back in my home country, I could ask my classmates from dental school to just zap the fungus to death using the cephalometric x-ray machine that we use to radiograph the patient's mouth :o :o :o (i went to dental school a few decades ago, but now works in the animation industry. go figure :P)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1502/24859710362_493217d55b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DSLvMU)HAW_7468 (https://flic.kr/p/DSLvMU) by mrBabaero (https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/), on Flickr
the improvement over the older optic formula is most relevant at around f/5.6 and f/8 where the sharpness and detail can rival primes. the older one can be sharp as well but the result is just "not there". decent, but wanting :-*
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1659/24951387226_b7c29280cb.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/E1So8u)HAW_7473 (https://flic.kr/p/E1So8u) by mrBabaero (https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/), on Flickr
like previously mentioned, the 1.2m minimum focus distance is kind of annoying for me when i am trying to take a picture of my baby but it's just OK for street since this i usually focus to 1.5m anyway 8) it's not as discrete as a small prime but it's still pretty small compared to other more modern zooms...