back using an F3 with non AI zooms/prime

[ampguy]

I'm back to my 2nd F3, I really like this SLR, and am using it with the 43-86/3.5, 80-200/4.5, and 28/2.8, all non AI.

I'm very impressed with the 28's size, it's no larger than my old Ziess Biogon 28/2.8, the zooms with hoods are huge though. I expect I'll use the 43-86 most of the time.

Anyone else ever use these lenses? Thoughts? What's the story with using these on digital Nikons, I presume some type of stop down process for metering?

 

[peterc]

I have the 43-86. There were several versions and some were not bad lenses.
I've stuck mostly to Nikkor primes. I have th 28/3.5 in pre-AI.
As for using them on dSLRs ... you can use the pre-AI lenses on the D40, D40x and D60 (I think, not 100% sure on that one). Mounting pre-AI lenses on other models will damage the camera.
I bought a D40 so I could use my pre-AI glass for digital without having to have it AI converted. No metering, but that's not a problem.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Peter

Thanks Peter

I've got one of the earliest 43-86 zooms, 9 elements in 7 groups, s/n 510xxx, fortunately it had a filter on since today, so the glass looks new. It turns out my 80-200/4.5 is an Ai, and metering on auto is very nice AE with the F3, but it's funky how the sleeve is loose, but makes for very quick zooming, or zooming during the exposure available.

That's interesting about the D40s and D60s only working with non-AI lenses, the lack of metering is understandable, but unfortunate. The Pentax folks found a way to meter through old manual lenses with a couple of button presses with their DSLRs. But I have no interest in a DSLR now, it's just that I wouldn't want to accumulate too many lenses that might now work sometime down the road when I'd want to play with a DSLR again.

The 80-200 is nice, I can even frame some shots inside with the 1.8 min. distance, but it's a beast. I can't imagine just strolling around with one of these lenses, but the 43-86 is not too bad. If not shooting towards the sun, do you think it would do OK without the HN3 hood to keep it even shorter?

I have the 43-86. There were several versions and some were not bad lenses.
I've stuck mostly to Nikkor primes. I have th 28/3.5 in pre-AI.
As for using them on dSLRs ... you can use the pre-AI lenses on the D40, D40x and D60 (I think, not 100% sure on that one). Mounting pre-AI lenses on other models will damage the camera.
I bought a D40 so I could use my pre-AI glass for digital without having to have it AI converted. No metering, but that's not a problem.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I use the 9-element 43~86 F3.5 Zoom-Nikkor-C, which is multicoated. I also have two of the later 11-element 43~86 F3.5 AI lenses. The latter version of the lens is much sharper. The early lens is quite good stopped down a bit, to F5.6. I've never used them with hoods. The 11-element AI lenses are going cheap these days, mine was $50. It's worth considering as it is AI and multicoated.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Amp,
I use the 28/2.8 close-focus AI version. Its truly GREAT. I use it for close-ups with the backgrounds blurred out... super!

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Brian and Jamie:

Brian, I would expect the newer versions to be a bit better, but thanks for the tip on the 5.6 sweet spot. If I end up liking this early version, I might consider looking for a later one too. Have you ever tried using yours without the hood to save some room in your camera bag?

Jamie - thanks for the tip on the 28/2.8. Mounting this and looking at the DOF scale, it appears to be the ultimate hip shooting lens, at F4, a couple meters to inf. and Beyond are in focus, but close ups and the wide perspective would be interesting, as these focus so much closer than rangefinder 28s.

I've always been pleased with the Bokeh of Nikkor lenses, even the budget ones. The Bokeh is so good on these, that you can see it in the VF, at least on the tele zoom close up (6 feet).

 

[KoNickon]

Don;t be concerned about the looseness of the zoom on th 80-200; that's typical. It's a fine lens, though rather slow.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I actually have the proper hood for the 43~86, but have never bothered to use it. I've used the later version aimed into the sun, long ago. Took a 1-second exposure of a water-fall with Kodachrome 25. Some Canon-using guy was yelling "your shot will never come out, you can't point a lens into the sun".

Taken some 30 years ago, scanned it in:

 

[ampguy]

Brian, that's a very nice photo and scan. I often shoot directly into the sun, usually when it's between trees or buildings or over the ocean or a sunset. I do it quickly and don't look directly at the sun while framing, usually add +2 EV or more.

I've seen most lenses have some weird flare, but by varying angles just slightly I can usually get an image that I like a lot. I like aperture reflections flare trails - to me, they remind me of movie scenes or stills, but I don't like the large gloomy casts that sometimes show up.

I shot a roll with the F3 and 43-86 today, and tomorrow I hope to get to the 28/2.8 and 80-200. Used the HN3 metal hood, but may experiment with a collapsing rubber hood, then see what happens with none.

 

[willie_901]

Amp,
I use the 28/2.8 close-focus AI version. Its truly GREAT. I use it for close-ups with the backgrounds blurred out... super!

I agree completely. I use this very same lens (focus to .2 M) on a D200. This is a great lens.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks KoNIckon

Thanks KoNIckon

Mine is the 12/9 AI version built between 79 and 81, it's mint with the manual, and although I got it planning to use for deer, seeing some examples of car racing on pnet which could only be done with this single focus/zoom sleeve design, and close-ups with the additional 52mm diopters in the John Shaw books show you can do all kinds of crazy things with a lens of this length. Fortunately it's AI so it will somehow work on the digital bodies if I ever need to. I'm not sure if I'm going to Ai my non Ai lenses, but might consider it later on if there are people who still do that.

Don;t be concerned about the looseness of the zoom on th 80-200; that's typical. It's a fine lens, though rather slow.

 

[ampguy]

My 28/2.8 is probably from '77

My 28/2.8 is probably from '77

The sn 416xxx indicates it's the earlier design (7/7) and only close focuses to .3m while the close focuses were re-designed to 8/8. I hope to test this lens out today.

I agree completely. I use this very same lens (focus to .2 M) on a D200. This is a great lens.

 

[ampguy]

yes, hope to see some results from yesterday

yes, hope to see some results from yesterday

I have the earliest version of the 4 or so, with the biggest change in '76 where this zoom went from 9/7 to 11/8.

However, being the first version can have some benefits, this is form mir.com:

"Note: According to Nikon Handbook by Peter Braczko, he believes serial number from 438611 to 554261 are the first version and may fetch a higher premium than series that followed later. Hmm ...." Hmm... wish mine were in mint condition like my 80-200 4.5 AI.

Another interesting note from mir.com is that the sharpest fl is at 60mm, with subject at 3m.

The 43-86 had a bad reputation "back in the day." They were shunned for not being sharp enough. Interestingly, Herbert Keppler used this lens extensively and thought well of it. It isn't as sharp as primes from the same time, of course, but I had one and thought it was fine in real world shooting.

 

[peterc]

I checked my 43-86, and it's one of the early AI models.
This is an example on a D1x.

 

[joachim]

The 43-86 had a bad reputation "back in the day." They were shunned for not being sharp enough. Interestingly, Herbert Keppler used this lens extensively and thought well of it. It isn't as sharp as primes from the same time, of course, but I had one and thought it was fine in real world shooting.

I remember Herb Keppler discussing this lens and showing a full page sample (taken a lot earlier) in one of the late '99 or early 2000 issues of Popular Photography. He was quite clear that the lens was an early effort of Nikon. In particular the edges and corners were weaker than the centre and miles behind the then primes, but for slide shooters he thought the accurate framing offered by a zoom was more important in his opinion.

The image supplied showed the poor outer areas very clear. With used prices being low, I would get something else for shooting and put the 43-86 in some kind of a museum. It is a waste of film in my view.

I would like to have a test ride with your F3 though.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Bokeh is just too good on the 9-element 43~86 to put in a museum...


43~86/3.5 Zoom-Nikkor-C, wide-open on the Nikon Ftn.

(edit; weird glitch in ATTachments, I'll reload tonight)

 

[ampguy]

first roll with early 43-86 zoom (note 800 MAX film)

first roll with early 43-86 zoom (note 800 MAX film)

Here's the first roll taken with the F3 in A mode, and may have forgotten once or twice about pressing the stop down button (this is a non-AI first gen version of the lens).

The film was Kodak MAX 800 (I got it really cheap...), thus the grain, but I set the ASA between 400 and 800, as that's what I usually like. In some cases, I used an EV comp of +1 to +2.

Here is my summary:

The lens is not overly sharp.

The lens is not overly contrasty.

The lens has the "Leica Glow"

The lens has that old time look.

The lens does not have the look of a DSLR.

It brings out the best in natural film grain.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Yes, a Nikon Zoom with Leica Glow... Maybe that explains why so many pro's liked this lens when Nikon was apologizing for its performance!

The main optical issue with this lens is pin-cusion distortion, and I think you caught some good examples of it.

 

[ampguy]

Yes

Yes

The pin-cushion distortion is incredible, even at the non-wide settings. On my next test with this lens, I think I'm going to find a brick wall and take shots at 43, 50, 60, 70, 83, and see where or if it ever flattens out!

Yes, a Nikon Zoom with Leica Glow... Maybe that explains why so many pro's liked this lens when Nikon was apologizing for its performance!

The main optical issue with this lens is pin-cusion distortion, and I think you caught some good examples of it.

 

[ampguy]

Good point, definitely not a lens for buildings

Good point, definitely not a lens for buildings

Here is a severe example, as I recall when framing it that the stop sign pole, and the right corner of the house were vertical (lens is non AI, but still auto, so I was viewing at f3.5).

So I'm a bit confused. The F3 has 100% VF accuracy, and these items looked straight when I shot the photo, but came out pincusioned? Is it that during stopping down the pincusioning got worse?

Old zooms are definitely not like fine wine. There was a reason primes were king in the old day. But if you shoot only people, the distortion is not a huge factor. 🙂