Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Love my Nikon F3
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Jul 15, 2017 17:25:54   #
Vlux
 
A Playboy photographer at the time preferred the "worst zoom Nikon ever made" because it was a little forgiving. That is, its relative softness was a boon to female models.
You pays yer money, and you makes yer choice." According to purpose.

Reply
Jul 15, 2017 20:42:04   #
JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles
 
Loved mine. I till have the 500MM and 1000MM mirror lenses for the film camera. Any interest?

Reply
Jul 15, 2017 22:28:03   #
littlebear76
 
I grew up learning film 35mm photography on a Canon AE-1 with FD50mm f/1.4 lens which eventually led to a Canon F-1N with a 50mm f/1.2L lens which I absolutely loved and still have.

Reply
 
 
Jul 15, 2017 23:08:11   #
Winslowe
 
Vlux wrote:
A Playboy photographer at the time preferred the "worst zoom Nikon ever made" because it was a little forgiving. That is, its relative softness was a boon to female models.
You pays yer money, and you makes yer choice." According to purpose.

I think that in any discussion of the 43-86 lens, one really should say which of the four main versions they're talking about, as each one was an improvement over the previous one. More than 430,000 were made over 19 years, which sounds like success to me.

Reply
Jul 15, 2017 23:26:29   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
amfoto1 wrote:
I'm just not a big fan of 50mm lenses in general.... Every camera came with one back in the day, and some are excellent... but to me they're pretty boring. I tend to leave them at home and - when I take out one of my old Nikon cameras for a spin - usually take a nice Nikkor 35mm f/2 to use instead (and have similar 35mm or 40mm lenses in other vintage systems).

The 55mm macro is another matter. Always nice to have a macro lens, even if it's only the 1:2 capable, f/3.5 version.

I'm looking forward to making more extensive use of the 105mm.... I've only used one a few times. Seems like a great lens.... at least lots of folks appear to think so.

I'll reserve judgment on the Series 1 70-210mm for now... It's an all-metal beast and happens to be one of the Kino Precision/Kiron-made versions (22xxxxxxx serial number), which are generally pretty good (I've used their 24mm f/2 and various macro lenses in the past). It's a later model that lacks the "ears" to interface with the metering system of some of the earlier Nikon film bodies (EF, F2), so I'll have to learn how that effects it's usefulness on them or if it would be better just used on the later Nikon (FM2n, FE2, FG). EDIT: I just looked again and see I was wrong... the 70-210 does have the "ears", so should be usable on both older and newer Nikon bodies.

As I understand it, the Nikkormat EL from 1972 was the first electronic Nikon body and the first to offer Aperture Priority AE. It's from the era of "full size" SLRs... roughly the same and heft as other SLRs from the early 1970s time period, including the F2 (... and Canon FTb, F1 and Konica T, T2, T3, etc.) There was also an "EL/W" version with provisions to mount a simple, rather slow film winder. The EL uses a now rather rare PX28 battery, which Nikon did a superb job of hiding in the floor of the mirror box. (Took me a while to figure out exactly where it was and how to open the compartment cover!) The Nikon EL2 that followed in 1977 was one of the last of the full size SLRs and abandoned the Nikkormat (Nikomat in Japan) naming convention that had previously been used for the more consumer-oriented models.

From 1965 to 1978, in addition to the EL series (AE capable, aperture priority), there were also Nikkormat FT-series (all mechanical with built-in meters using a manual "match needle" method of adjustment, much like the F) and the Nikkormat FS (no internal meter). The Nikkormat series cameras basically replaced the Nikkorex F of 1962, Nikon's second SLR model and a more consumer-oriented, meterless SLR designed to share lenses with the original, pro-grade Nikon F from 1959. However, the Nikkorex F was actually built by Mamiya. In part this was probably done to gain access to the then new Copal Square, metal-bladed, vertical-travel shutter, which was the product of a joint development effort of Mamiya, Konica (Konishiroku), Pentax (Asahi Kogaku) and Copal. Yet the revolutionary new shutter was first used in a Nikon camera, which wasn't actually made by Nikon themselves! The Nikkorex F also ended up selling under Ricoh and Sears brand names (Ricoh Singlex and Sears SLII). In a sense, the Nikkormats were Nikon asserting itself and bringing all their camera production "in house".

The late 1970s and early 1980s Nikon FE, FM, FG, FM2/FM2n, FE2 etc. were all somewhat more compact models.... As were Canon A-1, AE-1, AE-1P and Konica TC, T4, etc. Minolta and Pentax both also shifted to smaller SLR models around this time, too. Probably this was their respective manufacturers' response to the market success of the Olympus OM series, which set a new standard for more compact SLRs and lenses that consumers really seemed to appreciate.

Love these old cameras!

Now if I can just get my friend to part with his F3!
I'm just not a big fan of 50mm lenses in general..... (show quote)


I had two 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors. One came with my Nikkormat FTn, the other with a Nikon F FTn I inherited. I traded both 50s for a 24mm f/2.8. But only because I had a 55mm f/3.5 and a 55mm f/2.8!

My favorite Nikkors of all time were the 35mm f/2.0 and 105mm f/2.5. I still have the 35. The 105 and plain F3 I used were my employer's. I also had an FM at one point.

Reply
Jul 16, 2017 08:07:53   #
BebuLamar
 
JeffDavidson wrote:
Loved mine. I till have the 500MM and 1000MM mirror lenses for the film camera. Any interest?


I can use them on my digital camera.

Reply
Jul 16, 2017 08:40:05   #
flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT
 
Winslowe wrote:
I think that in any discussion of the 43-86 lens, one really should say which of the four main versions they're talking about, as each one was an improvement over the previous one. More than 430,000 were made over 19 years, which sounds like success to me.


It doesn't really matter which version, that has to be one of the stupidest zoom ranges ever.

Reply
 
 
Jul 16, 2017 10:28:35   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Winslowe wrote:
I think that in any discussion of the 43-86 lens, one really should say which of the four main versions they're talking about, as each one was an improvement over the previous one. More than 430,000 were made over 19 years, which sounds like success to me.


I briefly had version 1, given to me by a friend who didn't want it. I gave it away later, after using it for just two rolls of film. It was the worst SLR lens I ever used. It was the zoom that gave all zooms a bad name for at least 15 years.

By comparison, the 1980s Nikon Series E 36-72mm was cheaply built, but sharper.

Reply
Sep 24, 2018 00:14:20   #
Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.
 
My F3 arrives tomorrow. It will be the first time I have owned or used one. Mine has the DE-2 viewfinder. I wanted to keep it smaller. I will not be adding the MD-4 MD either. Love my FM, FE & FE-2 rigs. It’s maiden voyage will be with the Vivitar Series 1, 28-90, the Kiron 70-150 and Panagor 24 f/2.5.

Reply
Sep 24, 2018 00:28:05   #
Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak
 
burkphoto wrote:
All of those lenses are good finds, except for the 43-86mm. The 43-86 is quite possibly the worst lens Nikon ever made, and one of the worst zoom lenses made, period. That's most likely why it's still in the box! I particularly liked my 50mm f/1.4, 55mm f/2.8 Micro, and 105mm f/2.5. I had a coworker who loaned me her 70-210 Series 1 a few times. It was quite good for that era. The F2 is a tank, like all the Nikon F series film cameras. I can't say much about the FG and EL... I never used either.
All of those lenses are good finds, except for the... (show quote)


So, what is it about that 43-86 lens that is so bad. Not doubting it, just would like to know.

Reply
Sep 24, 2018 00:30:05   #
Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.
 
Wingpilot wrote:
So, what is it about that 43-86 lens that is so bad. Not doubting it, just would like to know.



I have never used it myself. But friends that have, say it is a real POS.

Reply
 
 
Sep 24, 2018 10:13:36   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Wingpilot wrote:
So, what is it about that 43-86 lens that is so bad. Not doubting it, just would like to know.


While I'm not a huge fan of Ken Rockwell, I agree with him on this: https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm

The first version is the worst. I had that one. It's soft, flares like a road hazard flare at the first hint of a light source in the scene, has ugly distortion, doesn't hold focus as you zoom...

I was used to the really nice to really amazing late 1960s 50mm f/1.4, 55mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2, and 105mm f/2.5 Nikkors when a friend gave me the 43-86. I was all excited, and then realized he was teaching me a lesson about "free".

The early 43-86 was the lens that left a bad taste in so many professional's mouths that it would be YEARS before they would try another zoom lens, and only then, with extreme skepticism.

Reply
Sep 24, 2018 11:43:37   #
Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak
 
burkphoto wrote:
While I'm not a huge fan of Ken Rockwell, I agree with him on this: https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm

The first version is the worst. I had that one. It's soft, flares like a road hazard flare at the first hint of a light source in the scene, has ugly distortion, doesn't hold focus as you zoom...

I was used to the really nice to really amazing late 1960s 50mm f/1.4, 55mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2, and 105mm f/2.5 Nikkors when a friend gave me the 43-86. I was all excited, and then realized he was teaching me a lesson about "free".

The early 43-86 was the lens that left a bad taste in so many professional's mouths that it would be YEARS before they would try another zoom lens, and only then, with extreme skepticism.
While I'm not a huge fan of Ken Rockwell, I agree ... (show quote)


Thanks for that explanation. Sounds like it's best used as a fancy paperweight or shelf decoration. Maybe something interesting to add to a collection for display. Just the zoom range is odd, for starters.

Reply
Sep 24, 2018 11:49:05   #
Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.
 
Wingpilot wrote:
Thanks for that explanation. Sounds like it's best used as a fancy paperweight or shelf decoration. Maybe something interesting to add to a collection for display. Just the zoom range is odd, for starters.



Yes, I always thought it to be a very odd zoom range too.

Reply
Sep 24, 2018 11:58:35   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
par4fore wrote:
Going to run a few rolls through on the Jersey shore this week.


Nice!

do you do your own developing and printing or do you send it out?

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.