To understand the existence of this lens, it helps to have some context. In 1963, it was not only the first Nikon zoom lens, it was also one of the first zoom lenses. If I recall correctly, the only prior zoom lens sold outside the movie industry was the Voigtlander Zoomar, which was a far greater piece of crap. Next, the lens was not first made for sale with the Nikon F mount. In the early 1960s, Nikon was trying to ride the prestige of its Nikon F system while selling a cheaper consumer line of cameras, which were subcontracted to Mamiya to make. This begate the Nikkorex Zoom, body by Mamiya; this lens by Nikon; both cheap shit. The Nikkorex Zoom was so poorly made that it got a decidedly non-Nikon reception and was cancelled after a year or two. The zoom lens was slapped into an F-mount and added to the Nikkor lens catalog. Nikon went on to produce some remarkable zoom lenses in the mid-1960s and later, but they were the most expensive lenses Nikon offered, so I suppose they retained this dog to balance the price range. It did get at least one major redesign along the way and ended up a modestly acceptable, inexpensive lens,
This is one of my favourite lenses. I like all the flare and weirdness, it gives my images character. I follow some fine art photographers who use Holga medium format who sell black and white images from this set up for well over £4000 each. I own the Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 S and use it on my Z7. But I still love my ai / ais images more especially for B&W film which is what I mostly shoot. And I always look forward to using my manual lenses more than my new Z lenses. The characteristics of the old lenses are unique. The images from the new Z lenses are super sharp and super clean ready for publishing in Cosmopolitan magazine. Both are excellent but old vintage lenses are truly special. And you can shoot them on Z series cameras. So in defence of this 43-86 lens, I salute you. Your beauty truly is in the eye of this beholder. 🤭✌💗👉🆒
Thanks :) I'm a huge Nikon ais fan myself - I have several that I plan on making videos for in the future. As for the 43-86, it truly has a lot of... character. I'd like to shoot a short film with it at some point.
And one of my favorites too! 🙂 I mostly shoot mine in black and white, and often with a Marumi close-up lens too. It really gives a unique rendering. Jan.
I have a similar lens but I can’t tell if it’s the same, or better. On the lens it reads “Zoom-NIKKOR•C auto 1:3.5 f=43~86mm 587054” is this a different version of the lens?
You have a slightly newer release, but it is still essentially the same lens. (They revised the optics for the later Ai version, but that one wouldn’t use the Nikkor-C wording.)
@@gearheadchannel do you think it’s worth getting the Ai version, or do you have a recommendation for an inexpensive zoom lens (or non zoom) that fits the f mount? Thanks for the response! (Camera is Nikon fg-20, I’m pretty new to film photography)
I haven’t had a chance to use the Ai version, but a lens I really like is the 35-70mm f/3.5 Ai-S. It’s a little bit bigger, but performs quite well, and has some great features.
I bought the first version of this lens and yeah it winded up as a paper-weight, but I was still intrigued by the design so I bought the second version a few years later. The second version is fine, not the best, but a great walk-around lens. Plus I get a lot of ooh's and ah's with this lens attached to my camera.
It definitely looks, feels, and performs like a bit of a pioneer… and I’ll admit I haven’t touched mine since making this video. Maybe it’s time I revisit it.
Your appraisal of the features and faults of this lens are perhaps more of an expression of your unique dissatisfaction with it's capabilities than any evaluation of a high quality lens (and the fact that it has been a reliable zoom that is so much more versatile than a 50mm lens) Grinding your personal axe is what you are doing here. And I continue to use this lens as a high quality tool.
Did you watch the part of the video where I said I liked it? This is an optically flawed and frustrating to use lens… but it also renders unique and interesting images. It stays in my collection.
I just found a copy of this lens at my local camera shop sub $30, fungus and all. For all its flaws I can’t wait to to film some trippy broll with it. Thanks for making this review video.
The lighting on your studio is super interesting. Using bad gear is like exercise you know. Because you then have to figure out creative work arounds around the limitations. Bad gear is like weight, it holds you down but if you lift em allot you do get more stronger and jacked.
I had a friend years ago who was a sports photographer and he said the zoom range was almost perfect for basketball games, but the f/3.5 killed it. I still have the one I bought around 1974.
Hey! Glad I found your channel from Tiktok, I'm just getting into photography and currently looking into replacing my "cheap" Canon with a Nikon. The info in this video is fabulous!
@@gearheadchannel I’m looking at getting either the Nikon D3500 or D5300. I can afford to get a 18/55mm and a 70/300mm with the 3500 or just the 18-55mm with the 5300. And I’m debating whether or not getting the 70-300mm lens is worth getting a less expensive camera
I used to have the D5300. It’s a decent camera body (although getting a little long in the tooth) and the 18-55mm is actually quite good for a kit lens. One of the great things about Nikon bodies is the backward compatibility of the F-mount, you can use tons of vintage lenses natively - which is a great way to affordably put together a collection of some great glass.
Most of those shots look pretty good at 1080p and many are still not bad at 4K -- the worst thing is the CA. The studio scene is more savage but at 7 feet the lens is probably not at its best.
If by "good lens" you mean a zoom lens with average or better than average optical qualities like resolution, contrast, lack of distortion, and lack of 'optical aberrations, the answer is a resounding NO. The last, "improved" version was significantly inferior to most of the Non-Nikon offerings of the same period, as well as the much superior and expensive Nikkor offerings. If you want a superb zoom lens of this zoom range, seek out the moderately rare Tamron Adaptall II SP 35-80mm 2.8-4.0 zoom (in Nikon F mount of course). If you can find a decent copy, it will probably cost in the range of $50 plus mount adapter. It was one of the best zooms ever made of this type, fully the equal of its Nikon equivalent.
The focal length makes me wonder what they were thinking? There was a lens for an old half frame slr that was similar in length. I think the bokeh is strange looking but I could see why an artistic person could get into using this lens.
I I think this lens is sharp but the focus is close and the focus distance is extremely far from 20m to infinity. Taking photos is ok but shooting video with this lens is not as good in design as the nikon 35-70mm lens (nearest focus 0.5m, before infinity is 5 meter)
I have the later ai version of this lens and the images I get at f8 are good (soft @ 3.5) , I like the colour rendering and like it for videos on Nikon D90 , these lenses will still work years after the later plasticy Z lenses have fallen apart..
I’ve heard that the Ai version is a bit better, although I kind of like how flawed this one is. As long as you keep fungus out, these should last forever.
Zooms definitely weren’t ready for prime-time yet. This one is so bad that it’s kinda charming. By the time they got to the 35-70mm f/3.5 they really resolved most of all the issues.
@@gearheadchannel I was actually getting ready to list mine on eBay today and thought let me check a few videos on it first. Well, needless to say, after watching your video it is back, safe on my lens shelf LOL. I shoot mainly film, Nikkormats, Nikon F, etc.... and it just seems a fitting lens for that.
That Nikon 43-86 mm f/3.5 NAi lens is seriously a piece of garbage. My high school yearbook staff had this lens, and even as an amateur photographer, I knew that lens was crap. But at least we had (if memory serves) I think a 110mm f/3.5 Nikon lens which was very good indeed.
My copy is in great shape, and performs as typical. Do you happen to have the Ai version? A lot of the flaws of this design were mitigated in later revisions.
To understand the existence of this lens, it helps to have some context. In 1963, it was not only the first Nikon zoom lens, it was also one of the first zoom lenses. If I recall correctly, the only prior zoom lens sold outside the movie industry was the Voigtlander Zoomar, which was a far greater piece of crap. Next, the lens was not first made for sale with the Nikon F mount. In the early 1960s, Nikon was trying to ride the prestige of its Nikon F system while selling a cheaper consumer line of cameras, which were subcontracted to Mamiya to make. This begate the Nikkorex Zoom, body by Mamiya; this lens by Nikon; both cheap shit. The Nikkorex Zoom was so poorly made that it got a decidedly non-Nikon reception and was cancelled after a year or two. The zoom lens was slapped into an F-mount and added to the Nikkor lens catalog. Nikon went on to produce some remarkable zoom lenses in the mid-1960s and later, but they were the most expensive lenses Nikon offered, so I suppose they retained this dog to balance the price range. It did get at least one major redesign along the way and ended up a modestly acceptable, inexpensive lens,
This is one of my favourite lenses. I like all the flare and weirdness, it gives my images character. I follow some fine art photographers who use Holga medium format who sell black and white images from this set up for well over £4000 each. I own the Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 S and use it on my Z7. But I still love my ai / ais images more especially for B&W film which is what I mostly shoot. And I always look forward to using my manual lenses more than my new Z lenses. The characteristics of the old lenses are unique. The images from the new Z lenses are super sharp and super clean ready for publishing in Cosmopolitan magazine. Both are excellent but old vintage lenses are truly special. And you can shoot them on Z series cameras. So in defence of this 43-86 lens, I salute you. Your beauty truly is in the eye of this beholder. 🤭✌💗👉🆒
Thanks :) I'm a huge Nikon ais fan myself - I have several that I plan on making videos for in the future. As for the 43-86, it truly has a lot of... character. I'd like to shoot a short film with it at some point.
And one of my favorites too! 🙂 I mostly shoot mine in black and white, and often with a Marumi close-up lens too. It really gives a unique rendering. Jan.
I have a similar lens but I can’t tell if it’s the same, or better. On the lens it reads “Zoom-NIKKOR•C auto 1:3.5 f=43~86mm 587054” is this a different version of the lens?
You have a slightly newer release, but it is still essentially the same lens. (They revised the optics for the later Ai version, but that one wouldn’t use the Nikkor-C wording.)
@@gearheadchannel do you think it’s worth getting the Ai version, or do you have a recommendation for an inexpensive zoom lens (or non zoom) that fits the f mount? Thanks for the response! (Camera is Nikon fg-20, I’m pretty new to film photography)
I haven’t had a chance to use the Ai version, but a lens I really like is the 35-70mm f/3.5 Ai-S. It’s a little bit bigger, but performs quite well, and has some great features.
Nikon 35-70mm f/3.5 AIS - Vintage Lens Review | GEAR HEAD
ruclips.net/video/KVVDT7sn60o/видео.html
@@gearheadchannel thanks! Super cool you’re still responding to comments!
I bought the first version of this lens and yeah it winded up as a paper-weight, but I was still intrigued by the design so I bought the second version a few years later. The second version is fine, not the best, but a great walk-around lens. Plus I get a lot of ooh's and ah's with this lens attached to my camera.
It definitely looks, feels, and performs like a bit of a pioneer… and I’ll admit I haven’t touched mine since making this video. Maybe it’s time I revisit it.
Your appraisal of the features and faults of this lens are perhaps more of an expression of your unique dissatisfaction with it's capabilities than any evaluation of a high quality lens (and the fact that it has been a reliable zoom that is so much more versatile than a 50mm lens) Grinding your personal axe is what you are doing here. And I continue to use this lens as a high quality tool.
Did you watch the part of the video where I said I liked it? This is an optically flawed and frustrating to use lens… but it also renders unique and interesting images. It stays in my collection.
I just found a copy of this lens at my local camera shop sub $30, fungus and all. For all its flaws I can’t wait to to film some trippy broll with it. Thanks for making this review video.
Thanks for watching it :) I hope you have fun with it.
How THE FUCK do you only have 180 subscribers?? That's insane... I feel like your channel deserves way more
Thanks :) I’m working on it - she’s a growin’
500 in 10 months keep it up!
Will do!
The lighting on your studio is super interesting. Using bad gear is like exercise you know. Because you then have to figure out creative work arounds around the limitations. Bad gear is like weight, it holds you down but if you lift em allot you do get more stronger and jacked.
I had a friend years ago who was a sports photographer and he said the zoom range was almost perfect for basketball games, but the f/3.5 killed it. I still have the one I bought around 1974.
Do you ever shoot with it?
Hey! Glad I found your channel from Tiktok, I'm just getting into photography and currently looking into replacing my "cheap" Canon with a Nikon. The info in this video is fabulous!
Thanks :). Are you getting into Digital or Film photography?
@@gearheadchannel digital photography, unfortunately that was the only option for a photography class at my college
What model are you looking at getting?
@@gearheadchannel I’m looking at getting either the Nikon D3500 or D5300. I can afford to get a 18/55mm and a 70/300mm with the 3500 or just the 18-55mm with the 5300. And I’m debating whether or not getting the 70-300mm lens is worth getting a less expensive camera
I used to have the D5300. It’s a decent camera body (although getting a little long in the tooth) and the 18-55mm is actually quite good for a kit lens. One of the great things about Nikon bodies is the backward compatibility of the F-mount, you can use tons of vintage lenses natively - which is a great way to affordably put together a collection of some great glass.
Most of those shots look pretty good at 1080p and many are still not bad at 4K -- the worst thing is the CA. The studio scene is more savage but at 7 feet the lens is probably not at its best.
Do you think the nikkor 43-86mm f3.5 with AI is a good lens?
I haven’t personally used the Ai version, but I believe they made several improvements.
If by "good lens" you mean a zoom lens with average or better than average optical qualities like resolution, contrast, lack of distortion, and lack of 'optical aberrations, the answer is a resounding NO. The last, "improved" version was significantly inferior to most of the Non-Nikon offerings of the same period, as well as the much superior and expensive Nikkor offerings. If you want a superb zoom lens of this zoom range, seek out the moderately rare Tamron Adaptall II SP 35-80mm 2.8-4.0 zoom (in Nikon F mount of course). If you can find a decent copy, it will probably cost in the range of $50 plus mount adapter. It was one of the best zooms ever made of this type, fully the equal of its Nikon equivalent.
The focal length makes me wonder what they were thinking? There was a lens for an old half frame slr that was similar in length. I think the bokeh is strange looking but I could see why an artistic person could get into using this lens.
Everything about it is bizarre!
I I think this lens is sharp but the focus is close and the focus distance is extremely far from 20m to infinity. Taking photos is ok but shooting video with this lens is not as good in design as the nikon 35-70mm lens (nearest focus 0.5m, before infinity is 5 meter)
Agreed.
I have the later ai version of this lens and the images I get at f8 are good (soft @ 3.5) , I like the colour rendering and like it for videos on Nikon D90 , these lenses will still work years after the later plasticy Z lenses have fallen apart..
I’ve heard that the Ai version is a bit better, although I kind of like how flawed this one is. As long as you keep fungus out, these should last forever.
Just found out my lens is the Mk2 and Ken Rockwell says this one is just fine...for clarity....
A lot of zooms from the slide rule days were junk. I remember this was a brand name one to stay away from.
Zooms definitely weren’t ready for prime-time yet. This one is so bad that it’s kinda charming. By the time they got to the 35-70mm f/3.5 they really resolved most of all the issues.
This is the first version of this lens. There's another one which is said to be much better in the traditional sense of this word.
Apparently the revised version is not bad… but who wants that?
Ironically this lens is perfect for these modern super sharp sensors if you want a softer film look to your footage.
Absolutely!
I just saw another guy saying precisely the contrary!
That it's a flawless lens which takes uninteresting pictures?
As "bad" as it is this lens was (is) all any amateur with a Nikkormat needed to capture family, events and vacations.
It’s bad in the most interesting of ways. I’ll never get rid of mine.
@@gearheadchannel I was actually getting ready to list mine on eBay today and thought let me check a few videos on it first. Well, needless to say, after watching your video it is back, safe on my lens shelf LOL. I shoot mainly film, Nikkormats, Nikon F, etc.... and it just seems a fitting lens for that.
Hey. Thats my apartment building...lol.
7 blade diaphragm I think??
It’s a 6 blade diaphragm. I show it in the video.
Mine is deffo 7 and I know what I am talking about.......
Could be interesting for video.
Absolutely. I could see it giving footage a bit of a 16mm film vibe.
That Nikon 43-86 mm f/3.5 NAi lens is seriously a piece of garbage.
My high school yearbook staff had this lens, and even as an amateur photographer, I knew that lens was crap.
But at least we had (if memory serves) I think a 110mm f/3.5 Nikon lens which was very good indeed.
Lol, it’s definitely not the greatest. That said if your going for a certain ‘shot through an old sock’ aesthetic… it has its charm.
You must have a bad copy. Mine is very good and have few of the problems you claim to have.
My copy is in great shape, and performs as typical. Do you happen to have the Ai version? A lot of the flaws of this design were mitigated in later revisions.
@@gearheadchannel I have the AI-S version.
That’ll do it.