splitting hairs

S

stmv

Senior Member
We spend so much energy, dollars, and even angst on lens,, a drug maybe,,, but in many ways,,, we are getting such incremental gains.


Here for example is a picture taken with perhaps one of the lowest rated Nikkor Zooms of all time.... the 43-86,, on a FM, about.... 30 years ago.....


artistsharpmaster2-resized.jpg


take a look at the picture on the ground,,, not bad, the veins of his arms, etc, or the burlap bags,,, this is just ISO 100 old KodaChrome slides.

actually,, the last generation of 43-86 fixed most of the issues, and is bargain lens. People have so much built up bias that this is the worse lens EVER...
that I have seen them close at 8 dollars! but,, if you can get one from say the last 8 years,, like from I think 76 on,, a better mix of glass.

Anyway,, let say,, instead I shot this with the latest best lens ..... the gain would have been incremental.

mmm seems like I was just standing there,, wow,, a fast 30 years. (ok,, 32 years)...
 
E

Eye-level

Banned
When KR speaks people listen...just like EF Hutton. LOL

A fool and his money are easily parted and there is a sucker born every minute come to mind. :)
 
S

STM

Senior Member
The photo you provided was very small, not nearly big enough to objectively assess how good (or in this case, bad) the lens was. You also did not stipulate whether it was the early or late 43-86mm. The later one was completely redone as although not a stellar performer by any measure, was not as bad as the early one.

The 43-86mm f/3.5 non-AI lens was indeed a real dog of a lens. WOOF WOOF. I had one and got rid of it after about 6 months. Worst camera investment I ever made. If the sun or a bright light source was in the frame somewhere there were more ghosts than a haunted house. Now the 35-70mm f/3.5 AI and AIS were actually fine lenses, light years ahead of the dog. I never got one because I did not like two touch zooms.
 
Last edited:
Top