Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: Nikkor dogs + 55mm f/1.2
From: thibault collin <tc-lnc@u-picardie.fr>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:50:11 +0100

Hey Jim,

The 43-86 is a dog, that's period. But there's another nikkor about it I've
always heard it was a "true dog" even from pure Nikon aficionados, it's the
55mm f/1.2.
I used it with an F, some Agfapan 25 and got a fairly good "noctilux effect"..
More flare, that's for sure, but not bad at all...Maybe this number is not a dog


At 10:51 01/03/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>A very long time ago, in a Galaxy... no sorry...  a very long time ago,
>while visiting Alpa in Switzerland, they had finished making a few
>pre-production Nikkor to Alpa adapters. I was going to be there for a week,
>so they gave me one to take out and use. Along with a Nikkor 43-86mm zoom.
>They let me keep the adapter, but I happily gave them back the lens. What a
>dog!
>
>Jim
>
>
>At 01:10 PM 3/1/99 -0500, BD wrote:
>>Does anyone
>>remembers the Nikkor 38-76mm zoom? The one Nikon apologized about because it
>>was not a sharp optic.  It tested lousy.  But still sold in large numbers to
>>many PJs and others in the 60s because it offered something they wanted, a
>>short zoom! Even if it was not as tack sharp as say the 50mm F1.4 Nikkor,
>>they found it usable.
>>
>>-----
>>
>>Peter - While I agree with some of what you said in this post about less
>>than optimal equipment meeting people's needs for certain purposes, I really
>>have to say you're way off on this lens. This lens was a DOG. Woof! Woof! A
>>coke bottle in a zoom housing. It mostly sold to "amateurs" who wanted a
>>Nikon, wanted a short zoom, and didn't know the difference. PJs who bought
>>and used did so at the time because they needed a short zoom and there was
>>no alternative. As soon as there was an alternative, this turkey was
>>history, and really sad history at that. And, yes, I owned one - and it was
>>a bit like having a zoom with a non-removal "soft" filter on it!
>>
>>B. D.
>>
>
>