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: Ken Iisaka <kiisaka@ibm.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 10:13:23 +0900

thibault collin wrote:

> 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.

Note that there are two versions of 43-86.  True, the first, and the most common
version is pretty soft, but the last version, the Ai version (not Ai modified)
version with a 7-digit serial number is good.

>
> 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.
> >>
> >
> >