Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What are the worst lenses you've unfortunately owned
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
SonicScot wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
My latest useless lens:- Foto care 2Xs converter..I decided to clean an element and undid the retention ring and instead of one lens element dropping out everything fell out, 8 parts in all and I can now put my finger through from front to back Shocked Embarassed Laughing


And now you have an extension tube. Laughing

+1 Laughing


More like a vignette producer. Wink

Wow, those 7-element TC are often much better than the 4-element variety.

I've had some lenses that flare way too easily -- one a Soligor 250mm iirc -- but I wouldn't say it is crap because it performed well when flare wasn't a problem.

I can't remember any truly crap lenses from well over a hundred -- excepting of course lenses with some obvious mechanical or optical problem. I might say ALL of my lenses are crap compared to some of the Zeiss, Voigtlander, or Leica lenses. Laughing


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
SonicScot wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
My latest useless lens:- Foto care 2Xs converter..I decided to clean an element and undid the retention ring and instead of one lens element dropping out everything fell out, 8 parts in all and I can now put my finger through from front to back Shocked Embarassed Laughing


And now you have an extension tube. Laughing

+1 Laughing


More like a vignette producer. Wink

Wow, those 7-element TC are often much better than the 4-element variety.

I've had some lenses that flare way too easily -- one a Soligor 250mm iirc -- but I wouldn't say it is crap because it performed well when flare wasn't a problem.

I can't remember any truly crap lenses from well over a hundred -- excepting of course lenses with some obvious mechanical or optical problem. I might say ALL of my lenses are crap compared to some of the Zeiss, Voigtlander, or Leica lenses. Laughing



Well what fell out of Fotocare 2Xs converter were 4 elements, 3 spacers and 1 screwed retaining ring Laughing erm now what would be the possible combination of putting them back in the right order? would it be (excluding retaining ring) 7X6X5X4X3X2=5040 possible ways Shocked


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The absolute worst lens I've ever had was a 1000/11 Celestron C-90 bought new in 1978. Soft, strong central hot spot, severe CA (visible on film!), horrible astigmatism. Re astigmatism, it was classic; at its close focusing distance I could get vertical or horizontal wires in a window screen in focus but not both. I eventually sent it back to Celestron, who said it was defective and replaced it with what they said was a good one. The good one was equally bad.

Second worst was a 500/5.6 Century TeleAthenar II. Even after a rebuild by Century (at vast expense) it was soft at the edges, had a strong central hot spot and horrible CA.


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those sound horrible Dan.

BTW, what lenses in the 120-150mm range with an image circle of 12cm diameter (to cover 6x5x11cm frame) do you think offer a good infinity performance without a high cost?


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Those sound horrible Dan.

BTW, what lenses in the 120-150mm range with an image circle of 12cm diameter (to cover 6x5x11cm frame) do you think offer a good infinity performance without a high cost?
Tessars, preferably f/6.3 or f/4.5, f/3.5 only if post-WWII. Made with many trade names by many makers.

The pick of US-made ones (I know, that's not where you live but it is where I live) are Ektars. 127/4.7 and 152/4.5 Ektars are fine lenses and not too dear.

From European, including UK, makers, Zeiss or Krauss Tessars if you want old and uncoated, Zeiss Tessars if you want post-WWII and coated, also post WWII Xenars, Saphirs (f/4.5 or f/6.3), ... I have very few UK-made tessar types and can't say much about them pro or con. I have two 135/4.8 Lustrars, both in such poor condition that I can't judge them fairly, and 105/3.8 Xpres (too short, too little coverage for you) that I've never got a satisfactorily sharp shot with, and a couple of TTH process tessars that are great lenses but too slow for you.

If you can get an ex-Polaroid CU-5 127/4.7 Tominon and can live with their shutter's limitations (press type, maximum speed 1/125; open for focus by setting speed to T ... ) these are very very good, especially if not expensive.

I'm told that these days 135 and 150 Symmars (convertible plasmat types and non-convertible -S, also plasmats) and Sironars aren't too expensive. More coverage than equivalent tessars.

Cheers,

Dan


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers Dan that was pretty much what I'd figured. I bought a ton of 70mm Fujichrome and plan to spool it up for use in a 116/616 format camera but having difficulty finding a camera with a good lens so figured a lens swap would be worth doing. The idea of 6.5x11 transparencies of landscapes is quite exciting to me.


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"BTW, what lenses in the 120-150mm range with an image circle of 12cm diameter (to cover 6x5x11cm frame) do you think offer a good infinity performance without a high cost?"

At f/16, pretty much anything that will cover the format should give reasonably good results.

Any 135mm lens (such as from the mass of German 9x12 plate cameras, 135mm was the standard lens on these) ) will do quite well I think.

If you want to exclude triplets thats fine, but because they have trouble only at the corners and edges a 135mm triplet would probably work perfectly well on 6x11.

There are lots of Tessar-formula lenses out there. Also the Doppel-Anastigmats, such as the Rodenstock Eurynar, and dozens of others that should give decent corners at the cost of a little less contrast.


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers Luis, if I can't find a 116/616 camera with a good lens such as a Skopar, Tessar or Xenar I will look at putting a good lens on a 116/616 camera with a lesser lens.

I have no experience of the doppel-anastigmats aside from a Meyer Helioplan that was hazy and uncleanable, what is their performance like compared to the Tessar, Skopr, Xenar?


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The vintage Doppel Anastigmats I have tried are indistinguishable from similarly old Tessars.

Some are extremely sharp - the little 207mm f/7.7 Ektar seems to be one of the "legendary" 4x5 lenses.

By reputation, for uncoated examples, because they had more air spaces than triplets or Tessars they are supposed to have less contrast. I haven't seen this for myself. I have had a couple of Eurynars, a Steinheil Unofocal, a "Modico" (I think its an Aldis), that Ektar and one or two vintage no-names. All seemed quite decent in center sharpness on the DSLR bellows and worked just fine shooting 6x9 roll film. No way to tell them from the Tessars.


PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-Jena-135mm-f4-5-Tessar-in-non-working-Compur-shutter-/170841689704?pt=UK_Photography_VintagePhotography_VintagePhotoAccessories&hash=item27c6f54e68

BTW - this is just the sort of 9x12 lens that should work for you.

The sluggish Compur isnt that hard to fix. Most will free up with some lighter fluid and maybe a small smear of sewing machine oil on the clockwork. The aperture may be a problem, even if its just a bit misaligned these can be very difficult to get right. Steady hands and patience required.


PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, I saw that one, not sure I'm competent to fix it.

Perhaps a Rodenstock Ysaron 127mm in Copal from a Polaroid copy cam or the equivalent Tominon would be a good bet.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2