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 is/was/has been your WORST lens?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:43 pm    Post subject: What is/was/has been your WORST lens? Reply with quote
We often ask about the best gear we have.
What was the worst lens that you ever had and the worst lens that you still have?

In my case:

- Auto Reflecta 1.7/55 (Poor performance and built like a toy lens.)
- ENNA Ennalyt 1:3.5/28 (But only because of a intense haze inside, I guess. Sold.)
- Auto Exaktar 1:2.8/35 (this lens is not even mediocre in any respect. Sold.)
- Revuenon-Special 2.8/35 (Sold due to it's bad performance. I had two copies, one was a poor the other one an abysmal performer.)
- my first copy of a Helios - 44 1:2/58 (But only because the rear lens was badly scratched and it had some bad haze inside. I gave it away.)

And the worst ever was:
- Tokina AF 1:3.5-5.6/28-80 (I am sorry, Tokina. I am a Tokina fan, but this lens was just "pants". Really bad, I did not get a single good or at least sharp shot from it! Sold for cheap money.)

The worst lenses I still have are
- Tamron Twin-Tele 5.5/225 (Quite nice as a 2.8/135 but a 'special' TC turns it into a 5.5/225 and then it is total crap.)
- Greens London 3.5/135 (Nice performance, but the blades fell apart after some weeks, without me doing anything!)


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have bad lenses, only a novoflex 105 who give bad performance wide open and awful bokeh but maybe some people like that ?
today shot


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Poilu, the lens is charming, it gives a nice glow to the picture... And even like this bokeh, quite extreme but nice. Smile Not very sharp, but interesting...

Jes.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Jes
You made me happy, now I don't have any bad lens Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Marep 200 is, without doubt, the worst purchase I've made. It's actually reasonably sharp, but the flare... just show it a bit of sun anywhere in the sky (even from behind) and any reflections in the scene just fog out the centre.
I've never seen anything like it.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A Revuenon 200mm zoom after the test I throw to garbage can..


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
First , a Makinon 4/300mm ... Sold .From f/4 to f/22 , impossible to get a decent sharp image ... Howeve , good colors.
Second , Mepro 8/500 (die "wundertüte"....) My russian 3M5CA f/8 500 cannot be compared ...
Third , the Meritar 2,9/45 on Beirette ... Poor , but ? I'm searching for a M42 or exakta copy...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fujinon 55/2,2. Would have been better to use the bottom of a coke bottle. Truly a disgusting performer. Would anyone like to buy it? Very Happy Very Happy


patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Smile Perhaps Abbazz able to response why, he know very well Fujinon products, this is a surprise me really.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Abbazz uses Fujitsu lenses for his medium film rangefinder. These are top-class lenses for professionals.

The 2.2/55 was a (rather) slow standard lens for the mass market.

BUT, I also had a Fuji 2.2/55 (in M42) and it was quite a nice lens. I only sold it because I have never used it due to its f2.2. I had much faster and better lenses.

So, it surprises me, Patrick, that you are so dissatisfied with it... Shocked


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maybe I should give it another try ....


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Smile Perhaps Abbazz able to response why, he know very well Fujinon products, this is a surprise me really.


Attila, I don't know much about Fujinon lenses for 35mm. As stated by Cartens, I use mostly Fujinon lenses (made by Fuji Camera Co., not Fujitsu) on my medium format cameras (Fujica G690, Fuji G645zi). These are first class professional lenses, which cost much more than 35mm lenses.

I have a Soft Focus 85/4 Fujinon lens designed for 35mm photography, which is a specialty lens. It's a good lens (within its scope), well constructed. Here are some pictures taken with this lens wide open (with maximum soft focus effect):







The same picture, but stopped down to f/8:



Apart from this lens, I have read good reviews of many Fujinon lenses in the magazines. There are also good opinions on the web, like this one (from this page):

As far as screw mount lens recommendations, I think many of the Fuji EBC lenses from the 1970's were exceptional, and they are highly under-rated. I had to look hard to find any of them, but have gotten the 28 f3.5, 50 f1.4, 100mm f2.8, and 200mm f4.5. They are all superb and compare favorably with the best primes I have ever used, including those from Nikon and Leica.

Of course, it seems there have also been some dogs among the cheapest lenses, like this is the case with many manufacturers (Canon...).

Cheers!

Abbazz

Last edited by Abbazz on Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:38 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A Tamron 28/200 manual focus zoom.
I feel bad in writing this, as that lens served me honestly while I was unemployed and unable to buy any better lens, So I should really respect it more. But is was really awful: slow, vignetting at all positions, muddy image quality unless stopped down to a minimum of f/8.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Call me a thread necrophilic but I like to reopen this Smile

My worst intact photo lens without any haze, fungus or dust is the Auto Makinon Zoom 1:3.5 f=80-200mmm MC with 57mm screw mount and Konica mount
Unsharp like shit at the long end and also many CAs Smile

But I have to admit that this lens is build very well


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Call me a thread necrophilic but I like to reopen this Smile

My worst intact lens without any haze, fungus or dust is the Auto Makinon Zoom 1:3.5 f=80-200mmm MC with 57mm screw mount and Konica mount
Unsharp like shit at the long end and also many CAs Smile


Well I had a Makinon zoom IIRC about 35-70mm well made but results were crap and I gave it to a charity shop, but my copy of a Makinon 28mm prime is good.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.

It's not that it was defective, it's that it was designed for military use, not pictorial use. Portraits looked awful!




Last edited by FluffPuppy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:49 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.


Puh I nearly bought this lens Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.


Puh I nearly bought this lens Smile


Don't! It's a reconnaissance lens, not a pictorial lens.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Leitz Summar for flair - jeeze it was hideous Shocked

Meyer Domiplan (Donkeyplan) for sheer nastiness of all imaginable kinds Mad

and a Rokkor I had in the 70s, but I don't remember what focal length it was. I remember Amateur Photographer magazine at the time declaring it the worst lens they had ever tested Laughing

Other than that, I don't think I've had any real lemons.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
I don't have bad lenses, only a novoflex 105 who give bad performance wide open and awful bokeh but maybe some people like that ?
today shot


I love those links that do not work..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................boah


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.

It's not that it was defective, it's that it was designed for military use, not pictorial use. Portraits looked awful!



Just to sharp to hide any ambitious artsy trials

sorry
Klaus


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exaklaus wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.

It's not that it was defective, it's that it was designed for military use, not pictorial use. Portraits looked awful!



Just to sharp to hide any ambitious artsy trials

sorry
Klaus


No, skin looked very odd on Kodachrome 25. It was corrected far into infrared or something, but it was just awful. Blue veins showed up on a pale woman's skin. It was not a matter of sharpness at all, it just stunk for people photography.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fluffy wrote, re the 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt R:

Quote:
It's a reconnaissance lens, not a pictorial lens.


Are you sure? I ask because none of the aerial cameras I'm acquainted with used it. Its a small format lens ...

And what's the difference? I ask because (a) I have and use a number of lenses that flew and they don't give that problem and (b) with the exception of lenses made explicitly for IR photography most of the aerial camera lenses for which I have data have worse transmission in the near IR than in the visible. Some, however, are poorly achromatized and are best used with a narrow pass filter; examples include, according to my USAF data sheets the 3"/4.5 Goerz Biogon(!) and the 6"/1.5 Perkin-Elmer.

Back to the worst lens ever owned, I have two candidates:

1000/11 Celestron C-90. Terrible astigmatism, horrible central hot spot, awful build quality, ... Did I forget to say that it was soft soft soft? Microscopists have a concept that fits it perfectly. Empty magnification. Cheap and not worth the price.

35/4 Rodenstock Eurygon for Polaroid MP-3. Resolution so low at 1:1 and f/4 that it couldn't be focused wide open at 1:1.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.

Puh I nearly bought this lens Smile

+1 Puh!


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
Fluffy wrote, re the 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt R:

Quote:
It's a reconnaissance lens, not a pictorial lens.


Are you sure?


Of course I am sure! I was designed for the US Navy by Leitz Canada. It was part of the "High-Resolution Photographic System". You learn all about it from google. A terrible lens for general use, but good for its intended purpose. It's not a 'bad' lens, just not designed for pictorial photography.

Last edited by FluffPuppy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:59 pm; edited 2 times in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3