What is the WORST lens you can think of?

[martyn_bannister]

A lot of good lenses are being shown on this forum, but a quick search hasn't brought up anything for the worst lens that you own or have experience of. I'm not talking about external condition or when it is infested with fungus, has been shot-blasted by months in the sahara or whatever.

I'm talking about a lens in good external and optical condition, just that something in the design marks it up as being absolutely horrendous in one respect or another.

Any takers?

[Excalibur]

For me:- a Makinon zoom IIRC it was about 35-70mm, and at any setting nothing was sharp, in it's favour VG engineering build but heavy.

[peterqd]

The non-SMC K-mount Takumars come to mind. IMO Pentax took a wrong turning when they decided to produce cheap cr*p.

[Minolfan]

Some years ago I have given away a cheap Vivitar 28-70mm zoom in MD mount. Sharpnes not very good, contrast no where. I had bought the lens because of my wife said she hated me strolling around with some heavy primes (and/or a Vivitar S1 70-210). But I was never pleased with the results. As soon as we had divorced I wanted to get rid of that unsatifying short zoom.

[LucisPictor]

I used to have a Soligor 3.5/35-140 which I bought because of the nice range and the constant f/3.5.
But it was such a lemon!

However, I cannot say that it is the worst lens I can think of. And I believe that it was only my copy. I can't believe that the whole line of 3.5/35-140 are so bad.

And I still have a 2.8/35mm lens - I can't even remember the name ATM, need to check, that definitely has a problem. I can't get a single sharp shot with it.

[Big Dawg]

Samyang 100-500. Never got even a semi-sharp photo with mine so I sold it for three times what I paid for it. I've often wondered if the folks that bought it sold it as quickly as I did.

[BRunner]

Old Sigma lenses. Nicely built and great mechanical quality, but optically they are CRAP! And yes, I tried almost mint copies of YS series 4/200, 2.8/135, 2.8/100 Macro. And one 2.8/24.

[Excalibur]

***Old Sigma lenses--optically they are CRAP***

Surely you don't mean the "mini and super wideII".......28mm and 24mm?

[Joosep]

Cant think of any really bad mflens, because I really have low expectations for ones I get for peanuts, so I dont really get dissapointed.
But I think the worst lens I have ever used must be the Sigma 15-30mm. The size does not equal the speed of the lens (its big and not fast). It was totally unsharp (maybe just a bad copy) and really not well built.

Thats my humble oppinon.

PS. I love Sigmas... well most of them

[Toeteraar]

1 I once had a Makinon 2.8/135mm with a closefocus function that i seemed to find very useful in that time(on schooldays budget). It proved to be one of the rare MFlenses that wasn't able to produce a sharp picture no matter how far stopped down on no matter what kind of tripod. To prevent it from getting back into society, i disassembled it to learn more about how bad lenses are built.

2 I had the same experience with a Pallas 2.8/28mm that could produce at least a some kind of sharpish centre. The rest of the picture was beyond disastrous. As the disassembly of the Makinon should be enough protection for society, i decided to sell the Pallas, and it's kind of strange that the only optics one can sell with considerable profit are crappy optics.

Since these two examples, i didn't run into bad or worse lenses again.

[cooltouch]

Do fixed-lens cameras count? If so, it would have to be the first camera I ever owned:



You know, that's a thought-provoking question. There have been a few lenses I've been disappointed in, as far as sharpness and contrast go, but none I've used that were awful.

For a while, I owned two Canon EF 28-85mm zooms, one that came with the Elan IIe I bought and another that came with my mother's Elan II, which she gave to me. After doing a comparison between the two lenses, I realized the 28-85 that I got from my mom was noticeably less sharp than mine, so I sold it. Not awful, just not sharp.

I used to own a very rare Vivitar "Professional" 135mm f/1.5. It was a T-mount preset lens and was HUGE. But even stopped down it was ridiculously soft and almost impossible to focus because of its softness. So I sold it too. Got good money for it though because of its rarity. Found this shot of one on Photobucket:



Those are the only two I can think of off-hand. Even the various "cheap" off-brand lenses I've used over the years have been decent performers for what they were.

[vulko]

What about the performance of this Vivitar at F2.0-F2.4? also soft?

[martyn_bannister]

[LucisPictor]

[Attila]

I met a few crap one only Auto Revueneon Zoom I forgot focal length , because it went to trash after a few shoots immediately and did happen years ago.

[LucisPictor]

[Joosep]

[martyn_bannister]

[revers]

Since we are dogging on Makinon here is my contribution.

I bought a 28-80/3.5-4.5 1:5 macro last year from a pawn shop for $15. It is a very heavy beast & the focus is extremely sensitive, just a very slight turn of the focus ring & you are in & out of focus. I tested it when I got it & then put it in a cupboard until today. I mounted it on my G1 set up on a tripod & shot three frames @ f5.6 as follows:


1. FL 28mm, focus on tip of Spruce branch @ centre of frame.





2. Fl 80mm, same focus point




3. 1:5 macro @ 10'/3M

[martyn_bannister]

[Esox lucius]

I have managed to stay clear of coke glass lenses and evident swiss army knives (useable for a lot of things, not good at any of them) but there is one lens I think should not be allowed to carry the Nikkor name.

Nikkor 14/2.8D - center sharpness only positive thing about this lens. Complex moustache distortion, LOTS of vignetting. More CA than I have ever seen, photos are blooming of it. Boy am I happy I got it on try before buy (never bought it). I think Nikon quietly discontinued it at some point, and coming to think of it I actually know of no-one who ever bought this 1500 EUR piece of ***t

[Joosep]

[no-X]

Voigtlander Macro APO Lanthar 125/2.5

The lens simply doesn't work as it should. One would expect, that dragonflies - seeing this lens - will sit down and pose as best as they can, but they don't care and always fly away. Maybe a deffective copy? I have no idea…

[BRunner]

[symphonic]

lol @no-X