Dissapointment lens list

[Attila]

It was Balu's suggestion I guess same important than good ones.

Nikon D50 kit lens (AF)
Olympus E-300,E1 kit lens (AF)

Auto Revuenon xxx zoom , super crap
Takumar 200mm f3.5 pre-set soft at every aperture
Takumar 28mm f3.5
Nikkor 28mm f3.5
Pentacon 29mm
Mir 1B 35mm
Olympus OM 100mm f2.8
Nikkor 18mm f3.5

[bob955i]

Distagon 2.8/21....
































It's a disappointment that I can't get one....

[Attila]

[estudleon]

Flekt 35/2,4 - I though that IT WAS MORE SHARP. My summicron 35/2 was more, more, more; much more sharp and contrastier; well, better.

PENTACON 29/2,8

Super dinarex 135/4 (carl Zeiss lens)

Zoomar 36/83

All the 50 mm. with 3 elements (domiplans, Ysarex, lanthar, vaskar,etc)

[no-X]

• Kiron Vivitar 28/2.5 (mediocre from any POV, I think it's overrated)
  
• SMC Takumar 28/3.5 (not bad, maybe good when compared to other 28mm lenses, but my expectation was higher)
  
• Cosina 35/2.8 (huge peripheral CA and lack of sharpness, crap)
  
• Schneider-Krezunach Edixa-Tele-Xenar (not sure what's the reason of quite high price of this lens; I think it's average)
  
• Tomioka 55/1.2 (very nice mechanically, very nice look, but if you want take a night shot, choose Tomioka 55/1.4 instead and set identical exposure time, then push exposure value in RAW converter and remove additional noise by gaussian blur -> the resulting picture will be still sharper compared to original version taken by 55/1.2 ) - but I still like this lens
  
• CZJ eMC Flektogon - not sure... very good wide-opened, nice close-focusing, good bokeh, but I expected a bit lower CA and a bit higher resolution when stopped down (at f/7-9 even 50 years old 35/2.3 Auto Tak performs better).
  
• SMC Tak 35/2 - good lens, but I expected much lower CA... a bit similar situation to Flektogon

[trifox]

[F16SUNSHINE]

This is an interesting list. I think it could give the wrong idea due to copy variation and poor servicing of older lenses. But here goes anyway.

Big surprise disappointment:

Yashica ML 1.2/55
It was a very good performer from f4-f8 however. Not at all interesting or sharp wide open or even stopped down to f2 becomes sharp by f2.8. Better to miss the one 1/3rd stop (aprx.) and go with a Planar 1.4/50 for half the cost (or less).

Yashica ML 4/200
I have the 4.5/70-210 and it is brilliant. The 4/200 is (was) a huge disapointment. Easily it was outperformed by all others of this focal including some pretty easily had zooms (read cheap).

Vivitar series one vari-focus 2.8/35-85 constant aperture
This lens performs but is a tank (maybe 2 kilos) for it's range and difficult to use quickly. I would rather carry three primes and save my back. Everyone raves about it so It was a surprise loser for me.


Zuiko 16mm fisheye
I don't understand the hype on this one. 2 copies tested both disappointing. My 4/17 super tak is twice as good at 1/3 the price


Not so surprising disapointments

Super tak 3.5/28
Mixxed reviews and mine was crap

Sigma mini wide 24mm
I could not throw it far enough away to escape the stink off of this turd

J9 2/80
Nice lens performance optically but not easy to use. I got a beautiful mint like new copy from Michael. It never loosened up with use. Every time I twist focus it comes loose from the camera. The aperture blades are clean as can be but the ring moves the focus when turned. Very frustrating. It is as many others experienced however.

Special Disapointment (but not really)
Zuiko 2/90
Because I let it go before testing it properly. Just kidding here. I never let my self get to attached to this one. I have too many lenses in this Focal length. It is in a much better home now

[Attila]

2/90 zuiko

Yashica ML 4/200 was huge disappointment for me too.

[NikonD]

hmmm...

tokina 135/2.8 very soft at f2.8 and huge amounts of CA

[LucisPictor]

I did not have any real disappointments, since no lens that I have spent some serious money has disappointed me.
And the lenses that were bad performers, did only cost me some quid.

These are (or rather were) my "not-so-good-lenses":

- Revuenon-Special 2.8/35 (tried two copies, neither one was good)
- Petri Auto C.C. 1.7/50 (decent performer but crappy built)
- Auto Reflecta 1.7/55 (either that is a bad lens or my copy was faulty)
- Greens London 3.5/135 (decent performer but crappy built)
- Panagor Auto Tele 2.8/135 (not too bad, but I had expected more when I bought it)
- Tamron Twin-Tele 5.5/225 (really good as a 2.8/135, but terrible as the 5.5/225, the TC really deteriorates it)

The worst lens I have ever owned is a Tokina 28-80 AF zoom. I am a Tokina Fan, but this lens did not know what "sharpness" and "contrast" means.

[maddog10]

Nikon Series E Zoom 3.5/36-72mm

My initial outing with this lens provided soft focus and poor color rendition (even worse than I expected). I still have it and will try to give it another test sometime in the future.

[bob955i]

I think others have had the same experience Mike, if what I've read elsewhere is anything to go by.

[koji]

Yashica ML Tele and Zooms are all made by Tokina except 28-50/4 zoom.
So it is not surprising, sorry TOKINA.

[Attila]

Yashica ML tele lenses significantly not same league with shorter one, now I know why.. Thanks!

[Wormhandler]

Not dissapointing lenses but a reflection on some of the above posts.

I have not understood where the hype of the super tak 28mm 3,5 comes from. I read about it everywhere on the internet.
I have the super tak 28mm 3,5 and it is a good but "nothing special" performer. And I didn't expect any more from it either when I got it.

I am not sure but I think people has it confused with the 28mm 3,5 SMC K. (K-mount) Not the "M" version.
http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/wide-angle/K28f3.5.html

I do not have this lens but it is said to be a real gem and one of pentax greatest lenses.

[Attila]

Takumar 28mm: Perhaps quality control issue, my copy wasn't good at all. worst 28mm what I ever had.

[A G Photography]

[Wormhandler]

My most disapointing lens was the Tamron SP 70-210mm 3,5-4.
Since so many others praised it I was hoping for performance, but I guess I got a bad copy.

[Attila]

I think yes, I had also this tammy and performed pretty well.

[luisalegria]

Soligor 450/8 - a particularly poor "wundertute" that is pretty darn bad. I haven't documented it here, its so awful. I don't have many unusable lenses (having very low standards), but this one is. There is certainly some other version of this that may be good though, as Soligor had at least four manufacturers of these.

Tamron 80-250/3.8 Adapt-a-matic - Not terrible, just disappointingly low-quality results for a Tamron, especially such a monumentally huge lens. Worse than cheaper makes of the time.

Komura 300/5 - Much worse than its brothers, the 200 and 400. Though this is one I had to rescue from fungus, maybe that explains it.

Sigma 200/3.5 Scale-focusing - I was disappointed when I bought this thirty years ago and I still am. Flares like crazy and unsharp until closed way down.

[Orio]

I agree with Andy, copy variation can influence the judgement on a lens especially for the cheaper lenses

Also I think disappointing lenses are not the same thing as bad lenses.

A good lens can be disappointing to us if we can not get from it the results we expect or even simply if that lens does not meet our liking

Also a bad lens can be not disappointing, if we never expected much out of it from the start...

For instance in the disappointing lenses I would place the Jupiter-9, which is undisputably a good lens, and there are many photos out there that prove it, but it just turned out not to be for me what I hoped it could be (while it is perfect for someone else).
But in any case I would never place the J9 in a list of bad lenses.

[F16SUNSHINE]

Thanks Orio for articulating my point. This is a good exercise to help folks not get the expectations too high on a lens that may sound great. I certainly hope that none of the readers make decisions based on my experience alone. It is simply a case of my disappointment. Again the case of the J9. It is an optically good lens capable of lifetime captures. But Certainly a disappointment on other levels at least for me. This is and will always be a subjective art. Sometimes we photogs have different objectives.

[patrickh]

Me too for the Yashica 200 - I thought it was because I have not given it enough time. I don't often use the J9 for the same reason mentioned above, although it is the mechanics that frustrate me, the optics are pretty good.



patrickh

[Ballu]

Thanks Attila for the thread...

[poilu]

zuiko 28:3.5, non centered lens
zuiko 135:3.5, weak border and CA and I don't like rendering

takumar 50:4 macro, I waited better performance wide open