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 the WORST lens you can think of?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The worst one I had was a Hanimex 28mm but I think there might have been something wrong with it as the guy in this thread took one test shot and it was better than anything I ever got!

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/37710-hanimex-28mm-f-2-8-test-shot.html

Mine seemed to be soft at any aperture


PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
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… Sad



Try a Helios 44-2, dragonflies love to pose for them. Wink



PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nice one! I think these don't live here, the local ones aren't that "fat" and colored (there are blue or green, not combined) Smile


PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
MF Tokina 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 - soft, no contrast andterrible flare control...
my vivitar 80-205 was also crappy....

Joosep:
btw Sigma 15-30 is an very good lens - it`s decent sharp, low on distortion(even on FF), exc contrast but big and not excellent flare control. There are only satisfied users Wink I think you had very poor copy...check this http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15.html


PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
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 defective copy? I have no idea… Sad

Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AAARRGGH!!

no-x YOU WERE first!! I wanted to be first making this statement Smile

YES! What ELSE ..

ONLY CV APO-LANTHAR 125 is THE WORST LENS EVER MADE!

There is nothing to touch this lens and the price! Oh my god !!

or dog? Smile

tf

p.s. _ I am hoping that Esox Lucius has shut his computer down. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
cooltouch wrote:

For a while, I owned two Canon EF 28-85mm zooms...


I didn't know that there was an EF 28-85. I know about an EF 24-85 (which is a really good lens, at least my copy was) and the EF 28-80 (which I have not shot with).


Sorry, I was writing the above off the top of my head. Yeah, they're 28-80s -- f/3.5 - 5.6. My mom's was a III and mine is a IV. Couldn't see a bit of difference between the two, just looking at 'em.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
75-200MM zoom labeled Gemini which likely was sold as Sears back in it's day. I saw at least a dozen ads for these when looking for a decent M42 zoom lens. Nearly every ad for one of them mentioned the lens had mechanical issues and everything else I've ever read suggested that it was just an awful lens besides. I finally inherited one? It was completely fungus ridden and the aperture ring was frozen solid besides. That defect was mentioned more than once in the ads I saw so I'd have to say it seemed par for the course with this lens. Total lemon from what I can tell.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stan - have you been taking your medication lately?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
cooltouch wrote:

For a while, I owned two Canon EF 28-85mm zooms...


I didn't know that there was an EF 28-85. I know about an EF 24-85 (which is a really good lens, at least my copy was) and the EF 28-80 (which I have not shot with).


Sorry, I was writing the above off the top of my head. Yeah, they're 28-80s -- f/3.5 - 5.6. My mom's was a III and mine is a IV. Couldn't see a bit of difference between the two, just looking at 'em.


Ah, OK. Thanks. Kind of important to clarify that, because labeling the 24-85 a bad lens would not be right.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Joosep: Then my copy must be extraordinarily good! I have also tested a lot of lenses (close to 200 by now) and know how to judge on one.

Joosep wrote:

Before I bought mine, I tested 4 copies of the 12-24. One was soft on the left side, one showed some barrel effect on the top, one was perfect (now mine) and one was really crappy (this version was sent back to Sigma).

This shows that Sigma apparently has a QC issue. Thus your copy (copies?) of the 15-30 could have easily been faulty. We should be careful to condemn a lens because of our own experiences with one (or a small number of copies).

karabud wrote:
...Sigma 15-30 ... and not excellent flare control.

And again that is some kind of prejudice. I have shown images here in which other lenses flare much worse than the 15-30 in similar situations.

Joosep wrote:

(So a man who owns the 2nd biggest photocompany in my country should know whats the best. .... Laughing )

How can he know what is best for me?
I agree that he probably has a vast experience and can judge on the technical issues of a lens very well. But his opinion is neither as universal as anybody else's.
Let me give you an example: A German photomagazine (those who seem to have a great experience as well) has just published a test of APS standard zooms and there the EF-S 15-85 IS ends up on one of the last postions, even behind the "old" EF-S 17-85 IS. Well, I have shot with either lens and I can tell you that my personal experience is completely the opposite! The 15-85 is much, much better than the 17-85!

I have learned something: "If you want to know whether you like a lens, test it for yourself, don't always believe what others say!".
I have always hesitated to buy a Sigma 15-30 because it has quite a bad reputation. But I wanted something really wide for my 5D without having to pay €1000,-. After I'd bought it, I wished that I had bought it earlier. It's such a fascinating lens! None of the prejudices that we can read in the internet boards turned out to be true - except that it is BIG! Wink

And yes, the Sigma 12-24 can be an amazing lens. I have shot with one some time ago which produced pretty nice results. But if you compare the prices...

Last edited by LucisPictor on Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To Lucis:

Everything you sayd I agree with.
Well the company I work in imports Sigma. I got my Sigma 12-24 for 480€.

Lets stop trashing the topic. Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Joosep wrote:

Lets stop trashing the topic. Laughing



Shocked But that's what this topic is about -- trashing lenses! Cool


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let's see, I can't nominate fixed lenses (like a Lomo plastic OPTICAL LENS) or non-photographic glass (like some of the crud I shove into a bellows) or broken / diseased lenses. That limits the possibilities.

I'll have to name two Pentax SMC zooms: the heavy metal M40-80/2.8-4 (US$66) and the light plastic A35-80/4-5.6 (US$13), neither of which is ever sharp or aberration-free anywhere. Even my Takumar Bayonets are much better.

Oh wait, I've got a worse one: the Vemar Fish-Eye 12/8 (US$120) that is aligned wrong. I get better WA images with a pinhole in tinfoil.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are degrees of how bad a lens can be.

HORRIBLE

The only truly dismal lens that I tried was Focal 350/5.6 mirror lens. No single "sharp" picture out of this lens, and lots of CA (usually, mirror optics are free of CA; this one was not). It serves to this day as an impressive pen holder with glass/mirrors removed.

The other mirror that was quite bad was a brand-new Samyang 500/8. "Better" than the Focal, it's still very much unusable. It's being sold new as Opteka, Bower, Vivitar etc. (In case anyone wonders: I do know how to use mirrors properly; my Yashica ML Reflex 500/8 is pin sharp, and RMC Tokina 500/8 is only a tad softer).

Compared to the above mirror lenses, everything else was pretty decent.

BAD

The Nikkor 43-86/3.5 (old version) is pretty horrible but usable well stopped down (it looks good as a paperweight though); the newer Ai version was better, but still quite bad; however, my Olympus Zuiko 35-70/3.6 is excellent all the way.

DISAPPOINTING

Leica-R Leitz Telyt 250/4 (1st gen) did not quite live up to my expectations (especially considering its price), with lots of CA even in the centre of the image. Was only sharp by f/8 or so. Nikkor*ED 300/4.5 is way better for 1/2 the price!

Surprisingly, my Olympus Zuiko 35/2.8 (latest version) is a dud. Purple fringing wide open when shooting to infinity, corners soft until f/5.6. Maybe I'm spoiled by the excellent Yashica ML 35/2.8 that's sharp straight from wide open, but I expected more of the little Zuiko. Especially after trying their excellent 28 and 24mm.

Yashica ML 135/2.8 (1st version, 55mm filters) was a disappointment: lots of LoCA, not very sharp wide open. Even the really cheap third-party lenses (e.g. Vivitar 135/2.Cool were much better than that!

Hanimex 105/2.8 (Tokina made preset lens, mount similar to T2 but wider, about 46mm) is also a lemon. Soft and low contrast at 2.8-4 with very harsh bokeh wide open. Super-Takumar 105/2.8 was only slightly better, but still nowhere near such great glass as Nikkor 105/2.5 or Olympus Zuiko 100/2.8.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Joosep wrote:

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.


I had two of them, first one was a lemon giving an unsharp picture on the left side. Second one I had was perfect. Still have a 50x70cm picture hanging at the wall, made with it on the Sigma SD10. Outstanding details and sharpness.
But this lens is way to big and heavy.

Klaus


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmmm. Not counting broken, damaged, or crud-filled lenses? Okay. I can think of two that were pretty bad.

I had a Vivitar 135/2.8. Images were terribly soft. In fact, I could usually blow up the center of a picture taken with my Yashinon 50/1.9 to cover the same area as the Vivitar 135, and the image would be sharper.

More recently, got my hands on a Zoom Nikkor 43-86/3.5. Wow. Soft, low contrast, couldn't get a decent image...ever. Then, I took a shot where the sun grazed the front element. I've never seen so many ghosts or so much flare.

I'm surprised anyone ever trusted a Zoom-Nikkor again.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It has often been said that the Nikkor 43-86 was one of the best portrait lenses ever. Shocked Precisely because it's so soft it smooths out all those imperfections and blemishes. Cool


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ROFL !!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exaklaus wrote:
Joosep wrote:

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.


I had two of them, first one was a lemon giving an unsharp picture on the left side. Second one I had was perfect. Still have a 50x70cm picture hanging at the wall, made with it on the Sigma SD10. Outstanding details and sharpness.
But this lens is way to big and heavy.

Klaus


This, Klaus, seems to confirm our experiences. Thanks.

Joosep wrote:
I got my Sigma 12-24 for 480€.



WOW! Fantastic price!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
... Super-Takumar 105/2.8 was only slightly better, but still nowhere near such great glass as Nikkor 105/2.5 or Olympus Zuiko 100/2.8.


This also surprises me. My copy of this lens is fantastic!

But as usual, it's about each copy. As I wrote before my Soligor 3.5/35-140 was a real lemon, although I have read about users who love it!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On the other hand, here's a shot taken with the 43-86's "descendant", a 25-50/4, one of my favorite lenses to shoot with. No post-processsing, no cropping, the D700 was set to 'standard' image, no contrast or saturation boost, no sharpening, just reduced to 'tiny' for posting.
[/img]


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BTW, this is the crappiest lens I have:


It's the plastic lens of a DIANA camera turned into an EOS-mount lens: awfully soft, no sharp image possible.
But still it's fun. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:
On the other hand, here's a shot taken with the 43-86's "descendant"

I read that is was labelled like worst lens Nikon ever made Very Happy
but nice sample.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
spleenone wrote:

I read that is was labelled like worst lens Nikon ever made Very Happy
but nice sample.


Oh, yes. The 43-86 often is called Nikon's worst lens, mostly deserved. However, this sample pic was taken with a 25-50/4, an odd lens designed years after the 43-86. My point was, that Nikon appeared to have learned its lesson concerning zoom design.

On the other hand, I once tried an AF 24-120/3.5-5.6, which was designed many years after Nikon's best manual focus zooms, which is definitely in the running for 'worst lens by Nikon'.

Last edited by Arninetyes on Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5