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: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:
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 a 24-120/3.5-5.6 that is definitely in the running for 'worst lens by Nikon'.

Yees then 25-50/4 is considering to be very good wide angle. Like to try it once.
By parameters I didn't expected that such long zoom as 24-120 perform well. Some could be exception.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:
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'.


Yes, impossible task to get corners/edges into sharpness with that lens regardless of focal length. Plenty of geometric distortion as well. It's as "good" as a Swiss Army knife, it's better than nothing if you aren't too picky but it's definitely not something you'd want to use for more than half an hour.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the answer to this question changes as one's eye gets more trained to spot the weaknesses.

The worst I can think of is a Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 I bought around 1997
(not the newer 70-300, which has to be much much better).

To be fair with Canon, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II might be the best zoom in history:
200mm 1/20 sec. handheld f/2.8

100% crop from in-camera jpeg (click for real size)


PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:

The worst I can think of is a Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 I bought around 1997
(not the newer 70-300, which has to be much much better).


I have a 1998 vintage EF 75-300 that was bought with an Elan II back then. Didn't get much use with the Elan but I've used it quite a bit with my DSLR. About the only fault I can really find with the lens is that it does tend to have some CA when wide open, but it largely disappears when stopped down a stop or two. When I first started frequenting forums after buying my DSLR early last year, I repeatedly read about how awful the lens was, and was puzzled frankly. Because I've had pretty good experiences with mine. I've wondered if maybe my earlier one is perhaps a better performer than the current version, but if you say your '97 vintage one is weak, then that probably isn't it.

I've largely come to the conclusion that people are often too willing to blame a lens for their own technique -- or lack thereof. BTDT -- I can recall becoming absolutely convinced way back in the early 1980s that the new Sigma 600mm f/8 I had bought was a terrible lens until I started using a stout tripod, mirror lock-up, a cable release, and ground glass focusing screens. Amazing what a little bit of preparation and technique did to the quality of that lens's images.

I deliberately selected the following image because it shows some of the CA this lens exhibits. Not particularly objectionable and easily corrected these days in post processing. Other than reducing it for viewing on the web, there was no PP done.


And another just for good measure. Both shots were taken at the Wings Over Houston Airshow last October.


A couple of months ago, I used this same lens hand-held taking pics of birds at a bird feeder, and it was a study in frustration. The lighting was rather soft and about 1 pic in 10 was acceptably sharp. If I hadn't used it at the air show with such good results several months before, I might have been convinced the lens was no good.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:
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.


My Vivitar 135/2.8 (28xxxx s/n, made by Komine) was great. Easily comparable to the Nikkor for example. So maybe it was your copy.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
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!


I tried two copies of this lens, both were exactly the same in performance. Did you shoot yours side by side with such lenses as Nikkor 105/2.5 or later Olympus Zuiko 100/2.8 (one that's not "E.Zuiko" but just "Zuiko") or at least a Nikon Series E 100/2.8? All of them were better than the Super-Tak by about one to two f-stops.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I've largely come to the conclusion that people are often too willing to blame a lens for their own technique -- or lack thereof.


Absolutely! I agree completely. The first time I used a 200mm lens (a Super Takumar about 30 years ago), I thought it was junk. None of the pictures were sharp. A friend asked if I'd tried it on a tripod. Got out a tripod, a release cable, a fresh roll of film, and discovered that my technique, which was okay with a 50mm lens, was poor for a 200.

There is another factor that affects performance, which many people either ignore or are ignorant about: condition of the glass. Most available manual focus lenses are used and most are 20 years old or more. Many have significant dust, haze, or other obstructions on one or more internal element surfaces. Okay, a few specks of dust have little or no noticeable effect, but the more dust/haze/whatever, the more detrimental.

Some people will buy an old lens, find that it underperforms, and assume the lens is overhyped at best, or a bad design at worst. I almost did that last year.

I picked up a Zoom-Nikkor 25-50/4 Ai-S (1984) based on descriptions of its performance, but mine was awful. Despite its cosmetic near-perfection, exposures were inconsistent, sometimes about right, other times 2 stops underexposed. Focus movement was dry and scratchy, but worst of all, images were VERY soft and had poor contrast and color. Looking inside with a penlight shining through, I could see so much crud on element surfaces, I was surprised it could make any image at all. After having it cleaned/lubed/adjusted (CLA), it has become one of, if not my favorite lens to use.

Of course, people who get rid of great but underperforming lenses are okay with me. It might give me a chance to pick one up at a lower price.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
My Vivitar 135/2.8 (28xxxx s/n, made by Komine) was great. Easily comparable to the Nikkor for example. So maybe it was your copy.


The Vivitar 135/2.8 was soft everywhere, and even softer in the corners. Stopping it down improved it from terribly soft to just soft.

I'm not sure what was wrong with it; based on what I've learned since, it is possible that it had lots of crud on elements that affected its performance. I compared it directly to a Super-Takumar 135/3.5, which was very sharp and had great contrast. Maybe it was just a bad copy. I'll never know since it is long gone.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:
To be fair with Canon, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II might be the best zoom in history:


I'll bet my Nikkor 80-200/4.5 Ai (n) is better.....um, no. It isn't. But, I may just have to post a pic from it, just for fun.

Very nice!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
MIIDA 28mm f2.8. Worst lens on the planet, yet was in perfect condition. I can tell even the original owner didn't want to use it. Can't even remember where I got it, but it was HORRID like vaseline on the lens at f2.8 and not even acceptably sharp at f8.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

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


WOW! Fantastic price!

And new offcourse.
It pays off to work in a photostore.
Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The worst I have found so far in my collection is a Cosinon Auto f=2.8 f=55. it is built crappily (the focusing rubber comes off) and its pictures are as if you have smeared vaseline on a soft focus filter.

I really need to dig this one up to show some examples, almost becomes cool Smile

Another bad one is an Accura Diamatic 1:3.5 f=28mm, but not in the same league as the Cosinon. Just cheap Japanese lens from the seventies or so, soft lackluster images with no contrast.

Also the Pentacon 29/2.8 is not a lens I would recommend. Better use their 50mm and use a pano stitcher to get wide-angle pics.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rikenon 28-135 pushpull zoom. Odd and stong greenish cast, nowhere is sharp, weird CA, impossible to focus with split-prism....

Hanimex 35/2.8 - this one is bad for a prime. Hard to focus too.

Cosina(?) 24/2.8 plastic fantastic heavily decentered, strong field curvature, not sharp.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Joosep"]
LucisPictor wrote:
BRunner wrote:
Old Sigma lenses. Nicely built and great mechanical quality, but optically they are CRAP!

Hmmm... I used to have a Sigma Zoom-0 II 3.5-4.5/28-85 MC (even two copies) and both lenses were more than just usable. For zooms they even were really good!

Just right, the Sigma O II Zoom 28-85 is mechanically a great piece, and optically also good for it's time! Somebody who says these lenses are crap is really talking shit....i have that lens for several different camera mounts....


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
makinon 24mm 2.8 !
soft and no contrast


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My copy of the Tamron SP 17mm was pretty appalling.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I threw a Prinzflex 28 whatever... at a wall. It was the most pleasure the lens ever gave me.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No one has mentioned yet the Domiplan 50mm f/2.8?
It's a fantastic and cheap lens to give the colleagues to disassemble when I do a repair class Wink
In my memory keeps a Cosinon 28mm, also to be in the lists.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jupiter-8M (50/2) in Kiev mount. Tiny and quite well built, but laughably soft and lacking contrast until stopped down to at least 5.6.
Interesting bokeh though (sharp, bright outlines of OOF highlights) so it could probably be used for "artsy" shots of flowers or people. Also, lacking a focusing helicoid makes it a tad hard to use (I use it reversed on a helicoid adapter).


PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The lenses being mentioned fall into two categories - plain bad and bad because they are faulty. A lot fall into the latter, such as the Jupiter-8, which is a truly superb lens but copies can vary a large amount.

I have noted that lot of people mention old Cosinas as being bad; in my experience, all of the old Cosinas I have had have been poor, so it's unlikely they were faulty, just cheap and nasty to begin with.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found a 5 euros Hoya 135mm f/2.8.

So much CA that even Lightroom couldn't fix it totally. The only good thing about the lens, it gave me two screws I needed for fixing another one.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have noted that lot of people mention old Cosinas as being bad; in my experience, all of the old Cosinas I have had have been poor, so it's unlikely they were faulty, just cheap and nasty to begin with.


just get a old Auto Cosinon 1.7/50 (fullmetal version in M42) and you have to rethink your opinion.. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The lenses being mentioned fall into two categories - plain bad and bad because they are faulty. A lot fall into the latter, such as the Jupiter-8, which is a truly superb lens but copies can vary a large amount.
.


I agree with Ian on this. There are plenty of lenses that have had a rough life and are the products of abuse - never to reproduce as they should. There are other lenses whose design was sound, but were let down by patchy quality control.
There are yet others who have quirks to their nature that have to be learnt to get the best out of them. They are not perfect and under some conditions they perform badly, but under others they perform very well. Learning how to use them can be a frustration but if they are used in situations that avoid showing their weaknesses, they can shine. The Domiplan is one of these - or at least can be.
Then there are the real dogs, that were dogs when they left the factory and no amount of TLC can bring them - Lazarus like - from the tomb. They just stink.
These are the lenses that we should group here.
OH


PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sir_c wrote:
Also the Pentacon 29/2.8 is not a lens I would recommend. Better use their 50mm and use a pano stitcher to get wide-angle pics.


Another lens that is not bad by design.
I have one, making it impossible to get any really sharp picture.
Annoyance let me spent € 3,- on another one at a thrift market and, surprise, that copy is very good!
The outside of the lenses looks identical good, no bad handling to suppose.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have noted that lot of people mention old Cosinas as being bad; in my experience, all of the old Cosinas I have had have been poor, so it's unlikely they were faulty, just cheap and nasty to begin with.


just get a old Auto Cosinon 1.7/50 (fullmetal version in M42) and you have to rethink your opinion.. Wink


The ones I refer to are the plastic ones mostly in Pk mount and the early AF ones. They have washed out colours, poor contrast, need to be closed a couple of stops to attain acceptable sharpness. They were made to a very cheap price point. I don't have experience with the earlier metal ones, unless some of the lenses I have had in off brands were rebadged Cosina.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5