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: Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
danfromm wrote:

BRunner wrote:

Quote:
... optimised for infinity wide-open performance.


Interesting. Puts found it best at f/5.6.

Of course, stopping down (as with every lens) helps to improve IQ in corners and makes the details even tighter defined, but we are splitting hairs here. In comparison to other lenses I've tried, this lens wide-open performance is astonishing, at f5.6 it reaches it's best and at f8 you can already see image degradation due to diffraction. Older lenses of comparable focal length can't reach it's wide-open performance, no matter how much you stop them down. Even many modern lenses needs to be stopped down to f5.6 to be comparable with Telyt @f3.4.


It wasn't that the lens lacked resolution, it just was not a flattering lens for people. An APO lens is highly corrected for chromatic aberration (perhaps at the cost of other qualities), but that in itself does not make it a better lens for general use than one not so corrected. This lens was designed for a specific set of conditions (military observation), a set of conditions that does not overlap well with pictorial use, and for those conditions (military use) I assume it is well suited; but for general pictorial use it is not well suited. A lens's corrections are 'balanced' for certain applications, as it is not always possible to correct everything without raising the price too high (indeed, the APO-Elmarit f/2.8, introduced 25 years later, is quite a bit more expensive, and from reports suffers from none of the deficiencies of the APO-Telyt f/3.4).

Last edited by FluffPuppy on Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Can tell more about your Vivitar? Was it a "macro" lens?


No macro as far as I can remember. Tricky to get it back in memory, I gave the lens away in 2006. Rolling Eyes
I still have the holyday pictures as they are family treasures, despite the lack of IQ. No macros between them.

I have to think about scanning and some postprocessing Idea


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Recently, worst I've had was a Vivitar Series 1 2.3/135 that was bloody awful. unusable above f8, mediocre at f8 and below, had no good points at all apart from good build quality, just dogshit...




PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="FluffPuppy"]
danfromm wrote:


"Reconnaissance ... a preliminary survey to gain information; esp. : an exploratory military survey of enemy territory."

As opposed to 'pictorial'.


Why do you insist that the 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt R was made for reconnaissance?

The best information I can find (see, e.g., http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Leitz_Elcan_52mm_5,6/00_pag.htm) says it was made for surveillance. RBrunner, who's posted in this thread, agrees: http://forum.mflenses.com/leica-apo-telyt-r-3-4-180mm-long-time-experience-t35576.html

Reconnaisance isn't surveillance. 35 mm cameras aren't used for reconnaisance.

You've used the word pictorial a lot. What does it mean in this context? My dictionary has no definition that applies to a photograph or a lens and the pictorialist school of photographers that was replaced by the f64 school took pictures that were fuzzy, perhaps even fluffy. As I understand pictorialism, its salient characteristics were soft focus and flare.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My worst lens ever? I know it was a Hanimex, 85mm I seem to remember, it was a while ago. Soft as butter wide open, not much better at f8, clunky focus ring, apertured "dropped" rather than clicked into place. I chucked it in the bin in disgust.

My worst Current lens? It's the kit 18-55 (non-IS, original version) that came with the 400D. Thankfully, it only cost me a small amount, and it's good as a Loaner lens if someone has a whoopsie with their lens when we are out. Not too bad if you stop it down, but the build quality is, being charitable, bloody awful. Like something you would pull out of a Cereal box.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
NewStuff wrote:
My worst lens ever? I know it was a Hanimex, 85mm I seem to remember, it was a while ago. Soft as butter wide open, not much better at f8, clunky focus ring, apertured "dropped" rather than clicked into place. I chucked it in the bin in disgust.

My worst Current lens? It's the kit 18-55 (non-IS, original version) that came with the 400D. Thankfully, it only cost me a small amount, and it's good as a Loaner lens if someone has a whoopsie with their lens when we are out. Not too bad if you stop it down, but the build quality is, being charitable, bloody awful. Like something you would pull out of a Cereal box.


Amen to the build quality of the 18-55. I had three, broke all three, hence I became interested in old manual lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="danfromm"]
FluffPuppy wrote:
danfromm wrote:


"Reconnaissance ... a preliminary survey to gain information; esp. : an exploratory military survey of enemy territory."

As opposed to 'pictorial'.


Why do you insist that the 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt R was made for reconnaissance?

The best information I can find (see, e.g., http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Leitz_Elcan_52mm_5,6/00_pag.htm) says it was made for surveillance. RBrunner, who's posted in this thread, agrees: http://forum.mflenses.com/leica-apo-telyt-r-3-4-180mm-long-time-experience-t35576.html

Reconnaisance isn't surveillance. 35 mm cameras aren't used for reconnaisance.

You've used the word pictorial a lot. What does it mean in this context? My dictionary has no definition that applies to a photograph or a lens and the pictorialist school of photographers that was replaced by the f64 school took pictures that were fuzzy, perhaps even fluffy. As I understand pictorialism, its salient characteristics were soft focus and flare.


Reconnaissance is the same as surveillance as I understand those terms.

'Pictorial' means general-purpose photography, not for identifying weapons, counting troops, etc. I did not know the lens was unsuited for general-purpose photography at the time I acquired it, and I got rid of it ASAP, and bought the 180mm Elmar-R f/4.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:


Reconnaissance is the same as surveillance as I understand those terms.

'Pictorial' means general-purpose photography, not for identifying weapons, counting troops, etc. I did not know the lens was unsuited for general-purpose photography at the time I acquired it, and I got rid of it ASAP, and bought the 180mm Elmar-R f/4.


I gave you the standard definitions of reconnaissance and surveillance. They aren't the same and don't overlap.

I gave you the standard definition of pictorial. Yours is quite different.

I'm sorry, but as long as you practice lexicography a la Humpty Dumpty ("A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less.") you must expect to be nibbled to death by hamsters.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:


Reconnaissance is the same as surveillance as I understand those terms.

'Pictorial' means general-purpose photography, not for identifying weapons, counting troops, etc. I did not know the lens was unsuited for general-purpose photography at the time I acquired it, and I got rid of it ASAP, and bought the 180mm Elmar-R f/4.


I gave you the standard definitions of reconnaissance and surveillance. They aren't the same and don't overlap.

I gave you the standard definition of pictorial. Yours is quite different.

I'm sorry, but as long as you practice lexicography a la Humpty Dumpty ("A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less.") you must expect to be nibbled to death by hamsters.


The usage of 'pictorial' as I have used it here is quite standard (photographs of people and things for their own sake). The lens was intended for military applications, not pictorial use; let's leave it at that. The lens was developed to provide maximum information and detail, not the most pleasing images.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
The usage of 'pictorial' as I have used it here is quite standard (photographs of people and things for their own sake). The lens was intended for military applications, not pictorial use; let's leave it at that. The lens was developed to provide maximum information and detail, not the most pleasing images.


The 180mm f/3.4 works great for astrophotography with a DSLR, though. The only problem is that it's a bit slow, limited to f/3.4 rather than f/2.8


PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
s58y wrote:
Quote:
The usage of 'pictorial' as I have used it here is quite standard (photographs of people and things for their own sake). The lens was intended for military applications, not pictorial use; let's leave it at that. The lens was developed to provide maximum information and detail, not the most pleasing images.


The 180mm f/3.4 works great for astrophotography with a DSLR, though.


Naturally!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3