Professional Web Applications Themes

What was the worst lens you ever owned? - Photography

"RichA" <com> wrote in message news:com...  1972, Eyemic 200mm f:3.5, was not able to get either sharpness or contrast with that pooch......

  1. #1

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?


    "RichA" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... 

    1972, Eyemic 200mm f:3.5, was not able to get either sharpness or contrast
    with that pooch...



    Darrell Guest

  2. #2

    Default What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    Mine was a Tokina 400mm f5.6 telephoto.
    It has no contrast. I remember fiddling
    around in the darkroom to try to bring out
    something, but more often than not, it resulted
    in heavy grain in the images.
    -Rich
    RichA Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    RichA wrote: 

    Maxxum 28-80xi f/4-5.6 (ish). Optically average, soft in the corners.

    1. Power zoom. The only way to zoom was electtical. It was more than fast
    enough, but consumed power.

    2. Power focus. The only way to focus was electrical. Fast enough, but
    electrical. (Pull zoom ring back and twist either side for variable rate focus
    in or out). No mechanical link at all. Worked fine on the 7xi, but the power
    focus did not work at all on the Maxxum 9.

    WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?! Well, for one thing, it all hooked up into the
    creative cards for the cameras. I only ever bought the "child" card, but there
    were many. The 7xi, in P-mode would compose the shot automatically as far as
    zoom went. It would even auto zoom to keep a subject at a given size in the
    frame... yes it worked ... but ... who needs it? ed batteries.

    I'm glad Minolta dropped the xi idea. I sold this lens a few days after
    receiving the 28-70 f/2.8.

    I'll add that I'm glad I sold my 75-300 too. Too soft beyond 200 to bother with.

    Cheers,
    Alan.

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    Not a "lens", per se, but a Vivitar 2X teleconverter takes the honors for
    me. I've owned just one, and tried a few others. They're all the same -
    decidedly, unsharp.

    Rob


    Basic Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?



    RichA wrote: 

    Canon 35-80 kit zoom. Soft, slow, slow to focus, almost worthless zoom
    range. A lesson learned :)

    Lisa
    Lisa Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    "RichA" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... 

    Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4. Hands down, the worst lens I've ever seen, not to
    mention owned, in nearly 40 years of being around cameras. It even looked
    soft with IR film.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


    Skip Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:36:35 -0500, RichA <com> wrote:
     

    It's a toss up...
    The one I have right now is a Quantaray (Tokina AF193) 19-35mm
    f/3.5-4.5 (freebie from a friend who hated it even worse than I do).
    The ONLY positive thing I can say about that lens is it has a good
    wide angle.

    The other was a Sigma 28-80 zoom that must have been damaged in
    shipping 'cause the front element dropped right out of the lens the
    first time I tried to use it. I have to say though that the
    replacement 28-80 was fine, I sold it with the film camera and
    sometimes I wish I had it back.


    Drifter
    "I've been here, I've been there..."
    Drifter Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    Tamron 28-200 zoom: soft focus, low contrast, vignettes, distortion almost
    equal to a fish-eye lens, useful only completely stopped down outdoors in
    bright sunlight with a busy high contrast subject. This is the single worst
    photographic purchase I ever made.
    Any zoom labelled Vivitar (some older, vintage 1970s, single focal length
    teles were actually pretty crispy).
    Minolta 500mm mirror: fun to try look through, almost impossible to use.


    bmoag Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    Many of my lenses when I was young and poor were probably very bad but I did
    not pay very much for them. Modern lenses are another story, they are all
    expensive so I expect them to work right, so my candidate is:

    Sigma 28mm f1,8 EX DG (Canon EF mount)

    I t would work somewhat right on a Canon 10D, but on my old 300D, the
    diaphragm would not close to the right position all the time at the widest
    apertures (from f1,8 to about f3,5), and this is a new lens! Many trips to
    the distributor and a new lens from Japan later, I found it to be very soft
    at the edges. Lucky for me it was damaged in a flood in my basement and I
    got full value from the insurance, if I had to sell it, I would have been
    extremely lucky to get 30% of the original value.

    Jean

    "RichA" <com> a écrit dans le message de
    news:com... 


    jean Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    Basic Wedge wrote: 

    Oh, golly... 1973, a teen-ager with my first SLR - only had a 50mm
    lens, and I was very jealous of a friend's spiffy new 300mm. I spent a
    whole $40 at Sears for their el-cheapo 2X and 3X tele-extenders and
    voila! I, too, had a 300mm lens!

    Of course, I needed a tripod to take a picture of the sun, not that the
    utter lack of focus and contrast couldn't hide a heckuvalot of motion
    blur...

    Bob ^,,^


    Bob Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?


    "RichA" wrote 

    Phoenix-Samyang 19-35mm zoom... ugly ugly ugly!

    You live, you learn, I guess...

    Cheers,
    ink


    ink Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    In message <com>,
    RichA <com> wrote:
     

    If the lens were otherwise sharp, it might not be such a problem with a
    DSLR, if you compensate for it properly. I was out shooting in the fog
    on top of snow a few weeks ago, and set my 20D to +2 EC at ISO 400. I
    was shooting in RAW, and was able to convert and post-process the images
    in such a way that contrast and saturation were restored without
    bringing up any visible noise or posterization. This is only possible
    in RAW mode, which has more highlight room, and several times the
    precion of JPEG files in the highlights.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    In message <yGaQd.391338$Xk.40660pd7tw3no>,
    "Basic Wedge" <ca> wrote:
     

    All Vivitar TCs, or all TCs?

    If the latter, you are very mistaken. A decent TC on a very sharp lens
    yields results almost as sharp as the lens on itself, if the medium
    (sensor or film or even display) is the limiting factor on sharpness.

    The higher the ISO of film, or the larger the pixel pitch of the sensor,
    the less loss there will be with any given lens, using a TC.

    Many people draw conclusions about TCs based on mediocre main lenses and
    insufficient light for the multiplied focal length. A 2x TC will
    require half the exposure time, just for camera shake, and 2 stops more
    exposure just to maintain the same absolute aperture.

    Let's say you had a lens that you wanted to shoot at f8, and could
    hand-hold at 1/320s. You put on a 2x TC, and now you have to set the
    shutter speed to 1/640. Now you are 3 stops under-exposed; one for the
    shutter speed, and 2 for the loss in the TC. You need to shoot as open
    as 2.8 (if you have it, and it may not be sharp enough to warrant the TC
    at 2.8), or increase the ISO (if you still have room to increase it).

    TCs are for sharp lenses, and bright lighting.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    In message <net>,
    Lisa Horton <net> wrote:
     

    I was looking at this one on a film Rebel in Best Buy or Circuit City.
    I could see that the lens was poor just looking through the viewfinder.
    It felt like a crack-jack toy as well.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    bmoag wrote:
     

    I'd expect the 500mm f/8 to do well in sunny conditions and from a good tripod.
    I have seen a couple very good 8x12's from the 500, but the guy who owns it is
    lusting for a 400 and TC's.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    The worst lens I've ever owned was the Canon 28-105mm first version and
    I found it soft beyond 60mm and it really didn't handle high contrast
    well. The thing was when I bought all the people raved about it. I sold
    it after 3 months and bought a Tokina 28-70mm f2.8 which was much
    better. Then I sold that and bought the canon 28-70mm f2.8 and it was
    better still.

    Art

    Fyimo Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:18:52 -0500, Alan Browne
    <ca> wrote:
     
    >
    >I'd expect the 500mm f/8 to do well in sunny conditions and from a good tripod.
    >I have seen a couple very good 8x12's from the 500, but the guy who owns it is
    >lusting for a 400 and TC's.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Alan[/ref]

    Mirror lenses with huge central obstructions are terrible. If someone
    was willing to give up an f-stop in speed, reduce the size of the
    central obstruction, images would have far better contrast.
    Once the central obstruction hits 40%, things go downhill fast.
    -Rich
    RichA Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    RichA wrote:
     
     
    >
    >
    > Mirror lenses with huge central obstructions are terrible. If someone
    > was willing to give up an f-stop in speed, reduce the size of the
    > central obstruction, images would have far better contrast.
    > Once the central obstruction hits 40%, things go downhill fast.[/ref]

    To repeat, I have recently seen two very good prints from one, and on reflection
    (!) an engineer where I worked many years ago had the Nikon version. He took it
    to Africa and many of his shots (shown to me at 5x7) were very good (although
    the shots of birds, had too much subject motion).

    In the end, the 'dounuts', the motion blur (from low shutter speeds/high mag)
    are mainly what turn people off of this lens.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:21:00 -0500, Alan Browne
    <ca> wrote:
     

    >>
    >>
    >> Mirror lenses with huge central obstructions are terrible. If someone
    >> was willing to give up an f-stop in speed, reduce the size of the
    >> central obstruction, images would have far better contrast.
    >> Once the central obstruction hits 40%, things go downhill fast.[/ref]
    >
    >To repeat, I have recently seen two very good prints from one, and on reflection
    >(!) an engineer where I worked many years ago had the Nikon version. He took it
    >to Africa and many of his shots (shown to me at 5x7) were very good (although
    >the shots of birds, had too much subject motion).
    >
    >In the end, the 'dounuts', the motion blur (from low shutter speeds/high mag)
    >are mainly what turn people off of this lens.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Alan[/ref]

    The finest mirror lens ever made was from Questar Corporation, an
    American telescope maker.
    RichA Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: What was the worst lens you ever owned?

    Probably a Vivitar (NAI) 200mm f/3.5...optically it was OK, mechanically it
    ed in cold weather (got really stiff). Least useful Nikon lens I ever
    had (and the only Nikon lens I've dumped to date) was the 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5
    AF...it didn't have the zoom range or the speed that would have made it
    useful to me.

    George


    George Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Worst! Doentation! Ever! (?)(AVPrefsType)
    By J_E_E@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat SDK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 15th, 07:26 AM
  2. Contribute---worst product ever?
    By elprez1 in forum Macromedia Contribute General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 15th, 07:19 AM
  3. Is there a contest for the worst doented module?
    By ~greg in forum PERL Modules
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 13th, 09:45 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 16th, 04:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139