are there really any bad lenses ?

[Peter Schrager]

Had a 150mm lens came with a hassaelblad I bought..could not get sharp pictures with it
Got a replacement and it's sharp...zeiss is supposed to be sharp

 

[Dali]

Page 2... Got another refill...

 

[blockend]

Miroslav Tichy's lenses were no Leitz, but they made him famous enough for a serious retrospective. A lump of perspex ground with spit and cigarette ash. There are no bad lenses (bad having moral connotations a lens lacks), merely inappropriate subjects.

Even the cheapest modern kit zoom is highly corrected, give or take a little pin cushioning and chroma at big enlargements. Which may be why old lenses are finding favour.

 

[summicron1]

every day i have been here on this forum, there is someone asking a question about lens quality.
there are coverage questions but mostly is xyz lens any good, and if not, why.
my question isn't meant to be a troll, although some might think it is to stir the pot, but
are there really any bad lenses ?
i mean coverage aside and speed aside .. lenses do for the most part, all of them ..
they project whatever image it is onto the thing making the photograph.
there are some that
aren't coated
there are others that
are maybe mushy and less contrast
there are others that give a distorted depiction of reality ..

all these lenses just require the person using them to know how to use them
what sort of light to shoot hem in, how to process the iflm afterwards ,,,

ive got some lenses i guess i paid more than 20$ and some free advice for, but in the end
its just a lens ... and i am guessing a ground down sheet of plastic with a aperture might have worked just as well
( as long as i didn't point the camera into the sun .. )

it depends on what you want -- Holga lenses -- essentially molded plastic -- are crap by some measures, but if you like the result then it is a fine lens. I did shoot a roll with one Georlitz lens on an Exa that looked fuzzy all the time, not sure if it's just bad construction or the lens has separated or something.

Generally, t hough, lenses of any sort are usually not bad -- I have a lot of fun smirking at folks who say that their Leica 1954 canadian-made summicron with 8 elements is better than your German-made one with 7 elements and only 6 blades on the diaphram, and perhaps someone with an active imagination really can see a difference.

But, in general, the answer to your question is "no," as long as the lens is put together correctly and in good condition.

 

[paul ron]

no. every lens, regardless of quality, has its own unique use. so "dad" is relative to what you intended to use it for.... of course excluding damaged or defective lenses.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

1980s kit zooms are probably the closest thing to "bad" lenses out there in the sense that most photographers using them have higher expectations from them than they are capable of delivering. A lot of the descriptions of "bad" lenses in this thread have more to do with individual instances of a lens being damaged and/or mistreated. To me, "bad" means some fundamental flaw in the design that delivers results inferior to those of its peers. Some photographers may be able to exploit those weaknesses and make something image-wise out of them that has an artistic resonance, so for them, it isn't "bad", just "optimally flawed".

 

[summicron1]

Perhaps if you are someone that has just splashed out big bucks on the latest most expensive lens, which probably has the widest aperture and is claimed to be "ultra-sharp", then to you, most other lenses are "bad".
I think it is human nature to defend our choices, and sometimes people do that by trashing other people's choices.

Yup. When someone spends $2,000 on a lens, and loudly proclaims that their images are, immediately, vastly superior and sharper and so on and so forth, that's mostly the $2,000 talking.

 

[faberryman]

Are there really any bad lenses?

Yes, but sometimes you can use their defects to your advantage. Other times, not so much.

 

[MattKing]

I can't help it. This thread makes me think of a talking, cartoon lens:

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I would argue that the Leica 24-90/2.8-4 is a remarkably horrible lens.

But why you say? Reviews say it's shuper shmarp!

Well... It's incredibly expensive. It's incredibly large. It's variable aperture. It makes me wonder what the designers could possibly have been thinking? I guess they wanted to make a lens that only brick-wall-shooters could love... Because after designing what appears to be a svelte little mirrorless camera, they rendered it essentially unusable by saddling it with a bazooka for a front end. Why anyone would want to deal with something like that on a 24x36 format is beyond me. The thing can't even maintain 2.8, SMH. Being a good "technical performer" is literally the least it can do considering all these drawbacks. Frankly though, i'd be more impressed with a lens that maintained performance without significant sacrifices in usability. Honestly that lens makes the SL more or less than same size as a 4x5 field camera.

My point is that there is more than one way to think about what constitutes a bad lens. Don't get me started on the Otus line up. If you haven't guessed, I said "No-tus".

 

[Ian Grant]

Hoy lenses were terrible, they flared badly. I bought a new 28mm f2.8 Hoya lens in the eraly 1980's which was almost useless, it was sharp though. They had excellent test reviews in UK magazines but none mentioned the flare, they were Multi-Coated but it appeared Hoya didn't coat every air/glass interface - after months the whole range was withdrawn. Thee company redesigned the entire range dropping the Hoya name and instead using their Tokina brand name. I replaced the lens with a 28mm f2.5 Tamron which is superb

Sigma lenses weren't much better I bought an 80-200 (roughly) MC zoom in the mid to late 1970's, the first fell apart, the second wouldn't focus at infinity, there was something wrong with the third and the shop gave up deciding they were junk lenses, I had a Mamiya C33 from the shop instead of a refund. I biught an eraly Vivitar S1 70-210mm zoom which was outstanding. I also had a Sigma 24mm f2.8 which wasn't particularly sharp, flared slightly.

I decided I'd never buy another Sigma lens, I have borrowed one in the last couple of years and I guess 30+ years later I might change my mind, they've finally got their quality control in order.

In recent years I've bought Tamron SP lenses which are well made and optically excellent, also great because the Adaptall mount ones can be used on my M42 and K/M mount Pentax cameras. I have two fixed mount for my Canon EOS film and DSLR cameras as well.

Ian

 

[Ivo]

Sure bad lenses exists. Cheap design, cheap manufactured, etc.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Miroslav Tichy's lenses were no Leitz, but they made him famous enough for a serious retrospective. A lump of perspex ground with spit and cigarette ash. There are no bad lenses (bad having moral connotations a lens lacks), merely inappropriate subjects.

Even the cheapest modern kit zoom is highly corrected, give or take a little pin cushioning and chroma at big enlargements. Which may be why old lenses are finding favour.

From what I have seen and learned recently, chromatic aberrations and distortion have been allowed in zoom lenses because it frees the design to correct for other issues, the software corrections are encoded in the (exif?) data the lens sends to the camera. Unfortunately these aberrations are uncorrectable if the lens is used with film.
As for Summicrons, I've had and used them, both R and M versions. I found a Summitar at a good price due to separation in the front cemented glass, repaired it, and prefer it to the Summicrons I had, even though tests would say it is a "poorer" lens. To my eye it makes nicer pictures. At a fifth of the price...

 

[chip j]

Any lens is bad that does not give brilliance to the negative (i.e. cheap glass; i.e. Vivitar T-4).

 

[blockend]

To my eye it makes nicer pictures. At a fifth of the price...

Exactly. I'm not against highly corrected lenses but their perfection is lost on me, and I certainly wouldn't pay a fat premium for one. I'm especially fond of the Jupiter 12 on the Kiev and the Helios 103 you recommended. OTOH I find the J8 too soft for my tastes, though rather nice on video. Other lenses I enjoy are the Pre-AI Nikkors, especially the 50mm f2, the cheaper Yashica DSBs and any number of 3-element lenses of great provenance or ill-repute.

Your zoom comment adds up, I think many of the cheaper ones are modest optics that are pushed into shape by the software.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Exactly. I'm not against highly corrected lenses but their perfection is lost on me, and I certainly wouldn't pay a fat premium for one. I'm especially fond of the Jupiter 12 on the Kiev and the Helios 103 you recommended. OTOH I find the J8 too soft for my tastes, though rather nice on video. Other lenses I enjoy are the Pre-AI Nikkors, especially the 50mm f2, the cheaper Yashica DSBs and any number of 3-element lenses of great provenance or ill-repute.

Your zoom comment adds up, I think many of the cheaper ones are modest optics that are pushed into shape by the software.

Anent the 50 f:2 Nikkors, I had the f:1.2, the f:1.4, got rid of them and replaced them with the 50 f:2 Nikkor H. The only 50 f:1.4 slr lens from that era that has impressed me in a positive way was made by Pentax. I have five of the f:2s, one for each body.

 

[blockend]

Anent the 50 f:2 Nikkors, I had the f:1.2, the f:1.4, got rid of them and replaced them with the 50 f:2 Nikkor H. The only 50 f:1.4 slr lens from that era that has impressed me in a positive way was made by Pentax. I have five of the f:2s, one for each body.

Two 50mm f2 Nikkors here. One of them lovely, the other a squeaky, fungus filled dog. Looking at this I may go for a restoration:

 

[removed account4]

Any lens is bad that does not give brilliance to the negative (i.e. cheap glass; i.e. Vivitar T-4).

thanks for posting this !
but my suggestion is that even thought a lens might not give brilliance to a negative or might flare or
might not give good contrast or might have hectic fall off or might not be as sharp as
"advertisers+paid reviewers" suggest or a million other things that turn a lens from good to bad
.. if a person who owns it says " oh yeah this is the lens that turns a brilliant ( high contrast index ) scene
into a dull flatter scene, it will be perfect for right now ".. than that lens isn't bad.
there are so many lenses railed upon, and given reviews that put them in the dog house but
in the right hands, with the right state of mind the right use turn from lead into gold.

 

[mshchem]

Is there a BAD Zeiss lens? Seriously?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Is there a BAD Zeiss lens? Seriously?

Sure. Just read the web. Some ignorant putz with restless fingers will get an old Tessar, full of lubricant haze, use it inappropriately, and tell you how bad it is.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

thanks for posting this !
but my suggestion is that even thought a lens might not give brilliance to a negative or might flare or
might not give good contrast or might have hectic fall off or might not be as sharp as
"advertisers+paid reviewers" suggest or a million other things that turn a lens from good to bad
.. if a person who owns it says " oh yeah this is the lens that turns a brilliant ( high contrast index ) scene
into a dull flatter scene, it will be perfect for right now ".. than that lens isn't bad.
there are so many lenses railed upon, and given reviews that put them in the dog house but
in the right hands, with the right state of mind the right use turn from lead into gold.

John, I did quite a lot of product photography in the mid/late 80s to mid 90s. One job was for a local artist who was very talented, worked in oil and latex (sometimes house paint) and generally a good guy. However, he had a bitch from hell for an agent. He wanted me to photograph about 35 paintings in black and white, delivering an 8x10 inch print of each. BFH grilled me as to my ability to deliver, so I showed her my Linhof STIV with factory matched lenses and cams, pointed out that it was worth (at the time) a down payment on a pretty nice house, blah blah blah. I also told her it would cost $75 per hour plus materials. I delivered the prints, got paid, everyone was happy but BFH was on some sort of trip, "look at these prints, they were made with... cost as much as..." and so on. The painter was delighted, being in on the hoax. However. I used a beat up Deardorff V8 with a 4x5 back and an 81/4" Dagor type lens circa 1904, Tmax 100, printed on Polycontrast. I must say thet that lens is eerily sharp, I've had and have many Dagors (hell, I designed them) but that one is really something.
People know only what they believe, and if they believe bullshit... I've never had or seen a useless lens.

 

[removed account4]

EVH
thank you for that, it made my day ---
and you designed a hell of a lens

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Two 50mm f2 Nikkors here. One of them lovely, the other a squeaky, fungus filled dog. Looking at this I may go for a restoration:

IIRC there were three basic constructions of the barrel and focus mount. One of mine was tinkered with, not damaged but relubricated with the wrong sort of goo. At -20c it locks solid, I think I'd damage the mount on the camera or lens before the focus ring would move. The others are all good, from a 1965 version that came with a spotless Nikkormat FT to a multicoated version that cost USD $27 shipped. One of the finest sleeper lenses out there.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

EVH
thank you for that, it made my day ---
and you designed a hell of a lens

You're goddamn right I did. My 143rd birthday is coming up, and I think it should be acknowledged. People can PM me for an address and bank transfer to convey their gratitude.
History says I died in the early part of WWI, but it's all a conspiracy. When I first calculated mein meisterstueck, I offered it to those bastards at $cheiss, very stupidly letting Rudolph see the design. They offered me bupkis, so I went to Freidenau and offered it to Herr Goerz who recognised my genius and hired me on as chef linsemeister.
But those bastards at $cheiss were jealous and plotting; I was kidnapped in 1915 and forced to calculate all of the famous $cheiss linsen.
Bertele never existed, Hitler and his cronies made all that up, working behind the scenes from the early 1920s. Those pics taken with my Ernostar of Marlene Dietrich are what put Hitler in power.I escaped captivity late in WWII, at one point I lived in the tunnel through the Erpeler Ley, raising mushrooms to sell across the river at Remagen. After Uncle Joe released the workers he impressed to get those shitty Kievs going, we went to Rochester and helped Kodak out.
Now I'm living in a defunct titanium mine near Mineville, New York, (I miss that tunnel on the Rhine) making my own pencils from the graphite deposits in Ticonderoga, living off the land, and plotting my next move.
Don't anyone forget to send gifts, just remember what I've done for photography and don't be ungrateful pricks.

 

[Pioneer]

Certainly there are bad lenses.

I know this because I own several of them.

There is no possible way that all those bad pictures I have accumulated over the years were MY fault.