are there really any bad lenses ?

[removed account4]

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 .. )

 

[Pentode]

I’ll agree that any lens can be useful from a creative standpoint but useful or interesting is not, necessarily, the same as good. There are, in fact, bad lenses. A creative photographer might still do something worthwhile with one.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Any and every one of the Tamron lenses from the 1980s, especially their zooms.

 

[Eric Rose]

Ah the good, the bad and the ugly . I love them all! Each has it's own creative use as a tool to help transfer the image in my mind to something someone else can see. All the stuff we use are really only "tools" and as such only have value when they are useful for the intended purpose. For each the intended purpose can be anywhere from utilizing a specific signature the lens has to create an image, to providing the owner with some perceived status through ownership of said lens.

 

[Svenedin]

Well there are certainly no "perfect" lenses. There were lenses that even when brand new had such serious flaws that the general photographer felt let down by the results. There are also lenses that were "good" but due to age or misuse have become "bad". Of course as you say, such lenses could be used creatively for some purpose or other. Personally I am not looking for perfection but for good enough and I don't really want to find that my photos are affected by unexpected distortions, vignetting etc (interesting as it may be, if it was not the intended result it is usually unwelcome).

 

[Sirius Glass]

New lenses unless defective are at least good. Not all are wonderful or great.
Old [used] lenses vary in coatings, sharpness, amount of fungus damage if any, damage from non-lens technicians taking them apart and reassembling either incorrectly or out of alignment, dropage damage, neglect, ... it depends on the purchase source, history, and sometimes blind luck. I have gotten most of my lenses from reputable dealers, but I have had great success buying off eBay and APUG classified. Some from the internet have been great and none bad.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

It depends. Good or bad for what? It depends on what you want the lens to do.

Soft lens would be bad for a photographer looking for sharp pictures, while ultra sharp lens would not be that good for a photographer looking for a soft portrait look.

I'm not into Lomography, so soft/weird lens that Lomo people love would be bad for me.

Same with coated/uncoated. Some people would love uncoated lens because they give them the look they want, but other people would hate them for their softness and lack of contrast.

Cheap construction lens? lots of plastic? I think some people will like those because they like light lens and because those are cheap.

So quick answer, yeah, there are bad lens. Although they wont be the same from one person to the next one.

Regards

Marcelo

 

[tedr1]

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.

 

[Dan Fromm]

John, in late 1978 I bought a Celestron C-90 mirror lens. 1000/11, close focusing limit 10 feet. I never got a usable shot from the thing. Very strong central hot spot, terrible astigmatism as in could focus vertical lines in a grid or horizontal but not both.

Eventually it occurred to me that it might be defective and that it had come with a 25 year warranty so I sent it back. Celestron sent me a replacement. Not quite as bad but I never got a usable shot from it either.

Yes there are bad lenses.

 

[MattKing]

The only "bad" lens I ever owned was a Vivitar 24mm f/2.0 lens in OM mount.
Optically it was quite useful.
Mechanically, it was terrible - essentially it fell apart.
Some lenses perform better than others, but it is extremely rare in my experience that the quality of a lens makes as much difference as the technique of the photographer.
Assuming of course, that one is using a lens in a situation it is appropriate for.

 

[BrianShaw]

I had a Tokina 80-200 zoom that was a very poor performer from the first day I owned it. Still have it but don’t know why.

 

[btaylor]

Assuming of course, that one is using a lens in a situation it is appropriate for.

This. I bought an old Wollensak Verito soft focus lens described by the owner as "ruined" because the soft focus adjustment ring was mangled and the studio shutter was inoperative. I like the look where the soft focus ring is stuck. The studio shutter is stuck wide open... perfect for portraits! It all depends on the "appropriateness" of how it's used for your vision.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had a pre Series I Vivatar 70mm to 207mm zoom lens which was just ok. It did not have the sharpness or contract that my Rokkar lenses. I tolerated it for years.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some FSU lenses are badly decentered. Or with jamming aperture blades.
I had this famous Zenitar or whathewer FSU 50 f2 lens, it was soft on one side.
I know one photog who dropped FSU lens into the trash bin, because aperture blades jammed while on assignment.
I might be mistaken, but camera went same way as well.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've got some truly unredeemable lenses from the 70's. People would buy a K1000 or something and then get a Promaster 70-200 or Sears 35-70. I have a drawer of these and even I won't shoot with them. And I shoot just about everything. Currently I have some lunks of glass and aluminum as film weights to hold my film flat when I scan.

 

[awty]

They like cameras are just a tool. You try to select the right combination for the picture you want.
The more diverse range of tools you have the better the option for your pictures. .....well thats my excuse. .......as I wait for a 14 minute exposure.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The only way to define a bad lens is if it doesn't do what you want it to do. From an empirical standpoint a Holga lens is a terrible lens, but if it does what you want it is gold. A Leica lens might be a good lens but if it doesn't do what you want it is crap.

Personally I am more an indian not an arrow kind of guy. Everything is useful for something.

 

[Europan]

It is perplexing what contrast can lie between elements ground and polished to lambda quarter and the mechanics of a lens. I know a number of bad lenses in that respect and invariably it is the diaphragm which is inferior. A Wollensak C-mount 6 inch lens has an unreliable iris, the blades are not mounted by pivots but are punched through to form little crowns. The cage retainer is a cheap spring ring with axial play! A similar no-play iris leaf thing comes with the C-mount Berthiot 10 mm, blades can jump out of the grooves any time. Berthiot’s D-mount Pan-Cinor 8‒40 has the same lousy diaphragm mechanics as Wollensak. Taylor-Hobson sold a Serital ciné lens that cannot be disassembled without breaking a rivet that attaches the iris follower to its cage. In a Vega from the Soviet Union I have found a retaining clip with long burrs on the bores. Meopta made ciné lenses with overly complicated mechanisms in thin tubes. A little out of round and the lens jams. The worst lens I know is a projection lens, the Eupro-Zoom 15‒25, the king of distortion. It has plastic parts that deteriorate by the warmth.

 

[darkosaric]

The only way to define a bad lens is if it doesn't do what you want it to do.

+1

Also I would say that bad lenses can be (re)defined as "interesting" lenses - if the user wants to play.

For example I got once long time ago Jupiter 12 that was super cheap because it was damaged with heavy cleaning marks and internal haze, but it gave some interesting effects:
Dead Link Removed

From another side I had Sigma 75-300 in Nikon mount that was bad, and I could not use it for anything useful, it was just bad. Sold it and got myself nikkor 200/f4 that I have until today.

 

[Dali]

I need a refill...

 

[BrianShaw]

I need a refill...

What’s your pleasure, mate?

 

[Eric Rose]

I need a refill...

What's your point?

 

[jim10219]

Ordinarily I'd say there's no such thing as a bad lens, just a bad application for the lens at hand. But I've also owned a first version Nikon 43-86mm zoom which challenges that philosophy.

 

[michr]

I think it comes down to expectations. If I were to spend $1000+ on a new lens, I would expect it to produce sharp, contrasty results across the image, with little chromatic aberration and flare, unless specifically marketed as a "special-effects" lens (e.g. like the new "Petzval" lenses). Anything less than this I would call a bad lens, and I would return it because I can't waste that kind of money on bad lenses. If the lens is less than $20 and something I want to play around with, who cares if the aperture is broken, or the glass is scratched, or the image is hazy, etc. Those are toy prices and it's money I can afford to waste. But now that film gear is so cheap, I can spend $20-$30 on a classic non-ai Nikkor, or a variety of M42 lenses, and get some of the best glass that the 1960s or 70s had to offer, I'm not often willing to settle for a toy lens. Except for field curvature and bokeh, virtually every other effect of a bad lens can be emulated in post-production, so consequently, even images on film with these distortions come out looking a bit like they went through Photoshop.

 

[Cholentpot]

The only way to define a bad lens is if it doesn't do what you want it to do. From an empirical standpoint a Holga lens is a terrible lens, but if it does what you want it is gold. A Leica lens might be a good lens but if it doesn't do what you want it is crap.

Personally I am more an indian not an arrow kind of guy. Everything is useful for something.

Some lenses don't do what they are supposed to do and don't do what you'd like them to do. My idea is if an amateur who knows next to nothing can't get a decent image of Max the Dog with Johnny then the lens is trash.