what lenses do you dislike?

darinwc · May 16, 2006

This is in response to the 'good lenses from unclean brands' thread. It appears people have good things to say about lots of different lenses. So I'd like to hear about lenses that are disliked and why they are disliked. i know some people may dislike a lens because it is 'soft' but others will love it for the same reasons. Or maybee a lens is overrated and commands a higher price than it should. Cool thing about this thread is that people may learn about situations where unliked lenses shine.

Heres mine:
15 inch f5.6 Wollensak Telephoto.
The pictures dont do it justice. this lens is big. Too heavy for my Zone Vi. I thought I might mount it on a speed graphic someday but probably I will just sell it.

Ilex 65mm f8 wide-angle paragon.
i love this lens and I hate it. it took me allmost 2 years to find an Ilex #1 shutter at a good price. Its very hard to work with. the edges go dim quickly and there is not much movement available. The most aggrivating thing is that there are no filter threads. I've had a little luck just holding a filter over it. This lens is a pain in the ass to use, but it is nice and sharp.

150mm f4.7 Xenar.
It's just blah. The focal length is booring and the sharpness is mediocre. Not much movement to use either.

removed account4 · May 16, 2006

i don't have any specifics ..
but i dislike expensive sharp lenses with a lot of hype.
seems to me they aren't worth all the money or hulabaloo.

john

SuzanneR · May 16, 2006

Zoom lenses are the work of the devil!!

BrianShaw · May 16, 2006

Suzanne Revy said:
Zoom lenses are the work of the devil!!

I agree, although they really are kinda' convenient sometimes (he waffles)... but a zoom on a LF camera... I had no idea that anyone was doing that!

Changeling1 · May 16, 2006

darinwc said:
This is in response to the 'good lenses from unclean brands' thread. It appears people have good things to say about lots of different lenses. So I'd like to hear about lenses that are disliked and why they are disliked. i know some people may dislike a lens because it is 'soft' but others will love it for the same reasons. Or maybee a lens is overrated and commands a higher price than it should. Cool thing about this thread is that people may learn about situations where unliked lenses shine.

Heres mine:
15 inch f5.6 Wollensak Telephoto.
The pictures dont do it justice. this lens is big. Too heavy for my Zone Vi. I thought I might mount it on a speed graphic someday but probably I will just sell it.

Ilex 65mm f8 wide-angle paragon.
i love this lens and I hate it. it took me allmost 2 years to find an Ilex #1 shutter at a good price. Its very hard to work with. the edges go dim quickly and there is not much movement available. The most aggrivating thing is that there are no filter threads. I've had a little luck just holding a filter over it. This lens is a pain in the ass to use, but it is nice and sharp.

150mm f4.7 Xenar.
It's just blah. The focal length is booring and the sharpness is mediocre. Not much movement to use either.

You're absolutely correct- those lenses are close to useless and because I feel so sorry for you I'll take all three of them off your hands. All it will cost you is the postage to ship them to Los Angeles.

roteague · May 16, 2006

Nikkor-SW 90mm f8 - this lens is too dark to be usuable.

SuzanneR · May 16, 2006

BrianShaw said:
I agree, although they really are kinda' convenient sometimes (he waffles)... but a zoom on a LF camera... I had no idea that anyone was doing that!

ooops... didn't notice this was in the LF section.. that's what I get for just looking in "new posts" all the time!

One of the appealing things about LF, of course, is the lack of zoom lenses, don't you think?

darinwc · May 16, 2006

"Ilex 65mm f8 wide-angle paragon.
.. the edges go dim quickly.."

just an edit:
The edges go dim at f8, making it extremely difficult to compose and focus.
When stopped down to at least f16 the falloff is only minor.

roteague · May 16, 2006

Suzanne Revy said:
ooops... didn't notice this was in the LF section.. that's what I get for just looking in "new posts" all the time!

One of the appealing things about LF, of course, is the lack of zoom lenses, don't you think?

No worries.

BTW, sorry I missed meeting up with you in Toronto. I saw you across the tent one day, but didn't get the opportunity to say "hello". It was a great conference, so may new friends to meet.

MattCarey · May 16, 2006

Suzanne Revy said:
ooops... didn't notice this was in the LF section.. that's what I get for just looking in "new posts" all the time!

One of the appealing things about LF, of course, is the lack of zoom lenses, don't you think?

Nice save!

I do the same thing (check "new posts") so I could have done the same thing...even though I don't have anything against my 80-200mm f2.8 zoom (except that it is big and won't focus close enough to be usable indoors).

Matt

jd callow · May 16, 2006

almost any lens in the normal range.

JG Motamedi · May 16, 2006

I dislike all lenses.

df cardwell · May 16, 2006

LF lenses I don't like ?

-- Post 1980 Homogenized Plasmats. Yawn. No Heart.

-- Veritos and the like. No Brains.

--- Dislike any lens used for an 'effect'.

Love ? 250 Sonnar & 120 Angulon. Protars, Ektars. Brains and brawn, heart and soul.

JG Motamedi · May 16, 2006

I recant, I recant, I recant.
I do like lenses.
All of them.

Well, almost
I dislike G-Clarons and their process kin.

acroell · May 16, 2006

I still have to meet an LF lens I didn't like!

In terms of non-photographic lenses, I own a pair of binoculars (Vivitar Series 1 10x42) that I bought about 17 years ago that has the worst double line bokeh I've ever seen anywhere. And, unless you use it for stargazing, since something is always out of focus in a 10x binocular, my eyes hurt after 10s using that thing. Thats what you get if you go for sharpness in the plane of focus as the only criterion...

Amund · May 16, 2006

roteague said:
Nikkor-SW 90mm f8 - this lens is too dark to be usuable.

I agree, I just sold mine....

Lachlan Young · May 16, 2006

df cardwell said:
LF lenses I don't like ?

-- Post 1980 Homogenized Plasmats. Yawn. No Heart.

-- Veritos and the like. No Brains.

--- Dislike any lens used for an 'effect'.

Love ? 250 Sonnar & 120 Angulon. Protars, Ektars. Brains and brawn, heart and soul.

Couldn't agree more! At one time there was more to lensmaking than making lenses with identical resolution, 'look' and colour reproduction. Indeed, I wonder, if enough of us are interested, if Mr. Kobayashi would consider doing a run of 150mm or 210mm Apo-Lanthars or Heliars at a reasonable price!

Lachlan

Rob Skeoch · May 16, 2006

I think the g-clarons are over hyped.
-Rob Skeoch

JG Motamedi · May 16, 2006

I think the g-clarons are over hyped

and just plain ugly.

fingel · May 16, 2006

That would be something to have Cosina revive the Voiglander large format line of lenses.

Dan Fromm · May 16, 2006

I greatly disliked my former 65/6.8 Raptar. When the light is good its almost imposible to take a bad picture of Carson Peak but I managed just that with it. And I was never thrilled by the pictures I took with my 250/5.6 TeleOptar. I have other Wollys that are much more loveable

I don't see why some of the responders don't like plasmats. My judgement of my 135/5.6 Symmar (convertible) is that although it might be a tiny bit worse on 2x3 than my 127/4.7 Tominon (ex CU-5), that one could be quite happy with either on 2x3.

acroell · May 16, 2006

fingel said:
That would be something to have Cosina revive the Voiglander large format line of lenses.

Indeed! Unfortunately, the old lens names they use for their Bessa lenses have nothing to do with the historic types they signify. The only exception so far was the 3.5/50mm Heliar which really was a Heliar type. So even if they would go ahead and make new LF lenses, a new LF Apo-Lanthar could be a Plasmat type etc....

Oren Grad · May 16, 2006

acroell said:
Indeed! Unfortunately, the old lens names they use for their Bessa lenses have nothing to do with the historic types they signify. The only exception so far was the 3.5/50mm Heliar which really was a Heliar type. So even if they would go ahead and make new LF lenses, a new LF Apo-Lanthar could be a Plasmat type etc....

But the special-edition 50/3.5 Heliar at least showed that they understand what a real Heliar is. This is an interesting idea - they like to do odd, short-run lenses sold as special editions, and seem to have figured out how to do it profitably. So why not something for LF? Dunno whether they could justify a whole line to cover different formats, but I'd bet they could sell a bunch of 150 Heliars for 4x5 if the price was within reason and the design really delivered the goods.

Maybe somebody should get on Stephen Gandy's case, see if he can talk Kobayashi-san into it...

Oren Grad · May 16, 2006

Oren Grad said:
a bunch of 150 Heliars for 4x5

Or 165 or 180 or whatever - I realize that the classic design is at its best when used in a FL on the long side of normal.

jss · May 16, 2006

f8/90

i have a schneider f8/90.. it is also pretty dark. what's a good alternative? is there a good backpacker's version?

roteague said:
Nikkor-SW 90mm f8 - this lens is too dark to be usuable.

what lenses do you dislike?

darinwc

removed account4

SuzanneR

Moderator

BrianShaw

Changeling1

roteague

SuzanneR

Moderator

darinwc

roteague

MattCarey

jd callow

Moderator

JG Motamedi

df cardwell

JG Motamedi

acroell

Amund

Lachlan Young

Rob Skeoch

Advertiser

JG Motamedi

fingel

Dan Fromm

acroell

Oren Grad

Oren Grad

jss

what lenses do you dislike?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency