Which 35mm camera and lens has the worst image quality?

lxdude · Dec 7, 2022

Don Heisz said:
Now now, come on. You can't actually focus with that beer in there.

Rather, it's you can't actually focus with all that beer in you!

abruzzi · Dec 7, 2022

what about the early Nikkor 43-86 zoom? I've never used one but it has a pretty bad reputation. other wise if you really want to go downhill, a Lomo with a plastic lens.

lxdude · Dec 7, 2022

Paul Howell said:
I think many 60s and 70s 3rd party vintage zooms will fit the bill, shoot wide open, no lens hood, hand held, do not use mirror lockup or a cable release.

In '77 I bought a Tamron Adaptall 75-150/3.5. It was soft at all focal lengths and distances, and the amount of magenta-colored flare was almost beyond belief. It wasn't just my copy either- it quickly earned a reputation as a dud and was soon replaced by a new design. I still have that POS, because sometimes it's fun to fool around with flare effects. I take a picture of someone with the sun behind them, and they think it's so cool.

lxdude · Dec 7, 2022

MarkS said:
I had a Leica 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit that suffered from the worst flare I've ever seen. It had clean glass, was in fine physical shape, and I used a long lens hood. What did I see, under most circumstances? Flare. It was a real disappointment and it's long gone. Do they all do that? I have no idea, but you might consider one.

Philistine! You didn't value having gobs of the legendary Leica glow!

grat · Dec 7, 2022

Lomo Konstruktor?

film_man · Dec 7, 2022

grat said:
Lomo Konstruktor?

Oh God yeah I have one of those. Depending how badly you put it together (which is the default result given the vague instructions) you end up with various shades of shade in the photos. I guess if you stick a magnifying glass in front of it you get a tele. The Sardina was more usable

koraks · Dec 7, 2022

momus said:
I'm looking for at least an 85mm lens for bodacious portraits and bugs (might be the same thing depending on your model or bug). Big, ugly and heavy is great. Bonus points for lenses that fall apart if you look at them sideways, or are prone to fungus even if you live in the Sahara desert.

Once upon a time, I used something that ticked literally each of those boxes, and a few more. A Mamiya Sekor 200mm on a Mamiya ZM body. Not just that - add a Mamiya 2x teleconverter to it, and you're in business. Unique properties:
* Absolute lack of contrast
* Absolute lack of sharpness
* Guaranteed to not flare as long as no light source is present within the same universe the setup is used in
* Abominable build quality; don't expect the aperture to work if you ge tone, or to remain operational once you've acquired it
* The lens mount will erode away upon use (unique feature, highly sought after)
* Combination has such a disadvantageous weight distribution that hand-held shooting will be challenging under all conditions
* Forget about reliable tripod shooting as no lens tripod cradle is present. Camera's tripod connector is of dubious quality.
* Lens elements will be hazed with grime and oily residues - consider it an 'optical coating'.

I think you should be able to pick something up along these lines for cheap. At least the lens. The camera body will be more challenging as I don't think any of the Z-series have survived.

bikenerd · Dec 8, 2022

Don Heisz said:
Now now, come on. You can't actually focus with that beer in there.

The desire to focus was not specified in the original post.

Don_ih · Dec 9, 2022

bikenerd said:
The desire to focus was not specified in the original post.

I didn't mean focus the lens.

benveniste · Dec 9, 2022

KerrKid · Dec 9, 2022

It's way too good for you, but get a Pentax Zoom 90WR. $20 on OFAS. Make it the cult camera it knows it should be.

jimgalli · Dec 9, 2022

What you're really asking for is what I achieve and try to sell on the auction site with a bellows and an antique France achromatic meniscus lens. True soft focus for 35mm. Look at the photos here, here, and here. The camera is insignificant. Once you have a bellows for your 35 you can put any old piece of crap out there for experimenting. Anything sold in quantity back in the day is going to be too good. Yesterday I sold two 90mm enlarging lenses from the 1940's, a Dallmeyer and a Wollensak together for $15 bucks. With a bellows, either of those would have perfectly met your original description.

rcphoto · Dec 9, 2022

I had a Promaster 100-400mm push pull that was the worst lens I ever paid money for.

BHuij · Dec 9, 2022

I bet one of the Agfa Isolettes with an Agnar 85mm f/4.5 would do the trick. Particularly if it's one of the 98% of them on eBay that will come with the front focusing cell locked in place with Agfa brand green yak snot "grease". Might have to get creative to get it on a 35mm camera. I have an Apotar and Solinar of the same series that I got curious about, and designed/3D printed a simple barrel and helical thread mount that can be glued to a sacrificial camera body cap of your choice with a hole drilled out of it (EF-mount body cap in my case), so I could test it out on my DSLR. Of course I'm only seeing the center of the image circle where the lens should theoretically be at its best. The Solinar is surprisingly (or perhaps unsurprisingly) good. It lives on my Goodman Zone now which I use for shooting 6x6.

Agulliver · Jul 12, 2024

film_man said:
Oh God yeah I have one of those. Depending how badly you put it together (which is the default result given the vague instructions) you end up with various shades of shade in the photos. I guess if you stick a magnifying glass in front of it you get a tele. The Sardina was more usable

To be honest, it's not that bad. Better than anything I've seen from a Diana. Better than almost any meniscus lens in a box camera. I know that's a low bar, but given that I am pretty ham fisted....I managed to put together my Konstruktor kit in about 3 hours and 10 years on it still works. The centre of the image is surprisingly sharp, though it's definitely not sharp at the edges. Work within it's and it's far from a tool for really serious photography but it's certainly fun and able to take half decent photos.

I have a friend who disassembles 90s P&S 35mm cameras which no longer work for the lenses. She adapts them to fit digital cameras and gets some very....umm...interesting results. If one did the same with a working 35mm body it might be...umm...interesting.

Les Sarile · Jul 12, 2024

You'd think a camera with a cracked lens would be the worst. And that's what Pablo Picasso started with. But instead of getting rid of it in favor of the sharpest lens the distorted view inspired his cubist style!

beemermark · Jul 12, 2024

Somewhere in my junk piles I have a Leica 90/2.8 Elmarit with a BIG chunk out of the corner of the front element. Takes interesting portraits. I should find it and post a shot.

Hassasin · Jul 13, 2024

gone said:
It's not the gear, it's the photographer, right? Let's see if that's true.

I'm looking for at least an 85mm lens for bodacious portraits and bugs (might be the same thing depending on your model or bug). Big, ugly and heavy is great. Bonus points for lenses that fall apart if you look at them sideways, or are prone to fungus even if you live in the Sahara desert.

Maybe I just need lens recommendations, but I'm certainly open to crappy cameras as long as I can put a crappy long lens on it, even with a cheap, poorly made crappy adapter.

Hasselblad with planar 80

bernard_L · Jul 13, 2024

gone said:
I'm certainly open to crappy cameras as long as I can put a crappy long lens on it,

You need a camera from Miroslav Tichy. Crappy camera, long lens, look no further.

https://www.incam.fr/miroslav-tichy-bonne-ou-mauvaise-camera/

Vetus · Jul 13, 2024

If you want a junk camera go for a disc camera, anyone remember them?

MFstooges · Jul 13, 2024

Old thread about 35mm camera and people start throwing all kind of non 35mm

Hassasin · Jul 14, 2024

MFstooges said:
Old thread about 35mm camera and people start throwing all kind of non 35mm

2 years isn't old. But the question deserves deserving answers.

MFstooges · Jul 14, 2024

Hassasin said:
2 years isn't old. But the question deserves deserving answers.

Any thread over 365 days is old. There is even a warning on this site.

Dan Fromm · Jul 14, 2024

Celestron C-90. Flary, soft, strong central hot spot, astigmatic. Re this last, the lens did focus, if you can call it that, to 10 feet (1:4), its advertised near limit. I focused it on a window screen @1:4. It would focus on the horizontal OR the vertical wires, not both at the same time. Classic.

MattKing · Jul 14, 2024

MFstooges said:
Any thread over 365 days is old. There is even a warning on this site.

Moderator's Note:
Please Note: there is nothing wrong with reviving an old thread intentionally. In fact, we encourage people to thoughtfully revive threads, when the new information is both relevant and appropriate for the thread.
The warning is there so people realize that the thread has been inactive for a considerable length of time when they make their post. For some threads - such as threads involving market conditions - the amount of time that has gone by makes a current response of little use. But in many other cases, the inactivity matters little.

Which 35mm camera and lens has the worst image quality?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency