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

[Don_ih]

The warning is there so people realize that the thread has been inactive for a considerable length of time when they make their post.

There's also the fact that, in many instances, the original poster and many of those who originally left comments are no longer frequenting this forum, so responding to their original question (especially without reading the intervening responses) can be a bit like talking to the wind.

 

[MFstooges]

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.

I know.
I just responded to the statement saying 2 years isn't old. "Old" is relative but there is standard on this forum and responding to an old thread with irrelevant answers is really pointless.

 

[MattKing]

but there is standard on this forum

The one year time frame was chosen as much because it was convenient, reasonably appropriate, and because something had to be chosen when setting up the utility.
You will note though that we are in agreement about one thing - our encouragement is directed at those who add relevant information.
I usually give people a pass though if once in a while they miss something in a thread title - e.g. the "35mm" in this thread's title - and simply respond to the most recent posts.

 

[eli griggs]

There are so many things that qualify as cameras and lenses, it's impossible to claim any one, IS THE WORST!

That said, I suppose a pinhole in a prepared fastfood straw or a brass tube would be pretty dismal but let's try anyway.