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

[gone]

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.

 

[MattKing]

Pick any one available to you. And then, like a former retail customer I dealt with once, carry it around in an aluminum sided camera case with all the padding removed.
"Clunk, rattle, clunk, rattle ....."

 

[cramej]

Pick a zoom lens with a name so generic you can't even tell it's a brand. Too bad 135mm lenses aren't difficult to make.

Or, just take a decent lens and modify to your liking.....vaseline on a filter, scratched or damaged elements, reversed element, ad infinitum.

 

[wiltw]

I doubt that any lens designer or manufacturer sought to provide a lens with terrible optical results!

I think if you are after bad IQ (for some incomprehensible reason), you simply use all the IQ destroying things and add them to the lens...deeply scratched filters with dust on one surface, and vaseline smeared irregularly in no particular pattern or evenness on some of the other surface.

Combine that with high ISO/pushed process film which has been exposed to high heat before processing, and printed on low contrast paper poorly exposed.

 

[cramej]

I doubt that any lens designer or manufacturer sought to provide a lens with terrible optical results!

Nah, but it sometimes it seems they went with an intern's first draft!

 

[gone]

Thanks Matt, but I don't have a case, aluminum or otherwise. An oyster sack would be more appropriate. I tried no name 135 lenses. What I discovered is, they're like nifty 50's, they're all pretty darned good.

No lens hacks. I want one that's bad straight from the factory, or has gotten bad through normal or abnormal abuse and neglect.

 

[albada]

Maybe take the crappy miniscus lens out of a Holga or Diana or similar. Don't forget to bring over the Waterhouse stop behind the lens as well.

 

[MarkS]

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.

 

[Huss]

For extremely high weight, big expense, absolutely the worst flare control I've ever experienced, slow use due to having to manually stop down the apertures, and heavy focusing I highly recommend the Zenit Helios 40-2 85 1.5.

Is there anything this lens cannot do? Yes. Lots and lots of things. But if the moon is in the right phase, and you 'got some' recently, it can make some really nice portraits.

Zenit Helios-40-2 85mm f/1.5 lens

www.zenit.photo

(It never was for me, and I didn't..)

This is the ad text that I used to sell it:

What we have here is possibly the heaviest 85mm 1.5 lens made. I cannot imagine this could be made any heavier unless they replaced a couple of the elements with lead ingots.
This is a preset lens, which means no auto aperture stop down. You preset the aperture ring to your intended aperture, focus wide open, then manually close down until you hit the preset to take the pic.
Cutting edge tech if this was 100 years ago...
So anyway, I bought this lens because I must have lost a bet, was impressed by swirly pics of bokeh n stuff, used it maybe twice, then let it act like ballast in the trunk of my Oldsmobile for when I drove on sketchy roads.
Pretty much like new condition, comes with its pouch and box.

 

[gone]

I actually looked at the 85 Helios Huss, back when I was after a "proper" portrait lens. The prices are not exactly in bad lens territory though, as you mentioned. Those buggers are expensive. I do like the idea of paying big $$$'s for a crappy lens though.

Years ago I had an Agfa 35mm SLR (Agfaflex?) w/ several lenses and a top viewfinder like a Nikon F. The bokeh had to be seen to be believed, it was amazingly busy and ugly.

I know, a Jupiter 9. It hits all the marks. Cheapish, it will take forever to get here (a crappy shipping experience is an extra plus), heavy, tractor-like build quality, and on my last one, the lens barrel fell onto the ground when I tried to focus it. Aperture numbers were on the bottom too. Maybe I can get lucky again.

 

[MattKing]

I did have a Vivitar 24mm f/2 lens in OM mount that wouldn't have met your criteria when purchased new, but soon attained that lofty status due to terrible construction. Essentially, it soon fell apart.

 

[Bill Burk]

If I were looking for this I would pick a 55 Helios f/2 and pair it with a Sears 2x teleconverter. You might flip the front or rear element of the Helios for extra funkiness.

 

[benjiboy]

There are a hell of a lot more lousy photographers than there are lousy lenses.

 

[OAPOli]

Briefly tried the Helios 58mm f/2 (M42) and Industar 50mm f3.5 (M39). Both sharp enough but lots of flare and glow. Both fairly light and sturdy but the Industar needed a *very* light touch to change the aperture. Canon FL 55mm f1.2: very heavy, very sharp but awful bokeh.

 

[Dwight Anderson]

I've got a Soligor 90-230 zoom in a T4 mount that is soft at all distances, apertures and focal lengths. It's very long and heavy, so it doubles as a self defense weapon. I think I've got an extra exakta adapter for it.

 

[Huss]

I have a Minolta MD Rokkor X 100-500 f8 zoom that has haze in it. Free to anyone who wants to come get it. This not only ranks as a lousy lens, but also as a slightly too short baseball bat.

 

[tokam]

@Huss, I may have you trumped in the useless long lens front. Years ago I was gifted a swag of Minolta Dynax gear along with a BIG88DA 800 - 1200, f9.9 - f14.9 lens. It's not a zoom but appears to be a long focus lens with a fixed aperture. Very simple construction, probably 3 - 4 elements with a lot of air space between front and rear of lens. Comes in a T2 mount and with the aid of a T2/M42 and M42/Canon FD adapters I was able to shoot a few frames on a T90 in stopped down AE priority. Very glowy results. Could be a good soft focus portrait lens if your subject was 100 feet way. It even came with a dedicated 2x teleconverter but I wasn't game to try it. Hard to believe but I just saw a couple of examples on the big auction site with asking prices around the $170 mark. ROFL.

 

[Don_ih]

Put a magnifying glass lens at the end of a paper towel tube.

 

[Huss]

Put a magnifying glass lens at the end of a paper towel tube.

Gettin' all fancy. I prefer the base of a broken beer bottle taken from the trash. Preferably if it still has some beer in it.

 

[Don_ih]

Gettin' all fancy. I prefer the base of a broken beer bottle taken from the trash. Preferably if it still has some beer in it.

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

 

[Huss]

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

Lomography introduces panoramic camera with liquid-filled lens

Fancy tea-filtered panoramics with the sprocket holes showing? If so, Lomography's new 35mm liquid-filled panoramic camera might be just what you're looking for.

www.dpreview.com

 

[film_man]

Look for lenses listed as parts. You'll find fungus, scratches or both. With a bit of luck it will be knocked out of alignment. Or just go to a flea market, bound to find some junk with fungus.

I had a Lomo Sardina (I mean I still have it but the shutter and back broke) which was as crappy as it gets but that has a wide angle lens on it.

 

[Paul Howell]

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. I have a 3rd party zoom (need to look for it to get the name) in MD mount that came with user manual with test chart data. Best resolution LPMM was 95, could resolve 70s Trix, but not Plus X or Panatomic X. There were a few higher end zooms that did ok, most were not so good, which is why most used primes.

 

[Oldwino]

Lomography introduces panoramic camera with liquid-filled lens

Fancy tea-filtered panoramics with the sprocket holes showing? If so, Lomography's new 35mm liquid-filled panoramic camera might be just what you're looking for.

www.dpreview.com

More proof that everything’s been done at least once.

 

[Cholentpot]

I glued a wide angle adapter for a cellphone to a disposable camera some time ago. I used some Tri-X I found in a bulk-loader. Came out better than I thought.