Your worst lens

[Dan Fromm]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I sold all my "worst" lenses.

 

[blockend]

By way of an aside, flatbed digital scanning can make great lenses look poor. Judge a lens by optical printing.

 

[snapguy]

Coke bottle

In the late 1950s I had a Leitz 50mm f2 Summar lens that was truly horrible. For my Leica 3F I also had a 127mm Wollensak which was a much better lens. I also had a 90mm f4 Elmar that was wonderful. I miss the tiny, sharp Elmar.

 

[Ian Grant]

A Domiplan, you can't even see through it to focus, or actually see anything I have another but these lenses were always poor p performers, I have 2 Tessars and a Pancolor (same Exacta fit) and they are fine.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

i think i gave my worst lens away to a repair guy for parts
it was some sort of aftermarket 28mm lens with a pentax mount
the mount was loose, and that was the only reason it was my worst lens ..
other than that even my "bad" lenses i like cause I'm really not too picky

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I had a Lensbaby one time trying to get a look of a Petzval lens. It was my worst lens. I sold it on Ebay more that I got it for.

 

[cliveh]

In the late 1950s I had a Leitz 50mm f2 Summar lens that was truly horrible. For my Leica 3F I also had a 127mm Wollensak which was a much better lens. I also had a 90mm f4 Elmar that was wonderful. I miss the tiny, sharp Elmar.

I would second this bit about the Leitz 50mm f2 Summar and although I don't own one, I have used one in the past. Probably the worst lens Leitz produced. Difficult to believe it is a Leitz lens actually (soft as mud).

 

[blockend]

A Domiplan, you can't even see through it to focus, or actually see anything I have another but these lenses were always poor p performers, I have 2 Tessars and a Pancolor (same Exacta fit) and they are fine.

Ian

The Domiplan was a 2.8 3-element lens that came on the cheapest Prakticas. Quality control was all over the place, but good ones are sought after for their unique rendition, especially on DSLR video. The best have good subject sharpness and attractive astigmatism (or swirly bokeh for the hipsters). Many are just soft and murky.

 

[railwayman3]

A Domiplan, you can't even see through it to focus, or actually see anything I have another but these lenses were always poor p performers, I have 2 Tessars and a Pancolor (same Exacta fit) and they are fine.

Ian

Before I read your post, I also was going to post that I had an Exakta fit 50mm Domiplan that was soft, unsharp and gave generally grungy images! Yet a 30mm Lydith and a 135mm Meritar(?) from the same factory, all inherited from my Dad, were fine. A 50mm Tessar was also good, yet a Pancolor just so-so....I guess it was all down to East German quality control, or lack thereof.

 

[pentaxpete]

I bought a 35mm f2 Super-Takumar for £69-00 on reading a good write-up in a magazine by Ron Spillman -- well MY sample was poor -- no 'resolution' until stopped down to f11 or f16 !! It was a later version with 49mm filter thread. Many years later I got the 'older' version with a HUGE front element and that is SHARP and useable at full aperture and I have used it on my digital K10D for Press work as well as on film cameras.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't own any" worst" lenses.

 

[ic-racer]

I don't own any" worst" lenses.

I see you already posted what I was going to post.

 

[M Carter]

Rokinon 28-80 macro... wide open it's a trip, almost sort of double-exposed. I was about to sell it but thought I'd test it for music videos or something... could be pretty in the right light. Came with a Nikon FG body for $25. the FG's a keeper.

I've tested a bunch of consumer AIS glass (quest for a good normal lens for APS-C video) in the wider ranges. Vivitar 28mm 2.8 sucked even worse than the Nikon Series E 28, which sucked with admirable suction.

I did a music video for a song about paranoia a couple years ago, and got one of those "HD wide angle" screw-on lenses, which was fine in the center but had amazing chromatic aberration at the edges, almost a zoom-blur look. Used it for the entire video.

 

[Ian Grant]

Before I read your post, I also was going to post that I had an Exakta fit 50mm Domiplan that was soft, unsharp and gave generally grungy images! Yet a 30mm Lydith and a 135mm Meritar(?) from the same factory, all inherited from my Dad, were fine. A 50mm Tessar was also good, yet a Pancolor just so-so....I guess it was all down to East German quality control, or lack thereof.

I had a Pancolor while at University in the early 70s came with my Praktikamat it was a very good sharp lens, only problem was the diaphragm was inconsistent it rarely stopped down to the exact stop. My Varex IIb now has one which is OK.

Ian

 

[darkosaric]

Summar is a great lens , actually I am loving it equally as my summicron. While it is soft from f2 - f4 (but soft in the most beautiful way I want to be soft), at f5.6 - f11 it is sharp.

Here are 2 examples from my summar that I had with me on my trip to Paris:

Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

My worst lenses were some takumar/vivitar/sigma lenses for nikon, bad, sold them after first film.

 

[tony lockerbie]

I have to agree about the Summar, mine is very sharp but low in contrast compared to new lenses. Kind of what you would expect from a multi element uncoated optic. They do flare easily of course, but in the right conditions they are quite lovely. Hard to imagine that Leitz made bad samples, but possible I guess.
Never had any problem with Nikkors or Canons or Pentaxes, but a few Soviet lenses kind of missed the boat...I have a 50mm Jupiter that should be sent there.

 

[gorbas]

My worst lens is Nikon Nikkor-S 1.4/5.8cm. It's not surprise that Nikon ditched that lens design just after 2 years of manufacture. Most likely, one of the shortest living Nikkor products.

 

[Pioneer]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Sorry Dan. I did a search on Google for Worst Lens but it did not pick up your thread.

Very interesting reading.

 

[Alan Gales]

I sold all my "worst" lenses.

That's what I do. If I don't like a lens then I sell it on Ebay and let it be someone else's "worst" lens.

 

[Jon Buffington]

FD mount "wolf pro" branded 28/2.8 macro. Not half bad up close but no matter what aperture used, horrible vignetting and soft at any reasonable distance. A real dog. Would sell it but it was originally my father's.

 

[MattKing]

In the 1980s I had a Vivitar 24mm f/2 lens in OM mount that was mechanically terrible. It literally fell apart.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Sorry Dan. I did a search on Google for Worst Lens but it did not pick up your thread.

Very interesting reading.

You have to tell Google what to do, and firmly.

First, use Google Advanced Search: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

Then, to search just one site, put the site's URL in the Advanced Search's "site or domain:" window. For Apug, use www.apug.org

Then, click the Advanced Search button.

I'm going to ask the mods to combine this thread with the old one.

 

[flavio81]

My worst lens is Nikon Nikkor-S 1.4/5.8cm. It's not surprise that Nikon ditched that lens design just after 2 years of manufacture. Most likely, one of the shortest living Nikkor products.

That's my FAVORITE Nikkor lens, go figure...
Give it away to me!

 

[LJSLATER]

Nikon 18/4. Falloff, distortion, not extremely sharp. My favorite Nikkor, though; go figure.