Your worst lens

flavio81 · Jan 20, 2015

Worst lens i owned was a Nikkor DX 18-55. Corners were awful.

Worst lens i've used was a Nikkor AF 24-120 f3.5-5.6 (or something like that) which had awful corners AND bad distortion. I've read that its successor, the 24-120 VR, is even worse!! HAHAHAHAAHAAAAA...

Other bad lens is the Ross Xpres 105/3.8 in my Ensign Selfix 820. At f11 is tack sharp, but at wider apertures field curvature at infinity is huge - either corners are soft and center sharp, or the opposite.

flavio81 · Jan 20, 2015

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

I understand! I own a Nikkor 20/4 AI that has falloff, unsharp extreme corners, and distortion... but I like to use ir!!

lxdude · Jan 20, 2015

Two "worst" lenses, in different ways: About 1977, I bought a new Tamron 75-150 3.5 zoom (The earlier, separate focus and zoom ring type). It was not very sharp, and produced severe magenta-colored flare if a strong light source was in or near the frame. I put the flare problem to use by purposely employing it a few times. I otherwise used it for pictures of people because the focal length range worked and the lack of resolution didn't matter much.
The other worst lens was a screw-mount Vivitar 300/5.6 that was given to me. It had really bad chromatic aberration. I traded it for a Super-Takumar 200/4 to a guy who was dying to have a lens longer than 200. He was happy, and I got a lens I will never get rid of.

eddie · Jan 20, 2015

My worst lenses are all attached to Holgas and Dianas. They're all soft, lack contrast, and vignette. They sure can make some great photos, though.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 21, 2015

Pioneer said:
I have seen a bunch of threads about great lenses, sleeper lenses and so on. How about the worst lens you own. The lens that can't seem to take a decent picture no matter how hard you have tried.

I don't mean damaged lenses. There are some very good lenses that go bad because they were abused in their youth.

It really doesn't matter whether they are interchangeable lenses or are mounted permanently to a camera.

I'll start it off with the one I consider a true example of the genre. It is the Steinheil Cassar 50/2.8 mounted permanently to my Sears Tower 50. This is a rebranded Iloca Rapid camera that I believe was actually manufactured in Germany. (I am not positive on this point.) The lens itself is so low contrast that with some subjects it is not entirely certain what the picture actually is. In the beginning I was actually thinking that the shutter speeds were wrong, but when checked they were correct. Sometime later I spotted another one at an antique shop in Reno, so I paid $10 for it. Unfortunately the lens on this camera is even worse, if that is possible.

Since I can't in good conscience re-sell them, I guess I now own them forever. Maybe they will make good fodder for shotgun practice.

my worst lens is a Nikkor 35-70f/3.5-4.5 zoom.I just keep it ,because it is small and light and ideal for travel as long as it is stopped down to f/5.6-8.

Lench · Jan 21, 2015

Canon 75-300 non USM. Soft, no contrast, slowest AF I've ever used. I manual focus it when I absolutely have to use it. I hate that lens so much.

darinwc · Jan 21, 2015

RE: Pentax 35mm f2. There were a few versions of that lens. You chose poorly =] I had one also and quickly sold it.

Speaking of Pentax, I have a "Takumar A Zoom 70-200mm f4" lens that is underwhelming. Moderately sharp but low contrast. This lens is interesting because it does not say Pentax, SMC, or Japan anywhere on the lens. The focus is sloppy. The barrel has a slight blue tint. I've seen this on a 28mm Takumar as well that I fiddled with but did not buy because of the loose construction. I assume that these were not made by Pentax, and probably not made in Japan. China or Korea I assume. I also have a proper "Pentax SMC Takumar-A 70-210mm f4" that is much much better.

The Albinar brand is pretty piss poor. I have a zoom lens that turns like sandpaper and is literally falling apart.

ericdan · Jan 21, 2015

summicron 35mm v4 pre asph.
let's see if CLA changes that.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 21, 2015

ericdan said:
summicron 35mm v4 pre asph.
let's see if CLA changes that.

all the Carl ZeissCFLE lenses, I have for the Hasselblad are terrific!

aRolleiBrujo · Jan 21, 2015

Not trolling, but, as for me, the worst lens is the one I never use! I have limited budget for gear these days, so, whatever lens I have left, is the lens, and if I dont use it, it is the worse thing possible! I know this feeling very well! I have not used my 4X5 since I bought it a few months ago, and I have not touched my Pentacon Six TL for since OCTOBER!

Moopheus · Jan 21, 2015

In 35mm, that's easy--it's got to be the Argus AF. In MF, it would be hard to be worse than the toy cameras--the Great Wall Diana clone, and the Clack, though the Clack is surprisingly good for a cheap plastic meniscus lens. For LF, probably the ancient Ernemann that I got at a thrift shop for $2. But it's not too terrible, really.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 21, 2015

My worst lens is a 210mm rectilinear barrel lens without shutter for my 5x7. It's so bad that it's nice. Love the pictures I have made with it.

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 21, 2015

Threads merged.

Eric Rose · Jan 21, 2015

28mm Vivitar in Pentax thread. A total piece of doodoo.

benveniste · Jan 22, 2015

Dan Fromm said:
Wayne Crider issued an invitation to brag when he started the thread "your best lens."
What's the worst lens you ever bought? Gifts don't count.

Zeiss Jena 180mm MC -- Arrived DOA.

Dan Fromm said:
And what's the worst lens you actually use?

Three candidates, all from Nikon:

43-86mm f/3.5 AI -- I bought this for a few dollars to make a point about the Nikon D800. Contrast and resolving power are acceptable, but with massive distortion at all lengths.
60-180mm f/4.5~5.6 IX-Nikkor -- This lens is optically mediocre and is the worst constructed lens I've ever owned.
Nikon Fieldscope II -- This is a 60mm fieldscope. As such, it's fine. However, when used with a digiscoping attachment to create an angled 800mm f/13.2 lens, it's extremely difficult to focus, is quite soft, and exhibits a high level of chromatic aberration.

benjiboy · Jan 22, 2015

benveniste said:
Zeiss Jena 180mm MC -- Arrived DOA.

Three candidates, all from Nikon:

43-86mm f/3.5 AI -- I bought this for a few dollars to make a point about the Nikon D800. Contrast and resolving power are acceptable, but with massive distortion at all lengths.

60-180mm f/4.5~5.6 IX-Nikkor -- This lens is optically mediocre and is the worst constructed lens I've ever owned.

Nikon Fieldscope II -- This is a 60mm fieldscope. As such, it's fine. However, when used with a digiscoping attachment to create an angled 800mm f/13.2 lens, it's extremely difficult to focus, is quite soft, and exhibits a high level of chromatic aberration.

I thought everyone who was into Nikon knew that if Moses had seen the Nikkor 43-86 zoom lens there would have been another commandment

benjiboy · Jan 22, 2015

On reflection the only really bad lens I have ever owned was the Vivitar 19mm f3.8 lens that a friend who knows nothing about photography with the best of intentions bought for me as a birthday present that I a few years later sold and put the money towards a Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 lens that's one of the best lenses I own.

Jeff Bradford · Jan 22, 2015

I have a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 with matching 2x teleconverter that disappoints me because it is Canon FD mount.

I haven't disposed of it yet. One never knows when a stray Canon body will wander in.

gorbas · Jan 24, 2015

To be fair, there is link to latest pictures I took with this lens at f1.4;f2 and f2.8 taken on APS-C sensor size. There is also shots of the same scene taken with other lens of similar age, Minolta Rokkor 1.4/58mm. Rokkor produced way better pictures. My example of Nikkor 5.8cm is in nice shape, no sign of any impact, focuses nicely to infinity, there is no rattling of elements inside, still, the pictures taken with it just sucks. Tom Abrahamsson told me that his example of this lens is bad too. Maybe in the future I will take side by side shots with both of those Nikkors 5.8cm, just to be sure that I do not own bad example.

BradleyK · Jan 25, 2015

Hmmm...the only "worst lens" that I have ever owned was...surprise...the infamous Nikon 43-86mm Ai. Bought on a whim (the focal length seemed "useful," so I picked up a copy), the lens did active duty until my first roll of Kodachome 25 was returned from Kodak Canada in Vancouver, B.C.; thereafter, it became a paperweight... Live and learn...lol

flavio81 · Jan 25, 2015

gorbas said:
To be fair, there is link to latest pictures I took with this lens at f1.4;f2 and f2.8 taken on APS-C sensor size. There is also shots of the same scene taken with other lens of similar age, Minolta Rokkor 1.4/58mm. Rokkor produced way better pictures. My example of Nikkor 5.8cm is in nice shape, no sign of any impact, focuses nicely to infinity, there is no rattling of elements inside, still, the pictures taken with it just sucks. Tom Abrahamsson told me that his example of this lens is bad too. Maybe in the future I will take side by side shots with both of those Nikkors 5.8cm, just to be sure that I do not own bad example.

This is a lens for the 35mm full frame format; to test it with an aps-c digital camera is not fair. Also, this lens has loads of coma aberration so i'd never use this lens for such an image, full of small highlights.

For portraits the smooth rendering of the nikkor-s 58/1.4 is fantastic. And it is sharp at f5.6-8, like any other normal lens.

narsuitus · Jan 28, 2015

Many years ago when I was working for a newspaper, I bought the 43-86mm f/3.5 Nikon mid-range zoom lens for the times when I only wanted to carry one camera body and one lens.

This lens was a big disappointment because it was too slow, its images were not sharp, and there were many times when 43mm was just not wide enough. In fact, the optical performance of this lens was so bad that it soured me to zoom lenses for a long period of time. This lens also made me realize that the name "Nikon" or "Nikkor" on a lens was not a guarantee of excellence.

PtJudeRI · Jan 28, 2015

After reading all this, I dropped $15 on this 43-86 lens to see what all the fuss is about... Ill tell you what... lets turn lomography onto this one.. they'll make a fortune on it!

Black Dog · Jan 28, 2015

PtJudeRI said:
After reading all this, I dropped $15 on this 43-86 lens to see what all the fuss is about... Ill tell you what... lets turn lomography onto this one.. they'll make a fortune on it!

Try dropping the lens-it might make it sharper!

MartinCrabtree · Jan 28, 2015

I am getting a 35-70 F3.3-4.5 along with an FM2 for a pittance. We'll see just how bad the glass is. I'm really looking forward to the FM2 though.

Your worst lens

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency