Your worst lens

[Dan Fromm]

Wayne Crider issued an invitation to brag when he started the thread "your best lens."

Here's an invitation to cry.

What's the worst lens you ever bought? Gifts don't count.

And what's the worst lens you actually use? I don't mean use in the sense of "tried it out once and then hid it in the closet." I want to know which is the worst of the lenses that you take out and use, and not once in ten years either.

I'll go first, since I asked the question.

The worst lens I ever bought for my Nikons was a Celestron C-90. After I'd had it a while I came across another one and realized that mine wasn't just bad, it was also defective. Celestron replaced the bad 'un with another that still wasn't good enough to use. I never got a shot with either that I dared show in public.

The worst lens I use on the Nikons is a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS. Even worse, its the second one I've bought. The first, which was stolen in Haiti, was just as bad. I still slightly regret not having replaced the stolen one with a 180/2.8. It is better than the 75-200/4.5 Vivitar SCAF I used to own, but that's not saying much. ANd it is sometimes just what's needed.

Probably the worst lens I bought with serious intent to use on my Graphics was 130/6.8 Goerz Doppel Anastigmat. Turned out to be a no-name dialyte, not a Dagor, and just dreadful.

The worst lens I use on the Graphics is probably a 120/7.7 Aldis Uno. Uncoated, of course, but with 4 air-glass interfaces who cares? Contrasty enough, but soft across the field at all apertures. Still usable, but not up to my better lenses.

 

[JG Motamedi]

I traded a beautiful 1850s Voigtlander full-plate Petzval to fellow off photo.net for "mint" 250/6.7 Fujinon-W. I had traded a few smaller items with this guy and we had a chat over the phone so I figured I could trust him. The Fujinon was terrible: shutter didn't function, the glass had a terrible fungus colony growing between the front two groups and the rear had some sort of weird deposit. The guy claimed all of this happened in shipping and refused to speak with me or answer my emails.

I had the glass cleaned by an optics firm in the UK. It took them over two years to do it. Carol Miller did an amazing CLA of that cruddy shutter. After all of these heroics and it was finally back in my hands I fould out that the lens was still junk; terrible chromatic and spherical aberrations. Somehow this lens was just fated to stink, so I dumped it on Jim Galli...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That Celestron C-90 sounds like a Meade 1000mm mirror lens I once had. I don't think it was defective--just kind of low contrast and not particularly sharp.

Then there was the 58mm/2.0 M42 mount Biotar I bought thinking it would have good bokeh and turned out to have no redeeming qualities at all--

 

[Ole]

The worst lens I use is the Opteka 500mm f:8 mirror tele. But it still gives better results than using a 200mm and blowing up the results (35mm film) an additional 2.5x, so I still use it.

In LF and similar I have a cruddy Steinheil/Beck Unofocal, a chipped Rodenstock Eurynar and a couple of small nameless ones which are barely translucent. The Eurynar is the only one of these I've tried so far, and apart from seriously low contrast it's not at all bad!

A couple of other "stinkers" are the portrait combination of the Thompson Bros. Casket set which I used for one of the photos in my gallery here, and the infamous Schneider Xenar Typ D 15cm f:3.5 which is a lot better than its reputation.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

SIMA Soft Focus lens with Nikon mount. Just dire crap really. I left it sitting for a while, and a herd of dust bunnies took up residence. Then decided I wanted to use it, just to remember how bad it could be. Took it to the kitchen sink and washed soapy dish water through both ends to drive off the dust bunnies, then let it dry in the dish rack. That probably helped it a bit, though the resulting images were still crap. So now it sits again, and a couple more dust bunnies have moved in . . . knowing bunnies, they will probably propagate (copulate?) soon and fill the lens again.

It might be collectible as the worst lens ever manufactured. If anyone is interested I could wash it in the sink again and mail it their direction. I promise not to laugh at any offers. Animal lovers can let me know if they want me to leave the dust bunnies unharmed . . . the lens makes a lovely habitat for them.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[25asa]

I have never had a bad lens.
They have all been good.
One just needs to understand the personality of the lens and apply it to ones vision.

In fact, no lens, as in pinholes or zone plates, have their personalities too.

 

[John Kasaian]

My worst lens is the viewing lens on a Kodak Brownie reflex---the fungus is among us. I actually have two Brownie Reflexes and the fungus is alwas on the viewing, not the taking lens. It is, I suppose, what it would be like to try taking pictures while having cataracts. Other than that the photos turn out nicely and I'm intrigued by the 127 format. Another baaaad lenses in my kit is the fisheye on my Lomo Fisheye camera. If it truly is a fisheye, I feel sorry for the fish!

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Dang, Daryl, that's an interesting outlook.

We just have to stop taking krappy pictures and blaming it on the lens, pinhole, lenscap, whatever!

Re: That soft focus Nikon lens - if a lens stinks, doesn't work, is broken or whatever, I take them apart for parts, nice coated individual elements, an iris, etc. A guy at work gave me a Nikon lens that surprised me for being in a mostly plastic barrel. The helicoid looked like someone had put a pipe wrench on it and twisted thru the stops...

I bought a Hoya zoom to try and change the mount to fit a Kodak Retina Reflex S, but there is too much vignetting from the Kodak Deckel Mount and the Hoya zoom part slips, won't support it's own weight when tilting the tripod.

It still has hope. I took the rear element off and it makes a large image now...might cover 4x5, so I have to try it out...might leave it tie-wrapped at one f.l. so it can't move.

I call this kind of work any number of things, depending on the results. Technology Recycling and Murray-rigging are two names.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have never had a bad lens...

Exactly. Objectively, my 135/1.8 Porst (same as a Soligor, I believe) is lousy -- unless you want soft, grainy portraits with zero d-o-f.

And I wish I'd kept my 90-190/5.8 Yashinon, another great soft-focus lens at all focal lengths, though it had no other redeeming qualities.

 

[Soeren]

Exactly. Objectively, my 135/1.8 Porst (same as a Soligor, I believe) is lousy -- unless you want soft, grainy portraits with zero d-o-f.

And I wish I'd kept my 90-190/5.8 Yashinon, another great soft-focus lens at all focal lengths, though it had no other redeeming qualities.

That rises the question: What is a bad lens? I think we dealt with that before.
A bad lens, as a bad camera, won't do what you want it to. So while the fixed focus lens on an Agfa Clack or the plasticlens on a Holga are notorious unsharp they can deliver great pics when used corectly.
Kind regards
Søren

 

[Dan Fromm]

Soeren, that C-90 I mentioned had tangible and very strong astigmatism.

I bought the wretched thing because it had a usefully short closest focusing distance and gave just the magnification I needed at that distance. I had a project, wanted to return to a place in Costa Rica where I'd found Rivulus isthmensis (this is a fish) sitting out of the water waiting for something edible to come by. Shooting them needed a long lens and a powerful flash. When I got back to the spot, three years after I first visited it, the trees were down, the microclimate had changed, and there were no Rivulus within miles.

Anyway, immediately the lens arrived I tried it out on a window screen. It couldn't focus the vertical and horizontal wires simultaneously. That's not good.

 

[Steve Smith]

I don't think I have a worst lens.

I do have one that should be though. I have a cheap Hanimex 135mm f2.8 with a Nikon mount which I expected to be terrible. It's actually very good.


Steve.

 

[Konical]

Good Evening,

Several decades ago, I purchased a Miniature Speed Graphic from a private party. The normal lens, a Raptar, was OK, but included was a WA on a separate board. I think (not sure--this was a long time ago) it was a Cassar, probably around 75mm. Bad doesn't begin to describe the results; the end of a Coke bottle wouldn't have producd a much worse image.

Konical

 

[Bill Mitchell]

While I was just a kid i saved and saved and saved and bought a brand new shiny chrome 135mm f:3.5 CANON telephoto for my Sears/Nicca/Leica. It was a beautiful thing, and never once could i get a sharp image out of it. I tried and tried, and if it happened today i would demand a replacement. But i was just a kid, and thought that it had to be my fault. It was (thankfully) taken several years later in a home burglary, but i never had/have a clue what the problem was.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Good Evening,

Several decades ago, I purchased a Miniature Speed Graphic from a private party. The normal lens, a Raptar, was OK, but included was a WA on a separate board. I think (not sure--this was a long time ago) it was a Cassar, probably around 75mm. Bad doesn't begin to describe the results; the end of a Coke bottle wouldn't have producd a much worse image.

Konical

Oh..... Yeah............

89mm Wray WA for 4x5. A bit like an Angulon but unbelievably lacking in contrast. Never did figure out what that was good for.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

You guys are implicitly telliing me not to touch the relatively cheap old W.A. lenses that appear on eBay. A Grandagon's not in my budget, but if I KNOW where not to step, I can avoid cleaning my shoes later.

Murray

 

[Dan Fromm]

Murray, they're somewhat variable.

I didn't like my 65/6.8 Raptar at all, but people have commented favorably on what were, I hope, other examples. I've never had an Angulon, but the 65/6.8 Angulon has got similar mixed reviews. Some good, others bad.

65/8 Ilexes, sold under many names including none at all, seem to be pretty good. FWIW my nameless one cost $40 delivered, but was in an unusable Opto-Dynetics (= Ilex) #00 (as in Compur/Prontor) shutter.

Ya spends ya money and ya takes ya chances.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

. . . . .

Re: That soft focus Nikon lens - if a lens stinks, doesn't work, is broken or whatever, I take them apart for parts, nice coated individual elements, an iris, etc. A guy at work gave me a Nikon lens that surprised me for being in a mostly plastic barrel. The helicoid looked like someone had put a pipe wrench on it and twisted thru the stops...

. . . . . .

The SIMA soft focus lens construction is two plastic tubes, one sliding over the other, with a single plastic optical element glued(?) into the middle of one tube. The end is actually a thread mount (M42?) onto which a thread to Nikon mount is attached. The mount adapter is probably worth more than the lens.

Focus is accomplished by pushing or pulling one tube over the other. There is a shape to one tube that keeps you from simply pulling it apart, and some fake felt like material to provide a little friction. Makes a wonderful sliding plastic quality sound while attempting to focus the lens. Turn it about 90º and you can pull the two plastic tubes apart.
:rolleyes:

Included with the lens is a fold-up plastic holder that contains a couple disks (Waterhouse stops) and a plastic ND filter (without rim edge). There is a bayonet style plastic part on the end of one tube that can be removed to allow placement of a Waterhouse stop, or the ND filter. Regular filters cannot be used, since there is nothing to thread onto.


So I really do think the best usage is a home for wayward dust bunnies. I don't think there are any parts that could be salvaged from this lens, at least not without battling the dust bunnies first.


Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[jeroldharter]

A proprietary 80-200mm zoom lens from Cambridge Photo in New York years ago. Very soft but the price was right.

 

[John Tonai]

A proprietary 80-200mm zoom lens from Cambridge Photo in New York years ago. Very soft but the price was right.

They paid you???

 

[declark]

I know I will take some heat for this one because it seems to be universally praised, but my least favorite lens was a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 Ai. Seemed sharp enough, but the contrast seemed low and never did like the double-lined bokeh. Maybe I just had a bad sample, so I am now trying an older 50mm F2 "H" that I modified to make Ai, still waiting to finish off a roll to see if I like it.

 

[MattKing]

A Vivitar 24mm f/2.0 in OM mount. The glass might have been okay, but the mechanical construction was terrible, so it always seemed to be ready to fall off the camera.

Of course, it was purchased new from the clearance shelf of a camera store, for $100.00 CDN (IIRC) so .... you get what you pay for.

Matt

 

[JG Motamedi]

A Vivitar 24mm f/2.0 in OM mount...

Oh yes, I have one of those in a Pentax KA mount. I like the way it rattles. It is actually useable at f5.6.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I know I will take some heat for this one because it seems to be universally praised, but my least favorite lens was a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 Ai. Seemed sharp enough, but the contrast seemed low and never did like the double-lined bokeh. Maybe I just had a bad sample, so I am now trying an older 50mm F2 "H" that I modified to make Ai, still waiting to finish off a roll to see if I like it.

Hope that F2 works out for you! The 50 F2 AI is the sharpest (and best) lens that I have in 35mm.

 

[jeroldharter]

They paid you???

As I recall, I was in college at the time and paid about $90 which was about 6 months of saving $5-10 per week. I was very happy to get it but was disappointed in the end. For the money, the lens let me experiment a bit and I suppose that was worth it.