If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
Funny, how many accounts of 'bad' lenses come from early in the
photographer's experience. Think about it. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
"Randy Stewart" wrote in message I put a rock bottom price on it at a swap meet table and carried the guilt of selling it for several years. Yes. - At least the, "Billie Joe McAllister" solution carries no guilt...... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
I very briefly had a Vivitar wide angle zoom that was so bad I thought
someone had applied a heavy gaussian blur to the prints. I can't remember the range 17-24 or 19-35 or what, but it was quite disgusting. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message ink.net... The best and worst of anything are ultimately matters of taste and experience. As there is no accounting for taste and experience is what life deals you we should not argue about someone's nomination. What is/are the worst lens/es you every took a picture with? Leaving out the plastic-fantastics: Dianas, Empire Babies and their cousins. My picks: o Cambridge 135mm f2.8 pre-set T-Mount. Uniformly fuzzy at all f-stops, could only be focused to a 'least fuzzy'. I bought it second hand, it was in like-new condition, now I am wary of 'mint' lenses. o Cambridge 400mm f6.3 {?} pre-set T-Mount. You would figure after one Cambridge, who would buy another ... o Schneider Xenar 150/5.6 of 70's vintage. This was, I am sure, a bad example but I went nuts trying to figure out why the pics were all bad, depth gauges - micrometers - pictures of newspaper pages, until I remembered: o Agfa Apotar/Solina, purchased with many months saving at age nine. The lens wasn't bad, but the focusing helix was frozen; new camera packed in orange tissue with a factory seal and the famous green-gunk disease had already hit -- the focusing ring turned but nothing happened. After a year of fuzzy pictures it hits - it's not my fault, it is the camera's. After I fixed it I obsessively kept re-checking the focus and adjusting the lens my microns until the screw threads stripped, then it was epoxy time and leave the lens alone. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
"Tony" wrote in message ... I very briefly had a Vivitar wide angle zoom that was so bad I thought someone had applied a heavy gaussian blur to the prints. I can't remember the range 17-24 or 19-35 or what, but it was quite disgusting. You must have sold it to that French guy that made this weeks, "Picture of the Week"....:^) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
"William Graham" wrote in message ... "Tony" wrote in message ... I very briefly had a Vivitar wide angle zoom that was so bad I thought someone had applied a heavy gaussian blur to the prints. I can't remember the range 17-24 or 19-35 or what, but it was quite disgusting. You must have sold it to that French guy that made this weeks, "Picture of the Week"....:^) The next time you get rid of a lens like that, please throw it off the Tallahassee bridge........ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
o Schneider Xenar 150/5.6 of 70's vintage. This was, I am sure, a bad example but I went nuts trying to figure out why the pics were all bad, depth gauges - micrometers - pictures of newspaper pages, until I remembered: I had a 135 f4.7 xenar that was equally bad. It even was a "linhof" sample? It was my first 4X5 lens and I almost gave up on LF fighting with this thing! -- Stacey |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
seog wrote:
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message ink.net... The best and worst of anything are ultimately matters of taste and experience. As there is no accounting for taste and experience is what life deals you we should not argue about someone's nomination. What is/are the worst lens/es you every took a picture with? Leaving out the plastic-fantastics: Dianas, Empire Babies and their cousins. I think the Russians/Ukrainians have that market sown up (with Chinese closing fast). One of the first SLRs I owned was a Zenit with some atrocious 58mm lens (whose name now mercifully escapes me) my father smuggled from Poland back in the early 70s. Well, it was great for portraits. It was the first in a series of Eastern European gems he brought back over the years including Kiev & Leningrad (or was it Stalingrad?) so I got to be pretty familiar with their "quality" which later helped me appreciate real quality. Actually, many Soviet/Ukranian are quite good. It's a matter of checking/adjusting them and esp. checking the rangefinder on cameras which have them. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
The best and worst of anything are ultimately matters of taste and experience. As there is no accounting for taste and experience is what life deals you we should not argue about someone's nomination. What is/are the worst lens/es you every took a picture with? Leaving out the plastic-fantastics: Dianas, Empire Babies and their cousins. I'm also leaving out lenses which were obviously damaged or defective, as well as lenses which needed cleaning, adjusting & other tweaks (lots of Soviet stuff in that last category). Probably my worst lens "experience" was a Sigma 28-105 4.0-5.6 which a magazine had given top points to. Interestingly that was also the time in which I was taking my worst photographs (the most snapshotty and least though-out). The Sigma got traded in at loss in less than a year. Only good primes now. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
William Graham wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message ... I very briefly had a Vivitar wide angle zoom that was so bad I thought someone had applied a heavy gaussian blur to the prints. I can't remember the range 17-24 or 19-35 or what, but it was quite disgusting. You must have sold it to that French guy that made this weeks, "Picture of the Week"....:^) It seems like people can't recognise a subject anymore unless the picture is frozen-action in oversaturated colour (do I sense the influnce of digital here?) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories
Mamiya 80/1.9f/ 645 Pro. Pure garbage. Never seen a "normal" lens with
so much distortion. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses | Joseph Chamberlain, DDS | Digital SLR Cameras | 128 | November 20th 05 01:01 AM |
FS: Schneider Large-Format Lens TRADE!!! | Bill Gillooly | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 2 | February 20th 05 07:43 AM |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 10:58 AM |
Copy/Macro Lens for this camera | Mr. Bill | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 16th 04 08:18 PM |
FS: Nikon F4, Nikkor Lens and accessories. | FocaIPoint | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | August 23rd 03 01:36 AM |