The worst lens you ever had ... a collection of stories

"istoo" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
.. .

There are no *bad* M lenses,

Yes there are. Plain and simple, some just suck.


Be specific. Which Leica lenses suck, and why?

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Yes, comrades, I must come to the defense of these People's Cameras.
I've got bunches of FEDs, Zorkis and a Moskva 5, and there's some really
good glass on some of them; the Industar-22 and Industar-61 L/D stand
out among the 35s, and the Industar-## (forget the number just now) on
the Moskva (6x9, 105mm) is an outstanding Tessar.


You obviously never used the Helios-44 58mm f/2 for the Zenit SLRs.


THAT'S the one! Truly a marvel of softness. And I don't think I'll ever
forget that distinctive Russian leather smell. I remember the aluminium
would flake off when I used the film advance.

Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/
-George-

"Matt McGrattan" wrote in message
...

I assume the lens attached to the Zenit was probably a Helios 44-M. I have
one of those and I quite like it. It has an incredibly long focus 'throw'
which makes it easy to focus very precisely. It's not quite as sharp or as
contrasty as the Japanese 'normal' length lenses I usually use but it's by
no means a terrible lens.

Of course Soviet quality control being what it was....


I must have had the soft focus version.

Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/
-George-

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
. ..


I bought my wife a Tokina 28-70mm f2.8. She hates it, and I must admit it
isn't as good a performer as my 35-70 Nikon AFD (which is not as good as
its two sisters, a 17-35 AFS and an 80-200 AFD). Other than the kit lens
that came with my 8008s, that's the worst lens I've ever purchased. Wait,
that's not true! I just remembered my first birthday present for my wife,
when we first started dating. It was a quantaray 28-70mm variable
aperture lens. Now that one _really_ sucked. Both were gifts...

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com


Wow, sounds like you should stick to buying her major kitchen appliances.
Women love those things... G

George

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:12:23 -0500, "george"
wrote:


Wow, sounds like you should stick to buying her major kitchen appliances.
Women love those things... G

Washing machine can be man's best household appliance for a little
"spin cycle matinee" !!

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:27:14 +0000, Tony Polson
wrote:


Be specific. Which Leica lenses suck, and why?


All of them. They don't fit my Nikons !

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeremy wrote:

Don't you know, I managed to take the only known photograph of an obscure
Cardinal who was visiting Philadelphia for a religious conference in the
1980s, and I just happened to take the shot with that lousy lens mounted on
my ES. Two years later, that obscure cardinal was introduced to the world
as the newly-elected Pope John Paul II.

Bummer.

You must have meant 1976, since Karol Wojtyla became Pope in 1978.

- --
Mark Cudworth

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD18JQu+2TKcaIM28RAutvAJ9nw6OuT93EQna8l0fe9q OTl9/y0gCeLpxl
1sLgNO/0bfrx2QGWQJl/b7k=
=tXB8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"seog" wrote:

THAT'S the one! Truly a marvel of softness. And I don't think I'll ever
forget that distinctive Russian leather smell. I remember the aluminium
would flake off when I used the film advance.


I remember that too. Any Soviet camera body more than three or four
years old tended to look dull grey rather than new "chrome".

The lenses were just as bad, with the "chrome" flaking off from Day 1.

"seog" wrote:

"Matt McGrattan" wrote in message
...

I assume the lens attached to the Zenit was probably a Helios 44-M. I have
one of those and I quite like it. It has an incredibly long focus 'throw'
which makes it easy to focus very precisely. It's not quite as sharp or as
contrasty as the Japanese 'normal' length lenses I usually use but it's by
no means a terrible lens.

Of course Soviet quality control being what it was....


I must have had the soft focus version.


I think nearly all of us did.

Maybe Matt bought the "magazine review sample".

;-)

Tony Polson spake thus:

"seog" wrote:

THAT'S the one! Truly a marvel of softness. And I don't think I'll
ever forget that distinctive Russian leather smell. I remember the
aluminium would flake off when I used the film advance.

I remember that too. Any Soviet camera body more than three or four
years old tended to look dull grey rather than new "chrome".

That's why they make this stuff called "polish". Ever heard of it?

The lenses were just as bad, with the "chrome" flaking off from Day 1.

Not mine: my I-16 "panda" lens still has nice shiny intact chrome, thank
you very much.


--
The only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington
is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition.