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

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:43:50 +0100, Chris Loffredo
wrote:


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.

Jeez ! How could I have forgotten that POS of a Sigma I bought for my
30th birthday ! The 70 ~ 210/2.8 ! If there is a company that has
worse service than Mamiya, it's Sigma !

I get this POS from B-&-H and it was the middle of summer. My friends
were having a BBQ and I was invited over. There were a half dozen
crotch rockets outside and I was determined to catch a good photo or
two of them in action. About 2 hours into the party they decide to
have some fun. I heard the screaming of one of the Yammers and grabbed
my camera. I framed and snapped the image of this one really colorful
bike doing a burn out and .... and .... that was the last shot I took
with that lens before sending it to Sigma for service. The aperture
froze at f/11 ! Sigma returned the lens to me after 3 weeks and 3
phone calls from me. They hadn't even touched it. The aperture was
still closed down ! I sent it back to them and another 8 weeks went
by. Finally someone told me that they didn't have a replacement
aperture at hand and were waiting for a replacement to be sent from
headquarters. One week later I received my lens. The aperture was open
! So I'm all hopefull. I stil the lens on my camera and fire off a
snap of my wife. The aperture stayed closed ! I called them up and
asked them if they could replace the lens and they stated that they
couldn't. At no time was I able to speak with anyone that was helpful
or knowledgeable. I called B-&-H hoping that they might do something
however they stated that since the lens was outside of 30 days from
purchase date, there was nothing they could do. So I sent the lens in
again and they finally managed to get the lens back to me around March
or '93. 9 months after I bought it ! Oh, the story might end here but
guess what ? The lens elements weren't reinstalled correctly and the
lens was never sharp again. I sold it along with my entire Minolta
rig. I much prefer the FM2's anyway.

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

In article . net,
says...
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.

Probably the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro. Most overrated lens I
ever had the displeasure of owning.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes.

William Graham spake thus:

"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........

Sheesh, cain't nobody spell no more? It's the Tallahatchee Bridge:
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/odetobil.htm


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

Chris Loffredo spake thus:

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.

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.

And yes, all my rangefinders are in good alignment, because I did them
myself. (They were all off when I got them.)


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

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
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?)

I did nothing but B&W, and worked in my own darkroom for about 10
years....Have you seen that latest "picture of the week?" what are those
black blobs?

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
William Graham spake thus:

"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........

Sheesh, cain't nobody spell no more? It's the Tallahatchee Bridge:
Don't blame me.....Blame my spellchecker....It's the one who changed my
spelling (which was still wrong) to "Tallahassee".

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.


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....


Matt

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Chris Loffredo spake thus:

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.

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.

My Moskva 2 has an Industar-23, but it isn't the same lens (110/4.5 vs.
105/3.5). A Tessar copy anyway, and pretty good. It was made in 1953.
The German supervisors probably were still hanging around the KMZ
factory at that time.

I recently got a Kiev 60 system. Good stuff for its value as well. But
the 250/3.5(!) Jupiter has visible focus drift. From f3.5 to f8 there is
no change, but at f11 the split image shows a difference. Not much, but
enough to cause problems for bench racers. They must focus this lens
stepped down to final aperture. By whatever means they have left; after
f11 the split image becomes useless.

But my Jupiters for Zorki (50/2 and 85/2.8 Sonnar copies) are sticky to
focus (they are easier to unscrew from the body) and getting yellow...

-- Lassi

Matt McGrattan wrote:

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.


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....

The numbers 58mm and f2 are strange but familiar... Zeiss Jena Biotar
originally launched for Contax-S. That may indicate its pedigree, but
not its QC...

-- Lassi

William Graham wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
William Graham spake thus:

"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........

Sheesh, cain't nobody spell no more? It's the Tallahatchee Bridge:
Don't blame me.....Blame my spellchecker....It's the one who changed my
spelling (which was still wrong) to "Tallahassee".


Actually, it's "Tallahatchie," an obscure 230 mile
long river in Mississippi.

Clearly an Indian name or derivative, but anyone who
know classic 60's tunes knows the Tallahatchie...