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

Stacey wrote:
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!

I still have "the worst lens I ever had" because it is not so bad anymore.

It is a Meyer-Gorlitz 120mm f/6.3 Weitwinkel (wide-angle) Aristostigmat.
This is a (probably symmetric) 4-element 4 group lens. It may still be my
worst lens, but it is pretty good now. When it was bad, the problem was that
the lens elements had become unscrewed slightly, and the spacing was off. I
bet Hugo Meyer (or whoever designed it) would not have liked the spacing to
be off; I sure did not. I could not really focus it one day, and I checked
my glasses to see if they were dirty or steamed up, and lots of things until
I noticed the lens cells were loose.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:50:01 up 3 days, 22:17, 6 users, load average: 4.11, 4.15, 4.15

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote

In 35mm...anybody remember Lentar?

I had a 35/3.5 pre-set. It worked OK, I understand
this is unusual for this brand.

--
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

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

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?

I don't see any blobs. Anyone else see blobs? Think maybe William is having
a stroke maybe?

The REAL question is - is your worst lens so bad that even Sally Mann
wouldn't use it?

"DD" wrote

Probably the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro.

Ah, yes. I have a 28-70/2.8 Sigma. I can't bring
myself to sell it for thought of the pain I would
cause the buyer.

Most overrated lens I ever had the displeasure
of owning.

Ditto.

--
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

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:RefBf.12413$sA3.1965@fed1read02...
[SNIP]

The single worst lens I ever had contact with was a Sigma 28-105
f2.8-4 that I bought my wife for Christmas, one year, on the
recommendation of Shutterbug magazine. It was the last time I ever
took a camera mag report seriously, and the last Sigma lens I ever
bought.
Number two on the hit list was a 400mm f8 "baseball bat" from a
mail order house that age prevents me from remembering. It's
probably the same lens as your Cambridge 400mm, except mine was
an Exacta t mount. But I expected it to be awful, it was $60 new,
and my wife bought it at a garage sale for $15.
(Notice a common thread, here? Bad lenses/gifts?)


I dunno Skip, I think she was just getting her revenge on you...


Peter


Other way 'round, she bought the lens for me long before I bought the one
for her... Now, I just have to buy the same thing I have, and she's happy.
But, then, she's claimed the 70-200 IS as her own...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"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.


If it was one of the AF Series One lenses, it may have been the one known as
the world's only zoom fisheye, the 17-35. What Cosina did to the once proud
line of Vivitar Series One lenses was nothing short of criminal.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...

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.

Funny how magazines love those Sigma lenses that turn out to be crap. I had
the same experience with the 2.8-4 version of that lens, thanks to
Shutterbug.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"DD" wrote in message
...
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.

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


Overrated, yes, but my example isn't that bad. But not really deserving of
the cult status it has achieved, mostly by its association with Angineux.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:17:59 -0600, "istoo"
wrote:

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

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?

I don't see any blobs. Anyone else see blobs? Think maybe William is having
a stroke maybe?


Anything "French" is likely to upset Mr. Graham.

PS: I thought the photo was crap, also, but not
because of its country-of-origin.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com