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

Skip M wrote:

"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.


OTOH, the one Sigma lens I have is quite good.

"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message
...

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

C'est malheureux.

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

It works in series.

Some of my more memorable pictures were made with cheap lenses.

rafe b wrote:

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.

Merely mundane, not really "crap".

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:
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

Yes, apparently the Helios 44m is a Biotar copy.

As I said, I quite like mine although I wouldn't claim it's an amazing
lens it's perfectly OK for ordinary use.

Matt

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:
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.

Go for the Zeiss Jena (Pentacon Six) lenses: Esp. the 50mm & 180mm are
outstanding!


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...


The sticky focus can be solved (at least for some time) with a
well-plced drop or two of lighter fluid.
Some say that the yellowing can be cured by exposing them to sunlight.
Not sure if that's an urban legend or not...

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:

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.


Go for the Zeiss Jena (Pentacon Six) lenses: Esp. the 50mm & 180mm are
outstanding!


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...


The sticky focus can be solved (at least for some time) with a
well-plced drop or two of lighter fluid.
Some say that the yellowing can be cured by exposing them to sunlight.
Not sure if that's an urban legend or not...

BTW: Both lenses (& all Jupiters) are 1930's Zeiss designs.

William Graham wrote:
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...

William Graham wrote:

"Tony" wrote in message
. com...


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?


Moving people: The photo is obviously a time-exposure.
: )

istoo wrote:
Some of my more memorable pictures were made with cheap lenses.



Some of my best lenses are cheap (at least used)...
; )

"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.


A millennium ago, right after we got married in the mid '60s and had no
money, I needed a telephoto lens to shoot some car races. Wound up at Wall
Street Camera and got a 180mm preset T-mount lens. Well, it formed an
image -- sort of -- but it was probably no better than 20-30 lp/mm
resolution and had a yellow color cast. Strangely, the 35mm preset I bought
at the same time was a relatively decent performer.

Today, the sharpest manufacturer lenses I have are the Nikon 85mm f/1.8D and
(oddly enough) the Nikon 500mm f/8. Many years ago I bought a fast portrait
lens for a Minolta SR-1 --- the Exacta mount preset 75mm f/1.5 Biotar. At
f/5.6 or f/8 it's still the equal of anything I have today. Just the luck
of the draw, I guess.

Norm