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

Chris Loffredo wrote:

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:



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

I've got the Flektogon, but since this isn't my primary system, I probably
won't bother hunting down the Sonnar. The Volna-3 + 2X converter will do as
a portrait lens (160mm/5.6).

BTW, the Jupiter-36 + 2X (= 500mm/7) looks awesome. At least from outside...

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.

Unfortunately they seem to be beyond that trick. I've planned to take them
apart, but the 50mm has a broken screw that needs a better tool than I have
just now, and the 85mm is claimed to be difficult to get back together. I'd
rather practise with the 50mm first. I've already fixed the slow times of
my FED-3B.

Some say that the yellowing can be cured by exposing them to sunlight.
Not sure if that's an urban legend or not...

My experience says that it is a legend.

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

Yes, I know the story of the Zeiss factory after WW2. All 50mm and above are
Sonnars, and the 35mm/2.8 is a Biogon. Also the 28mm/6 Orion-15 seems to be
a Zeiss design (a Topogon).

-- Lassi

There's a lot of older lense that equal or better many newer lenses,
except perhaps in the far corners where there is often a little
softness in the older lenses. (aren't these aspheric designs just
wonderful) I think of Herb Keppler's comparison (3-4 years ago) of the
old SMC Tak 35/2 vs. the newer Nikkor. Pretty favorable comparison
all-around.

My Pentax K30/2.8 performs magnificenly. This is the one lens of which
I've never heard of a poor sample. And I've got an old Tokina 17/3.5
(RMC I think) that's so-so on C-41 film but shines on b&w & digitial.
So I'm keeping it. They sell for only about $100 on eBag.

Back during college I got the Pentax M28/2.8. Original version.
Softest lens I've ever used. (The second version fixed its issues and
was the same optics as the later A28/2.8 -- still just an average lens,
but at least not a lousy one.) And a few years ago I tried a couple of
the FA*43/1.9 lenses. Really, really sharp and outstanding color
correction. But unless your doing close-ups, the barrel distortion
will kill ya. Too bad the didn't get it right. But that was their
first of the Limited series. The other two have no problems at all.

It seems that all mfrs. produce some real gems that we just can get
enough of. I really want the FA* 31/1.8 and FA* 77/1.9. But alas.

Collin

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message

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.

There is something wrong with the notion of buying a new lens and then
having to check and adjust it so it works properly. Isn't that what buyers
of Kiev cameras do? Isn't there an importer of Kiev that "fixes" them to
correct defects from the factory?

That's crazy.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:40:57 GMT, "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.

The worst lens I have used is a Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6), It was
mounted on My Canon EOS 1000 back in 1991 when I chose this outfit
against Pentax P3n. (stupid me). Low contrast and ugly colours and
not sharp at all. this camera was stolen from my car and I got very
sad. In reality I did not like the camera but I did not like that I
loose it to thives either. My very good friend went and bought me
another copy of the camera. Damn, I wished she had chosen something
else. But no, she had thought to give me MY CAMERA. This one came with
a Sigma 28-70 f/3.5 -4.5. I had heard that Sigma was a pirat lens so I
was afraid I had to buy a real canon lens myslef. The appearance was
good in fact better than the Canon, both wider and faster. In fact,
the experience showed that this Sigma was a better lens than the
original Canon. This Sigma despite giving decent results gets the
second place among the worst lenses I have used.

Mojtaba (Likes good lenses)















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.

Jeremy wrote:
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message

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.


There is something wrong with the notion of buying a new lens and then
having to check and adjust it so it works properly. Isn't that what buyers
of Kiev cameras do? Isn't there an importer of Kiev that "fixes" them to
correct defects from the factory?

That's crazy.



Many of the Sov/post-Sov lenses and cameras date back to the 1950's, so
they are not exactly new. How many "good" modern cameras & lenses will
work well 50+ years from now?

Even if a lens is new, I'd be glad to spend an hour or two checking and
adjusting it if that saves me thousands of dollars compared to a similar
performance lens without "issues".

Is that so crazy?

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:JXpBf.12481$sA3.6799@fed1read02...
"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.


Pentax actually makes a real zoom fisheye, as in a lens that's _meant_ to
have that sort of distortion... (I think it's a 17-28, from memory.)

Agree about 'Series One'. I have an old 90-180mm f4.5 Series One macro zoom
that is an amazing lens - a different league to anything with that branding
made in the last twenty years.


Peter

Matt McGrattan spake thus:

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....

That's why they speak of such things as "Monday morning" components and
vodka consumption.


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

Every once in a while one of those classic 90-180 "flat field" Series 1
zooms
shows up on eBay. And if there's a BIN, it goes right away. Even 20+
years old
and they'll regularly sell over $150. Another one of those older
lenses with a
special and excellent design.

Collin

Are there any *bad* Leica lenses which anyone feels free to mention?

: )

Collin

I just sold one of those lenses with a SPII body.
But never shot with it.
Really that bad?

Collin