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

"Skip M" wrote:

"Tony" wrote in message
m...
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.


It would have been the Cosina/Vivitar/Phoenix/Soligor 19-35mm f/3.5,
which has probably the worst barrel distortion of any "rectilinear"
zoom lens ever made at the wide end, and probably the worst pincushion
distortion of any "rectilinear" zoom lens ever made at the 35mm end.

The barrel distortion at the wide end amounts to about 4%, which is
unbelievably bad. To add the icing to the cake, the build quality is
absolutely atrocious.

Cosina bought the Vivitar brand name after the American Vivitar
company folded. It is now no more than a brand name, because almost
none of the former Vivitar products are still made by Cosina.

The original Vivitar lenses were made for the American company in
Japan, mostly by Kino Precision, Komine, Tokina and Sigma. They
included some remarkably good optics, not least the Kino
Precision-made 28mm f/2, 70-210mm and 28-210mm. The last lens is
probably among the best (least worst?) 28-210mm lenses ever made.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
Chris Loffredo wrote:
Some say that the yellowing can be cured by exposing them to sunlight.
Exposure to UV light significantly reduces the yellowing of the Pentax
Super-Takumar 50mm lenses for the Spotmatic series, so it certainly
isn't a legend.

In the web page below the repair is shown taking place in sunlight:

http://www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html


Sunlight includes a lot of UV. It is the UV element of sunlight that
reduces the yellowing.

Sunlight also includes infra-red. The heat generated by the infra-red
element of sunlight may well be enough to cause the helicoid grease
inside a Super-Takumar to run, gumming up the aperture blades, so take
care when using sunlight. You may solve one problem but cause another.

"Bandicoot" wrote:

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.)

You're right. It was the SMCP-F Fisheye Zoom 17-28mm f/3.5-4.5.

Pentax have just introduced another one - the SMCP-DA 10mm - 17mm
f/3.5-4.5 (IF) Fisheye Auto. DA means its image circle covers only the
APS-C sized CCD sensor in the Pentax *ist D series of DSLRs.

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.

Like so many of the best Vivitar Series One lenses, that lens was
manufactured by Kino Precision of Japan. It is an amazing lens,
delivering a flat field performance that probably cannot be surpassed
at five times the price. For the last two years I have searched in
vain for one in Pentax mount ...

;-)

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote:


"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?


They are fallen leaves, blown onto a fence. At least, that's my
guess, and I think guessing is very necessary in this context.

;-)

My first impression was people. Now that you mention it, I'm not so sure.
Perhaps that's the trick?

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:UUpBf.12480$sA3.631@fed1read02...
"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:RefBf.12413$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...


Ah. There would be the revenge.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Mojtaba wrote:

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).


The lens was made by Tamron. It was an atrocious performer. I believe
it was also sold to Pentax and Nikon, and that all three companies
offered it as a low cost standard 'kit' zoom. So you may not have
escaped it if you had bought the Pentax P3n!

After much criticism in the photo press, it was improved - slightly.
However, it was still a very poor lens.

It is interesting to see history repeating itself. The Tamron-made
Canon EF 18-55mm 'kit' lens is earning very critical reviews, and
rightly so.

"Cheesehead" wrote

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

Hektor

--
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

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:UUpBf.12480$sA3.631@fed1read02...
"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:RefBf.12413$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...


Ah. There would be the revenge.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
A-yup...

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

"Cheesehead" wrote:

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

There are no *bad* M lenses, but there were some that didn't fully
uphold the Leica reputation for optical excellence. Try the 50mm
f/1.5 Summarit. The 35mm f/1.4 Summilux probably offered the best
bokeh ("glow") of any Leica lens but was surprisingly unsharp.

Of course they must be considered against the background of the
majority of Leica M lenses being superlative performers. Many Leica M
lenses are actually sharper wide open than most other brands used at
their optimal aperture - usually f/8-f/11. The current ASPH series of
wide angle lenses - 21mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4 and
f/2.0 - are among the best wide angle optics ever made for 35mm
cameras, and the recent 75mm f/2, 90mm f/2.8, 90mm f/2 APO and 135mm
f/3.4 are superlative telephoto lenses.

In the Leica R series, there were several disappointing performers,
notably a Sigma-made zoom, although by Leica standards, that was a
cheap lens. The weaker R lenses have all now been replaced, and the
current Leica R range includes some outstanding optics, including some
fine zooms.

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

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.


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 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