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

"Marjolein Katsma" wrote in message
...
george ) wrote in :

Wow, sounds like you should stick to buying her major kitchen
appliances. Women love those things... G

Ah, you think so? I think you think wrong.

I don't give a d*&^ about kitchen appliances. KNives, though - I love good
knives.


Ahem, I think he's being sarcastic...

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

Andy Hewitt wrote:
My worst lens ever has been the Miranda 35-70 two touch zoom for my
OM40. Truly awful, not a single picture comes out in focus.

Mine was a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/2.8-4.5 zoom. My brother got a
similar lens but it was constant max aperture at f/4 I think, and it is
a GREAT lens. Mine wouldn't focus at infinity, and never seemed sharp
no matter how much I tried.

My best lens is the 50mm F1.4 Zuiko I have for the OM. Truly a classic
lens.

Maybe I got a dud, but I've never really liked my Zuiko 50mm f1.4. Just
seems "dull" to me, and the distortion is obvious. I could never put my
finger on why I didn't use that lens much... but then I got a Contax G1
and ended up with the 45mm f/2 lens in the collection. Holy cow! What a
difference - better color saturation, pin sharp, and seems like no
distortion.

I think the worst lens I've come across lately, though, is the 18-45mm
zoom that Canon supplies as "standard" with their Digital Rebel and
other digital SLRs. Cheap plastic junk that produces truly terrible
images. I like a lot of their other lenses, though.

Karl Winkler
http://www.karlwinkler.com
http://www.giovanniquartet.com

Karl Winkler wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:
My worst lens ever has been the Miranda 35-70 two touch zoom for my
OM40. Truly awful, not a single picture comes out in focus.

Mine was a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/2.8-4.5 zoom. My brother got a
similar lens but it was constant max aperture at f/4 I think, and it is
a GREAT lens. Mine wouldn't focus at infinity, and never seemed sharp
no matter how much I tried.

My best lens is the 50mm F1.4 Zuiko I have for the OM. Truly a classic
lens.

Maybe I got a dud, but I've never really liked my Zuiko 50mm f1.4. Just
seems "dull" to me, and the distortion is obvious. I could never put my
finger on why I didn't use that lens much... but then I got a Contax G1
and ended up with the 45mm f/2 lens in the collection. Holy cow! What a
difference - better color saturation, pin sharp, and seems like no
distortion.

I would say so, the Zuiko lenses were generally regarded as some of the
best lenses ever made, and the 50mm F1.4 was a rare beast too (they
usually supplied a F1.8 with the cameras), but I get superb pics from
mine.


I think the worst lens I've come across lately, though, is the 18-45mm
zoom that Canon supplies as "standard" with their Digital Rebel and
other digital SLRs. Cheap plastic junk that produces truly terrible
images. I like a lot of their other lenses, though.

I think that's true of much modern stuff though.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://andyhewitt.webhop.net/
(updated Jan 2006)

Yes, Mike, but if a bat breaks you can pick up one of those old Cambron
500mm "bats" and use. Don't do that in football!

Does Leica make broadcast lenses? I see more Canon and Fujinon in that
arena.

Collin

Andy Hewitt wrote:


I would say so, the Zuiko lenses were generally regarded as some of the
best lenses ever made

Not by me. They were no better than Pentax or Minolta lenses. Typical
Japanese lenses: nothing to see here folks, move along now...

, and the 50mm F1.4 was a rare beast too (they
usually supplied a F1.8 with the cameras), but I get superb pics from
mine.


I think the worst lens I've come across lately, though, is the 18-45mm
zoom that Canon supplies as "standard" with their Digital Rebel and
other digital SLRs. Cheap plastic junk that produces truly terrible
images. I like a lot of their other lenses, though.

I think that's true of much modern stuff though.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://andyhewitt.webhop.net/
(updated Jan 2006)

Mike,

You're just being nice.
"SMC" used to mean more than a trademark.
It's still a good thing, but has been equalled by most all the mfrs.
Except maybe Canon. I just can't get into their color correction
scheme.
Nikon got it perfect on their process lenses. I've (personally) seen
nothing sharper and
contrastier those 360 APO Nikkor lenses that Dagor77 sells. They're
just expensive to
have mounted in Copal 3S shutters. I used one a couple of years ago
when starting
8x10. Even on Forte film the results were knockout. Even better on
Ilford iso125 OEM
that Midwest was carrying.
Yet you know, when it comes to making an excellent print, give me a
good lens on
the camera and an equal one on the enlarger.
We'd all like to be Ansel or Edward. But there's not enough time. So
a high quality
result may often need be enough to satisfy the hobbyist. It's easy to
try too hard
and remove the pleasure from the hobby was once so satisfying. I
really must try to
avoid becoming a gearhead.

Collin

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:


What is/are the worst lens/es you every took a picture with?

Maxxum 28-80xi

--
The one with that autozoom function? Big mistake. Mechanically a very bad
lens. Doesn't feel good, especially when you're used to manual focus lenses
(like Pentax). I bought one with a 7xi camera but it went back to the shop
before I even shot one film with it.

Bakhuys
(Pentax 67II, Pentax LX, Minolta 9)

Kind of hard when you're shooting DIRECTLY INTO THE LIGHT. Duh!

Bakhuys wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:



What is/are the worst lens/es you every took a picture with?

Maxxum 28-80xi

--

The one with that autozoom function? Big mistake. Mechanically a very bad
lens. Doesn't feel good, especially when you're used to manual focus lenses
(like Pentax). I bought one with a 7xi camera but it went back to the shop
before I even shot one film with it.

I used it for several years, it did have the redeeming feature of being
compact. In its (alebit narrow) sweetspot, it was quite sharp if prone
to slight vignetting. Mechanically, there was nothing wrong with it,
IMO, just the powered-zoom and powered focus were very annoying.

Needless to say, when I bought the 28-70 f/2.8 (Maxxum) the 28-80xi
quickly went up for sale ... and astonishingly sold quickly for a good
price ... meaning somebody didn't know what they were getting into.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.