I need a list of alltime Worst lenses....

What I am looking for>

flare, vignetting, soft image/focus... I gather the first generation 43-86 zoom is

pretty bad- any other suggestions for use on a Nikon?

Thanks!

ethan

The 70-300G. Really. I think it made my right eye a lot weaker and my left eye the new dominant, because I spent so much time looking through that piece of crap. It's a good value, sure, but there's just a certain level of quality that's a minimum for me.

 

This lens is a 'G', which some people incorrectly equate with total crap. Sure the 70-300G is crap, and the 28-80G isn't so hot (and the 28-100), but I think it was just a coincidence (or poor planning) that the first three G lenses sucked. The newer pro-level lenses are all 'G' and they're badass.

I assume you mean Nikon only? Here is my list to avoid:

21/4

55 Micro AF

85/2

100/2.8 Series E. In fact any series E.

135/3.5

 

How's that?

it's goin great guys- thanks!-

not necessarily nikon glass, just lookin for the alltime worst lenses

(prefer primes- unless it's a perfectly AWFUL zoom)) that use the Nikon F mount...

thanks again,

ethan

I'd say the worst lens is the one you own in absolutely perfect pristine condition all wrapped up nice and dust free on a shelf.

Maybe it's a 16/2.8 fisheye or a perfect 105/2.5, dosen't matter.

On the other hand, the best lens is probably your beater that's on your ugliest camera that you carry everywhere that takes (gets) the best photos! Signed, Snap Shot....er

If you want to include any maker that could be an awfully long list.

 

My experience with 2 different samples of the 35-105 Nikkor is that both the manual focus and the AF D type are both pretty bad. Neither lens will make a decent 8 x 10. My reading on the net indicates that any Nikkor starting at 35mm is a dog, one report stated the 35-135 was even worse that the 35-105.

Anything by tamron and the longer the lens, the worst it gets. I had to learn the hard way and worked myself up the all-time dog of my personal involement, the tamron 200-400mm AF F5.6 Zoom. I shoot exactly 5 rolls of film with this and ditched off to some poor guy on a internet auction. I still feel bad about that but made $10 more than I bought it for.

Well...I all depends on what you mean by "worst" lens.

 

I was going to suggest that my Holga lens is the "worst"...but I actually think it may be my "best" lens...it all depends...

 

The bottom line here is this: the best lens you have is the one that gives you the image you want most.

What I am looking for> flare, vignetting, soft image/focus

The lens that comes to mind for me is the "famous" Vivitar 28-90mm. Series 1 f2.8-3.5 zoom, which would vignette horribly. Apparently Vivitar counted on the fact that most users would shoot only color negatives rather than slides, so the vignetting would not be noticed on the finished prints.

Actually, the <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/eserieslenses/htmls/283550mm.htm">E series lenses</a> are sometimes under rated. They have the same (mostly) optical formulas, glass, and coatings, as their non-E contemporaries. Only the housings are different; less robust, less "blast-proof," than the standard Nikkors of the time. In my understanding, the E series was Nikon's first effort at manufacturing lenses entirely by machine (now, of course, all their lenses are probably made that way). <p>

 

I have a <a href=http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50f18E.htm>50/1.8E</a> that I love - sharp, and with great bokeh. The 100/2.8 E is prized by many for its sharpness and pleasing bokeh. And, according to Moose Peterson's Nikon System book, one of the E zooms is still in demand among certain New York fashion photographers.<p>

 

So, for crummy lenses in Nikon mount, you may want to look elsewhere. Just thought I'd clear that up. :)

If you are talking about soft lenses, my 1977 43-86mm/f3.5 AI is still pretty soft. Apparently the problem for that lens is beyond the first generation. But from that era, there were very few good zooms other than the 80-200 type.

 

However, since I suggested that the "best lenses" are the ones that suit you most, I guess the worst ones are the ones that don't work for you. It doesn't matter what other people think.

Maybe I read the question wrong, but the way I interpreted it, I gather that Ethan wants to find a "bad quality" lens so that he can <i>use</i> it. Correct me if I'm wrong.. He said that he is looking for "flare, vignetting, soft image/focus" and also something that "that use the Nikon F mount." It sounds to me like most people are responding by saying what lenses should be avoided, but those may not necessarily be the lenses to be looking for if youre actually looking for a holga-quality lens. Ethan - am I reading your question right or am I just off?

You don't find that many "bad" lenses for Nikon mount, especially primes. And the bad ones you find aren't generally an appealing sort of bad -- maybe they look crummy at 8x10, but that's about the extent of it usually. I have an old 50 for leica screw mount that's soft wide open, but it's fabulously, glowingly soft as opposed to just crappy looking. I have 11x14s from it that look great.

 

Lenses have only been produced for the F-mount for forty or so years now. If you want really bad lenses, you might want to look into older cameras. Alternately, you could buy a 43-86 zoom with a big crack in the front element for like $5 somewhere and try that. Damaged lenses are great fun.

Oh, yeah, incidentally, I'll add another vote to Doug Thacker's appraisal of Series E lenses. The wideangles aren't so hot (not horrible, not outstanding) but I have a 100mm 2.8 that's very nearly as sharp as my 55mm micro, which is to say, very, VERY sharp. And with great bokeh. The 75-150 3.5 is also outstanding.

I'm with Andrew: the poor Nikkors won't be poor enough, just mediocre. However, you might try some third party lenses. I'm guessing this <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=276301&is=REG">Kodak zoom</a> ($59 new) in Nikon mount has some surprising characteristics. Or how about a Vivitar F-mount <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=61437&is=REG">28mm/28.8</a> - also $59 (for best results be sure to leave off the lens hood). <p>

 

Hey, how about this <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=208252&is=REG">28-80 F-mount zoom</a> from Phoenix - should be a steal at $70. Or the <a href="http://adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sid=1066629181442601&sku=PRO420800NK">Pro-Optic 420-800 zoom</a> - a lot of lens for $200.<p>

 

Of course, any of the above lenses might be okay (meaning not poor enough). Maybe the best bet, without spending much money, would be to search out pawn shops for old off-brand lenses that had been knocked around for a few years, and were trash to start out with.

I agree with what Elliot is saying. Seems like people might be missing the point and suggesting truly bad lenses to stay away from, not somewhat artistically bad lenses :)

 

As far as a lense I have no experience with; there seems to be agreement that the 55mm f1.2 is pretty awful. They're still expensive second hand, go figure.

 

I also second getting lenses that might have been good once but are damaged. I picked up a badly scratched AI'd 35mm f2 last year. Front element lookes like someone took a soft steel wool to it. This thing flares bad enough to make using it a trick, but it shines in just the right situation (gives a nice soft focus "glow"). Plus I don't need to worry about being gentle with it; just drop it in my bag, no front cap, no big deal.

 

Weirdo off brand wideangles are cool too. I gave my brother an old Bushnell 28mm a while back. Seems to be sharp enough for snaps, but pretty low contrast and fairly odd bokeh.

I wouldn't mention 100mm/2.8 E in a bad lens list, rather mine is an excellent optic. 75-150/3.5 E is also considered a very good lens as well, Galen Rowell had shot a couple of masterpieces with it. Performance of 70-300G is not any worse than the lenses in the same price range, I couldn't find a difference in pictures shot with it and the non-G version, so I got the G which is a lot cheaper.

 

I haven't seen a Nikkor which I would call a bad lens, but some of them were below my expectations, one is the 24mm/2.8 AF-D Nikkor because of its proneness to flare.

My bad! I thought you meant "which ones should I stay away from". So you *want* flare, vignetting, soft focus...hmmm

 

In any case, the 70-300G is 1) unsharp and 2) prone to terrible CA. In my experience, the D version is actually MUCH better...ED elements, much sharper, more 'solid' build.

 

In any case, unless you're just looking for absolutely terrible image quality, stay away from the G. I admit, it's a good value being only around $120, but I will never use it again!

A surefire way to get a crappy lens is to mount a lens hood on the front thats to small (i.e. a 50 mm hood on a 35mm lens) - should provide a nice vigneting and to smear cream/vaseline on the front element (or a front filter if you do care about your lens) until you get the right amount of softness...

 

Cheers

 

PS: I've heard of some photographer that tried 20+ different kinds of butter/margarine and cream until he got the right effect!

My personal Worst lenses are the G series, feels, looks and handles like the cheap plastic they are. I've tried 2, the 70-300G I traded in and the 28-80G is now gathering dust in a corner. They say you get what you pay for and that is certainly true of the G's. The Sigma EX range is now taking over my collection.

I have owned a lot of Nikon lenses. Some are clearly sharper than others but the only really bad ones were both 16mm f2.8 AIS fisheyes. At first I thought I just had a duff one so I got another. But it was just as bad. Perhaps I was just asking too much of a fisheye, although I have seen sharp pics published....

 

JayDee

The worst lens I've ever owned, as in never got an image with it I was willing to show to anyone, was a 1000/11 Celestron C-90 that I bought new in 1978. Absolutely defined "dog." In those days Celestron has having quality control problems. Mine was shipped badly out of adjustment and with pieces missing. They replaced it on warranty. The replacement wasn't as bad, it was only the second worst lens I've ever owned, still unusable. I hope the current C-90 is better. Back then, some of Celestron's other lenses were quite good, but not the C-90.

 

Someone in this thread listed the 55 MicroNikkor, wasn't very clear about which one. He/she/it must have pretty high standards. I bought a 55/3.5 new in 1970, got many many excellent macro shots with it. Usually shot it at normal distances at f/8 - f/11, it did better than ok for that. I how have a 55/2.8 AIS bought new in 1986. This is a super lens that I can't imagine anyone finding fault with. Badly abused used examples may do worse.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

Spencer,

 

What's your deal with the 70-300 G? My 70-300 G is sharp, fast and quiet to autofocus and the zoom ring is silky smooth.

 

If you really believe that the D version of this lens is "MUCH better," then you've been duped.

 

Seriously, I've seen some real junk in this thread that surpasses any of the junk I've ever read in any other thread. CERTAINLY some posts about G lenses written by people who have never used a G lens. And the 100mm Series E described as a worst lens? Huh?

If you're sufficiently bored to dream up this question, then you've got enough time to scope out your own "best of the worst" list.