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

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ethan_sprague, Oct 19, 2003.

  1. 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
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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?
     
  4. 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
     
  5. 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
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. What I am looking for> flare, vignetting, soft image/focus
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. Actually, the E series lenses 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).
    I have a 50/1.8E 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.
    So, for crummy lenses in Nikon mount, you may want to look elsewhere. Just thought I'd clear that up. :)
     
  12. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
     
  13. 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 use 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?
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. 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 Kodak zoom ($59 new) in Nikon mount has some surprising characteristics. Or how about a Vivitar F-mount 28mm/28.8 - also $59 (for best results be sure to leave off the lens hood).
    Hey, how about this 28-80 F-mount zoom from Phoenix - should be a steal at $70. Or the Pro-Optic 420-800 zoom - a lot of lens for $200.
    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.
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. umd

    umd

    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.
     
  19. 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!
     
  20. 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!
     
  21. 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.
     
  22. 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
     
  23. 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
     
  24. 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?
     
  25. 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.
     
  26. It's interesting how little agreement there is regarding what constitutes a "worst lens." I am waiting for someone to claim that his/her Vivitar Series 1 28-90 zoom was the best lens ever.

    Meanwhile, I thought of another dog. When I was first married (this was twenty-five years ago!) my father-in-law, may his soul rest in peace, had a burst of generosity and bought three of his children and children-in-law 35-105 zoom lenses at the local camera shop. The guy there convinced him not to buy the standard independent lens at that time, a Tokina, but instead to buy a zoom that variously was named "Makinon" or "Toyo" (it was the same lens just with different names on it). He was so proud when we got them, as apparently his criterion for thinking this a steal was that the lenses were larger than the Tokinas (62mm. filter size vs. 55) and had a tank-like, solid feel to them. But in actual practice the sharpness was mediocre (not really terrible). The worst thing about the lenses was murky, muddy, inaccurate color rendition. Color rendition is actually a factor that many new photographers don't think about or even care about. When you get prints it's hard to tell what the "correct" color rendition is, anyway. But I was shooting 90% slides and I was consistently dismayed by the results.

    What this did was convince me to save some money and buy a Nikkor 35-105 zoom, which was/is excellent.
     
  27. Hi Todd,

    "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".

    I've had 2 G lenses which I used for a few months and although they have produced results good enough for scanning and posting, they produced lower than average results for printing. My 28-80G I only threw in the corner at the weekend. They are cheap starter lenses and thats all.

    Maybe you have a good one in which case that would point to a quality control issue as mine where not.
     
  28. "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."

    Todd- your 70-300G is sharp?!?! Fast?!?! Quiet to AF?!?!

    Let me address the second and third points before I go into a lengthy dissertation on the first:

    How can you say the 70-300G is fast? If you mean by aperture, then I'm not exactly sure what you're comparing it to, because f/4-5.6 is by no means fast, unless it's a 400-800MM zoom or something like that. If you mean AF speed, well, that's not fast, either. And it really depends on which camera you're using. I gave mine away before I got my F5, so I never got to see just how fast it could go on it, but I'd be interested to know how many rotations of the AF-coupling-flat-tipped-screwdriver thing it takes to go from min to max and vice versa and how it compares to other lenses.

    Quiet to AF? I've never met a lens that, in itself, displayed quiet AF capabilities (obviously discounting AF-S, HSM...). It's the body that makes the noise, at least in my experience. What body are you using? Sure the lens makes some noise, but I don't think that the amount varies from lens to lens enough to classify the 70-300G as "quiet to AF".

    And now, here it goes:

    The 70-300G is NOT SHARP. I used mine for two years, shooting around 250 rolls with it as my main "workhorse" lens. At first, sure, I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread, but after a few months I starting realizing how bad it was when I would try to manually focus on a subject and time and again I would pass over the "optimum" focusing point because it never quite got sharp. I thought there was something wrong with my screen, like maybe it was fogged up or something. Then I found myself constantly readjusting the diopter. Finally, when a friend let me use his 80-200D f/2.8, I was BLOWN AWAY by how sharp it was. Obviously, comparing the 70-300G to the 80-200D is not fair, but then again, we *are* talking about sharpness here. Which the 70-300G lacks.

    Honestly, when you say the 70-300D is not much better than the 'G', I just have to ask: have you ever seriously used the 'D'? The sharpness is unbelievable compared to the 'G'! As in, I can ACTUALLY MAKE OUT THE EDGES OF OBJECTS. The combination of unsharpness and color fringing of the 'G' ruins images! I'm assuming it's a combination of better optical formula and the incorporation of ED elements that negates these two factors. I'm not going to go as far as to say the 70-300D is as sharp as the 80-200D f/2.8, but it's a lot closer to the 80-200D than the 70-300G.

    Oh yeah, and I just thought of another thing: The color rendition is really flat. Just looking through the viewfinder, you can tell it's like watching Willy Wonka or something. All the colors are off and contrast is really low. This wasn't much of a problem for me most of the time as I usually shot B+W but when it came time for color...*shudder*

    And time for one last thing:

    The focus ring is "silky smooth"? NO IT'S NOT! When you manually focus with most AF lenses, the focus ring just sits there, with no damping/resistance to prevent it from moving focus distance. As far as my experience goes, it's this way with pretty much all (non AF-S/HSM) AF lenses, with very little variability, since they're NOT MADE TO BE MANUALLY FOCUSED. And it's especially bad with the 70-300G because the front element rotates AND the lens changes length as you focus. If you mean "silky smooth" as in there's no obstruction impeding your focusing, well congratulations, you didn't drop it in a sand dune. There aren't too many lenses (and I would dare say none) that have variable resistance throughout the focus range (not including pre-set-capable megalenses, "macro" lenses that make you press that button...)

    Rant over. I skipped a nap for this.

    On a quest to rid the world of 70-300G's,

    Spencer

    p.s. Remember what I said: the 70-300G is a good value, in that it is a 70-300mm lens for much less than most other alternatives that will allow you to take photos at the provided focal lengths. But that doesn't mean the lens is any good.
     
  29. Many of today’s low end lenses are taped together. That’s right, no threads, just sticky tape!
     
  30. Elliott> YES! EXACTLY!
    I am looking for bad quality lenses to shoot through!
    "What I am looking for> flare, vignetting, soft image/focus"....
    The vaseline/scrim/hosiery thing is just not predictible enough. I need bad glass that
    I can COUNT on! I have been thru a lot of old folder lenses, etc.. but right now I am
    building (rather planning) a particular Nikon F mount camera with a non-35mm back.
    As I am using a Nikkormat FT3 body, I figure I may as well have the capability to use
    the meter as
    well, hence the need for an F mount.
    Thanks!
     
  31. After hearing all of these responses, one of the things I am wondering. What is everyone's point of reference? Everyone seems to have a different "standard". There's always going to be champions of even the worst Nikkor lens. Plus I am hearing people say that $129 is a "good value" for telephoto zooms. In what way is it a "good value"? If you throw in decent (not abused) examples from the used market, it becomes anything but a "good value". Sure, it can take pictures, and maybe through the brand name that's slapped on it alone can somehow turn it into a "good value", if you're talking about resale value.

    As far as I am concerned, I don't consider any Nikkor lens that (apparently) has its barrel held together with sticky tape a "good value". Also - I would never consider a lens a "good value" if it made soft images at virtually any aperture, and was slow to begin with. I would also never consider a lens a "good value" if it gave obvious color problems.
     
  32. The worst lens I’ve ever seen was a 50/1.8 Canon FD. The lens had a loose, rattling element our group. The plane of "sharpest focus" was not parallel to the back of the camera. Of course once it was repaired (or replaced) it was an excellent performer. The lens belonged to a customer. I did her photo processing.

    Ethan, you might try shaking a bunch of lenses. Who knows you might get lucky? The "special effects" changed constantly.
     
  33. Eric- I hope you're not talking to me! Like I said, I think the lens is a good value in that it is a lens that takes pictures at the indicated focal lengths, that's it! Maybe what I meant was "it's the best choice at that price point," which is *almost* the same thing.

    You brought up a good point about resale value. I think the going used rate is around 80% of the new cost, which is both baffling and amazing. So it's a good value in that respect, that the total cost of ownership may only end up being around $20-25. That is, unless you GIVE it away out of absolute disgust like I did.

    But a good value does not make it a good lens, necessarily, I agree.
     
  34. No, I definetly wasn't talking about you Spencer. :D I totally agree with you, but I would just add that the lens would be the best choice at that price point: given that you're looking at brand new lenses ONLY. If someone had a Nikon and was looking for a good 70-300 Nikkor, I would tell them to save up another $30-35 and get a "bargain" grade 75-300 from keh.

    Also, that sucks to hear that you were so disgusted with the lens that you gave it away. Does the current owner like it?
     
  35. I think you are wasting your energy looking for a 'bad' nikkor for artistic purposes. If you truly want BAD, as in soft, flary, optical abberations, I recommend a simple one-element lens. I have a "Sima Soft Focus' lens that is essentially a single element in a sliding plastic tube (for focus) and a T-mount, it can make some very nice soft focus portraits, but can turn to hell in certain light. You can probably make something like this with a magnifying glass or old lupe or something. Check out the 'plungercam' at marktucker.com, very cool!
     
  36. So you're looking for something horrible to shoot through.

    Somewhere, I picked up (I forget the name) a SMEGMINON (or whatever) Ultra Macro Wideangle Converter lens. I screwed it on the front of another lens, (52mm threads), and it made a 90 degree wideangle view with horrible CA.

    You could also unscrew the front half, and it was a 1-element closeup lens (Maybe about 80-100mm). So instead of mounting it on a regular lens, I took a K2 or a BR2A and some extension tubes, and made a fixed focus portrait lens out of it. (The focus was fixed maybe 10-15 feet away.)

    Everyting came out kind of dreamy, nothing was sharp at all (There was so much uncorrected SA), with color fringes around everything.

    It was so bad the lab didn't bother to make prints of the shots I tried with that lens!

    I tried the same with the Nikon 3T and 4T on bellows to construct a homemade longfocus lens, it was not so bas as I expected.
     
  37. Eric-

    The new owner loves it, as I did initially...but she will soon grow to disdain it, as will all owners at one point or another.
     
  38. I thought the micro 55 was one of the best nikkors...How come someone says it is one of the crapiest?

    A Phoenix 28-80 range zoom is probably a crap.

    The worst I saw was a 'Tron' 70-300 5.6 (maybe this lens doesn't exist on rich countries), it was really a peace of garbage. Together with a zenith, it was the worst tool possible.
     
  39. "i thought the micro 55 was one of the best nikkors...How come someone says it is one of the crapiest? " <P>
    Nikon MF 55 micro was outstanding. The autofocus 55 micro was bad enough to motivate Nikon to replace it with the far superior 60mm micro. My vote for worst Nikon AF lenses would include the AF 55 micro, the original 5 element AF 28mm f/2.8, and the original 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF zoom. With every other optical revision done during the AF era, Nikon had made the optical change to accommodate new AF technology. With these three lenses, Nikon had to redesign them just to improve optical performance.
     
  40. As an aside to the question: Robert McLaughlin doesn't know what he's talking about. The 100mm Series E lens is terrific: at least one magazine tested it and reported it sharper across apertures than Nikon's venerated 105mm f2.5. I owned a 100mmE for years, found it a fantastic performer, and made many published photos with it. The 75-150mm f3.5 Series E lens is still considered one of Nikon's best-ever zooms and still commands prices which are relatively high, considering its age and limited zoom range. The 135mm f2.8 Series E is considered a solid performer, though I've not used one. I have owned three 35mm f2.5E lenses and they are all quite nice.

    Now, my first-generation 28mm f2.8AF (non-D) was a true dog.
     
  41. Bad lenses. Again the interpretational element rears its head. I mean, some people use and love their Holgas, Dianas, Lomos/Lubitels...And I have a Sima Softfocus 100mm lens (Which is basically a t-mounted plastic tube with a single plastic element)which is loaded with spherical aberration, but gives beautiful soft creamy tones at certain apertures. The Vivitar/Soligor 135mm F/1.5. Big, heavy , fast, rare and fairly cheap if you can find it (Ebay, $300 or so...cheap for a such a fast 135mm...) Supposed to be really soft wide open. Comes in T-mount with a preset diaphragm so can be used on almost any brand of 35mm Slr. With softenss and almost zero depth of field wide open, this would probably actually make a killer special purpose portraiture lens.
    Aloha,
    Rob Sato
     
  42. Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 AIS. This was the only lens I've ever owned that couldn't give me as sharp an image as my other Nikkors. It looked sharp enough at small print sizes, but once enlarged or projected as slides, there was always some degree of fuzziness that had nothing to do with any inaccuracy in focusing. There was just no true plane of great sharpness that I could see with the other Nikkors.<p>Otherwise, this (for ME) terrible lens was very compact, did not have any visible distortion, and had no visible vignetting. It just wasn't as outstandingly sharp as it's peers. I guess that's as bad as I've ever found a Nikkor prime to be.<p>By the way, the guy that bad mouthed all Series E Nikkors just doesn't know what he's talking about. I've tried a few and have been impressed with their quality. Expecially, the 100mm Series E is one of the best.
     
  43. An odd question, but here is my response: I have a great lens that has a lot of vingetting and very soft at the edges- the Vivitar 17mm-35mm f4. I am not sure what series, but it is all metal with a AIS mount. I bought it new in 1999, so I imagine that it is still available. At 17mm, there is serious vignetting (any filter increases the vignetting).
     
  44. My worst lens was a Vivitar f2.0 28mm wideangle in Canon FD mount (the same lens was available in Nikon mount). I bought it because I wanted a fast wideangle. The thing was way too soft. Dumped it.
     
  45. Has anyone measured the sharpness of the G lenses?
     
  46. No Chris but if you send me a AF-S 70~200/2.8G ED-IF VR I will. I’ll even test it for Mad F5 Disease.
     
  47. hey- thanks everyone.
    Funny thing- noone mentioned the early version 43-86 zoom.....
     
  48. "Funny thing- noone mentioned the early version 43-86 zoom....."

    Sure, YOU did, and then asked for "any OTHER suggestions."
     
  49. I'm also willing to do sharpness tests on an AF-S 70-200/2.8G VR if you send me one. I can do a five-year field test on it. I'll send it back then if it is not sharp. - Don't hold your breath. :)
     
  50. When I was in college, I had a Leica IIIc with a 50mm Elmar. When I got a paying job I wondered what it would be like to have a longer focal length lens. I bought an 85mm f/2.8 Steinheil Culminar which I felt ought to be a great lens. The unfortunate results kept me from using anything but my Elmar for a long time. I wonder how many people are turned off of photography because of bad lenses?
     
  51. Alex; I used my 85mm f/2.8 Steinheil Culminar tonight! It has a stuck diaphram that has a max opening between F4 and F2.8; but still stops down at all positions. The 85mm F2.8 here is a very sharp lens; I like it because it is so compact. It seems to enlarge quite well; maybe I got a good one!
     
  52. I looked up the construction of the Culminar. It is a triplet with the front group made of 3 elements. Voightlander used this in several of their successful designs, so I must have had a bad apple. (Perhaps the mechanical mounting to Leica screwmount?) I later bought a 90mm f/4 Elmar which was excellent. Too bad that I cannot go back and retest the Culminar today. I would like to mount it on one of my Nikons, in addition to the Leica which I still have.
     
  53. My worst F mount lens was a Vivitar 70-210 f3.5 I think it was an AIS lens. At the time I didn't know how bad it was, low contrast, and poor colors. The other one that I didn't like was a Sigma 28-80 f3.5-5.6 AFD, flare, flare, flare, even with the hood that came with the lens.

    I should have known better, but I didn't buy either lens, they both came to me in an odd way. I now use a Nikon 35-70 f2.8 AFD and a 80-200 f2.8 AF-ED for that range of focal lengths.
     
  54. A Holga 120S has a really crappy lens, and they sell like hotcakes because of it.
     
  55. I personally had the Nikkor 200MM F4 AIS years ago. Was not impressed with that lens at all. Too soft. Even "Grumpy" says it's a pile of crap! When you read his reviews, you're getting his honest opinion. No holds barred. I too disagree with the person who said all "E" Series lenses are bad. I've never tried the rest, but obviously he hasn't shot with the 75-150MM F3.5
     
  56. Spiratone Portragon 100mm fixed f/4 single element lens. Horrendous spherical aberration. Of course, that was the idea. Absolutely gorgeously beautifully soft piece of crap photos. One perons's crap is another person's fertilizer.
    00CT18-23994584.jpg
     
  57. Quantaray 28-80 f/4-5.6 manual focus lens from the 80's on my old Olympus OM2s. Awful build, lousy contrast, flare-prone and about as sharp as a bowling ball. Lets just say that when it took the final drop, I wasn't sad.

    'nuff said.
     

Share This Page