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

[douglas_greenberg]

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.

[tony_p3]

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.

[spencer_hahn]

"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.

[david_h._hartman]

Many of today�s low end lenses are taped together. That�s right, no threads, just sticky tape!

[ethan_sprague]

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!

[eric_bogaerts]

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.

[david_h._hartman]

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.

[spencer_hahn]

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.

[eric_bogaerts]

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?

[neil_parker]

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!

[plattro]

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.

[spencer_hahn]

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.

[hique]

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.

[chuck]

"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.

[douglas k.]

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.

[rob_sato]

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

[Robert_Lai]

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.

[james_brand]

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).

[william_vickers1]

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.

[chris_nash1]

Has anyone measured the sharpness of the G lenses?

[david_h._hartman]

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.

[ethan_sprague]

hey- thanks everyone.

Funny thing- noone mentioned the early version 43-86 zoom.....

[Carl Stone]

"Funny thing- noone mentioned the early version 43-86 zoom....."

 

Sure, YOU did, and then asked for "any OTHER suggestions."

[ilkka_nissila]

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. :-)

[alex_lofquist]

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?