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

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

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.

[[e-mail]]

Good thread! For years when I started photography I used a Praktica
with a Carl Zeiss Tessar f2.8/50. It was an awful lens, when I finally
bought a new camera with a cheap vivitar 28-70 zoom I realised what I
had been putting up with.

[Jeremy]

Post by ***@aol.commercial
Good thread! For years when I started photography I used a Praktica
with a Carl Zeiss Tessar f2.8/50. It was an awful lens, when I finally
bought a new camera with a cheap vivitar 28-70 zoom I realised what I
had been putting up with.

I bought a Sonagar 85-205mm zoom for my Spotmatic from Wall Street Camera 30
years ago.

Colors had no saturation and sharpness was lousy.

Don't you know, I managed to take the only known photograph of an obscure
Cardinal who was visiting Philadelphia for a religious conference in the
1980s, and I just happened to take the shot with that lousy lens mounted on
my ES. Two years later, that obscure cardinal was introduced to the world
as the newly-elected Pope John Paul II.

Bummer.

[Cheesehead]

I just sold one of those lenses with a SPII body.
But never shot with it.
Really that bad?

Collin

[Andy Hewitt]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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 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.

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

My most impressive picture considering I was using a Carl Zeiss Jena
70-210 on full zoom with a Vivitar 2x converter. I manages to take a
picture of a trig point on the next mountain to Snowdon. The trig point
came out very will, abeit still rather small, it was quite sharp.

The Jena is a pretty good all-round lens though, and even after 20 years
it still takes good pictures.

Just to add to the Olympus theme of quality, the C960z digital I had
still took far better pictures than my Minolta Z1 does.

[rafe b]

Post by Andy Hewitt
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.

Never owned a Soligor zoom, but the 50mm/1.8
Soligor on my Miranda Sensomat was just fine.

I recently sold a 16x24" print from a chrome taken
with that lens - in 1970.

<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/gingko_leaves.html>


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[Andy Hewitt]

Post by rafe b

Post by Andy Hewitt
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.

Never owned a Soligor zoom, but the 50mm/1.8
Soligor on my Miranda Sensomat was just fine.
I recently sold a 16x24" print from a chrome taken
with that lens - in 1970.
<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/gingko_leaves.html>

There were two qualities of Miranda here though, up to the early
eighties they were a manufacturer of good quality camera equipment. Then
they got bought by Dixons, and were just branded cheap stuff from the
far east. Unfortunately I bought the latter quality.

Mind you, the actual quality of a picture is going to be controlled by
the quality of the lens anyway. If the lens is going to produce a shite
image, then the rest doesn't really matter.

[Matt Clara]

Post by Andy Hewitt

Post by rafe b

Post by Andy Hewitt
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.

Never owned a Soligor zoom, but the 50mm/1.8
Soligor on my Miranda Sensomat was just fine.
I recently sold a 16x24" print from a chrome taken
with that lens - in 1970.
<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/gingko_leaves.html>

There were two qualities of Miranda here though, up to the early
eighties they were a manufacturer of good quality camera equipment. Then
they got bought by Dixons, and were just branded cheap stuff from the
far east. Unfortunately I bought the latter quality.
Mind you, the actual quality of a picture is going to be controlled by
the quality of the lens anyway. If the lens is going to produce a shite
image, then the rest doesn't really matter.

Some folks with Holgas tend to disprove that. Jennifer Shaw's "Railroad
Ties" is a good example: Loading Image...

[Andy Hewitt]

Matt Clara <***@buzz.off> wrote:

[Snipped Text]

Post by Matt Clara

Post by Andy Hewitt
There were two qualities of Miranda here though, up to the early
eighties they were a manufacturer of good quality camera equipment. Then
they got bought by Dixons, and were just branded cheap stuff from the
far east. Unfortunately I bought the latter quality.
Mind you, the actual quality of a picture is going to be controlled by
the quality of the lens anyway. If the lens is going to produce a shite
image, then the rest doesn't really matter.

Some folks with Holgas tend to disprove that. Jennifer Shaw's "Railroad
Ties" is a good example: http://www.shotsmag.com/shots89-07.jpg

Well, yes, but the applications are somewhat limited. It's a bit like a
one trick filter.

[Peter Chant]

Post by Andy Hewitt

Post by Matt Clara
Some folks with Holgas tend to disprove that. Jennifer Shaw's "Railroad
Ties" is a good example: http://www.shotsmag.com/shots89-07.jpg

Well, yes, but the applications are somewhat limited. It's a bit like a
one trick filter.

I've a feeling it would look better to my eyes if it were a bit sharper and
less vignetted. At least if it were on a camera with a barely decent lens
you could add your one trick filter or remove it at will.

Pete

[Cheesehead]

in 135 format
Vivitar 28/2

In 4x5
Wollensak Raptar 135/4.7

I'm certain that there are worse lenses, but for me these were pretty
bad.

BTW
Nicholas,
I'm in Westerville & will be coming up to Cleveland sometime in the
spring.
You up for lunch some Saturday?

Collin

[george]

Vivitar 200mm f/3.5...actually it was a very good lens until the weather got
cold, then you'd need a pipe wrench to turn the focusing ring (MF days)
Nikon 35-70 AF f/3.3-4.5...most useless Nikon lens I ever owned and the only
one I sold (and within 6 months of buying)...at least for film cameras, that
focal length range wasn't very useful and the shifty maximum aperture was a
pain too

[Jim]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.
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
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.
--
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

Worst lens was a Spiratone 200mm. It was bad in every way that lens can be
bad.

Best lens is a bit harder to determine. Among the best are the 105 f2.5
AI-S Nikkor, the 180 f2.8 AF Nikkor, and the 300 f4 Nikkor.
Jim

[Mike King]

Sigma 135/1.8 but there are times when you need the speed, awful build
quality, glass fair.

Nikon 43-86, early, non-AI. Traded it to some sucker for at 85/1.8! (So I
guess it was a great lens since it got me just what I wanted.

No name 35-70 in Canon mount (actually it had a name, but I had never heard
of it!). Came with a Canon A-1 I bought at a pawn shop for $135 (this with
motor MA). Lens so bad I did the Billie Joe McAllister thing a dropped it
off a bridge (really!).
--
darkroommike

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.
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
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.
--
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

[seog]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.

I think the Russians/Ukrainians have that market sown up (with Chinese
closing fast). One of the first SLRs I owned was a Zenit with some atrocious
58mm lens (whose name now mercifully escapes me) my father smuggled from
Poland back in the early 70s. Well, it was great for portraits. It was the
first in a series of Eastern European gems he brought back over the years
including Kiev & Leningrad (or was it Stalingrad?) so I got to be pretty
familiar with their "quality" which later helped me appreciate real quality.

Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/
-George-

[Chris Loffredo]

Post by seog

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.

I think the Russians/Ukrainians have that market sown up (with Chinese
closing fast). One of the first SLRs I owned was a Zenit with some atrocious
58mm lens (whose name now mercifully escapes me) my father smuggled from
Poland back in the early 70s. Well, it was great for portraits. It was the
first in a series of Eastern European gems he brought back over the years
including Kiev & Leningrad (or was it Stalingrad?) so I got to be pretty
familiar with their "quality" which later helped me appreciate real quality.

Actually, many Soviet/Ukranian are quite good. It's a matter of
checking/adjusting them and esp. checking the rangefinder on cameras
which have them.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Chris Loffredo

Post by seog

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.

I think the Russians/Ukrainians have that market sown up (with
Chinese closing fast). One of the first SLRs I owned was a Zenit
with some atrocious 58mm lens (whose name now mercifully escapes
me) my father smuggled from Poland back in the early 70s. Well, it
was great for portraits. It was the first in a series of Eastern
European gems he brought back over the years including Kiev &
Leningrad (or was it Stalingrad?) so I got to be pretty familiar
with their "quality" which later helped me appreciate real
quality.

Actually, many Soviet/Ukranian are quite good. It's a matter of
checking/adjusting them and esp. checking the rangefinder on cameras
which have them.

Yes, comrades, I must come to the defense of these People's Cameras.
I've got bunches of FEDs, Zorkis and a Moskva 5, and there's some really
good glass on some of them; the Industar-22 and Industar-61 L/D stand
out among the 35s, and the Industar-## (forget the number just now) on
the Moskva (6x9, 105mm) is an outstanding Tessar.

And yes, all my rangefinders are in good alignment, because I did them
myself. (They were all off when I got them.)

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Loffredo
Actually, many Soviet/Ukranian are quite good. It's a matter of
checking/adjusting them and esp. checking the rangefinder on cameras
which have them.

Yes, comrades, I must come to the defense of these People's Cameras.
I've got bunches of FEDs, Zorkis and a Moskva 5, and there's some really
good glass on some of them; the Industar-22 and Industar-61 L/D stand
out among the 35s, and the Industar-## (forget the number just now) on
the Moskva (6x9, 105mm) is an outstanding Tessar.

My Moskva 2 has an Industar-23, but it isn't the same lens (110/4.5 vs.
105/3.5). A Tessar copy anyway, and pretty good. It was made in 1953.
The German supervisors probably were still hanging around the KMZ
factory at that time.

I recently got a Kiev 60 system. Good stuff for its value as well. But
the 250/3.5(!) Jupiter has visible focus drift. From f3.5 to f8 there is
no change, but at f11 the split image shows a difference. Not much, but
enough to cause problems for bench racers. They must focus this lens
stepped down to final aperture. By whatever means they have left; after
f11 the split image becomes useless.

But my Jupiters for Zorki (50/2 and 85/2.8 Sonnar copies) are sticky to
focus (they are easier to unscrew from the body) and getting yellow...

-- Lassi

[Chris Loffredo]

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Loffredo
Actually, many Soviet/Ukranian are quite good. It's a matter of
checking/adjusting them and esp. checking the rangefinder on cameras
which have them.

Yes, comrades, I must come to the defense of these People's Cameras.
I've got bunches of FEDs, Zorkis and a Moskva 5, and there's some
really good glass on some of them; the Industar-22 and Industar-61 L/D
stand out among the 35s, and the Industar-## (forget the number just
now) on the Moskva (6x9, 105mm) is an outstanding Tessar.

My Moskva 2 has an Industar-23, but it isn't the same lens (110/4.5 vs.
105/3.5). A Tessar copy anyway, and pretty good. It was made in 1953.
The German supervisors probably were still hanging around the KMZ
factory at that time.
I recently got a Kiev 60 system. Good stuff for its value as well. But
the 250/3.5(!) Jupiter has visible focus drift. From f3.5 to f8 there is
no change, but at f11 the split image shows a difference. Not much, but
enough to cause problems for bench racers. They must focus this lens
stepped down to final aperture. By whatever means they have left; after
f11 the split image becomes useless.

Go for the Zeiss Jena (Pentacon Six) lenses: Esp. the 50mm & 180mm are
outstanding!

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen
But my Jupiters for Zorki (50/2 and 85/2.8 Sonnar copies) are sticky to
focus (they are easier to unscrew from the body) and getting yellow...

The sticky focus can be solved (at least for some time) with a
well-plced drop or two of lighter fluid.
Some say that the yellowing can be cured by exposing them to sunlight.
Not sure if that's an urban legend or not...

[Chris Loffredo]

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Chris Loffredo
Actually, many Soviet/Ukranian are quite good. It's a matter of

checking/adjusting them and esp. checking the rangefinder on cameras
which have them.

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen

Post by David Nebenzahl
Yes, comrades, I must come to the defense of these People's Cameras.

I've got bunches of FEDs, Zorkis and a Moskva 5, and there's some really
good glass on some of them; the Industar-22 and Industar-61 L/D stand
out among the 35s, and the Industar-## (forget the number just now) on
the Moskva (6x9, 105mm) is an outstanding Tessar.

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen
My Moskva 2 has an Industar-23, but it isn't the same lens (110/4.5

vs. 105/3.5). A Tessar copy anyway, and pretty good. It was made in
1953. The German supervisors probably were still hanging around the KMZ
factory at that time.

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen
I recently got a Kiev 60 system. Good stuff for its value as well.

But the 250/3.5(!) Jupiter has visible focus drift. From f3.5 to f8
there is no change, but at f11 the split image shows a difference. Not
much, but enough to cause problems for bench racers. They must focus
this lens stepped down to final aperture. By whatever means they have
left; after f11 the split image becomes useless.


Go for the Zeiss Jena (Pentacon Six) lenses: Esp. the 50mm & 180mm are
outstanding!

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen
But my Jupiters for Zorki (50/2 and 85/2.8 Sonnar copies) are sticky

to focus (they are easier to unscrew from the body) and getting yellow...
The sticky focus can be solved (at least for some time) with a
well-plced drop or two of lighter fluid.
Some say that the yellowing can be cured by exposing them to sunlight.
Not sure if that's an urban legend or not...

BTW: Both lenses (& all Jupiters) are 1930's Zeiss designs.

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Post by Chris Loffredo
Go for the Zeiss Jena (Pentacon Six) lenses: Esp. the 50mm & 180mm are
outstanding!

I've got the Flektogon, but since this isn't my primary system, I probably
won't bother hunting down the Sonnar. The Volna-3 + 2X converter will do as
a portrait lens (160mm/5.6).

BTW, the Jupiter-36 + 2X (= 500mm/7) looks awesome. At least from outside...

Post by Chris Loffredo

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen
But my Jupiters for Zorki (50/2 and 85/2.8 Sonnar copies) are sticky

to focus (they are easier to unscrew from the body) and getting yellow...
The sticky focus can be solved (at least for some time) with a
well-plced drop or two of lighter fluid.

Unfortunately they seem to be beyond that trick. I've planned to take them
apart, but the 50mm has a broken screw that needs a better tool than I have
just now, and the 85mm is claimed to be difficult to get back together. I'd
rather practise with the 50mm first. I've already fixed the slow times of
my FED-3B.

Post by Chris Loffredo
Some say that the yellowing can be cured by exposing them to sunlight.
Not sure if that's an urban legend or not...

My experience says that it is a legend.

Post by Chris Loffredo
BTW: Both lenses (& all Jupiters) are 1930's Zeiss designs.

Yes, I know the story of the Zeiss factory after WW2. All 50mm and above are
Sonnars, and the 35mm/2.8 is a Biogon. Also the 28mm/6 Orion-15 seems to be
a Zeiss design (a Topogon).

-- Lassi

[Tony Polson]

Post by Chris Loffredo
Some say that the yellowing can be cured by exposing them to sunlight.
Not sure if that's an urban legend or not...

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.

However, I have no idea whether or not it works for any other lens.

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

Post by Tony Polson

Post by Chris Loffredo
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

[Tony Polson]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan

Post by Tony Polson

Post by Chris Loffredo
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.

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.

[Tony Polson]

Post by David Nebenzahl
Yes, comrades, I must come to the defense of these People's Cameras.
I've got bunches of FEDs, Zorkis and a Moskva 5, and there's some really
good glass on some of them; the Industar-22 and Industar-61 L/D stand
out among the 35s, and the Industar-## (forget the number just now) on
the Moskva (6x9, 105mm) is an outstanding Tessar.

You obviously never used the Helios-44 58mm f/2 for the Zenit SLRs.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Tony Polson

Post by David Nebenzahl
Yes, comrades, I must come to the defense of these People's
Cameras. I've got bunches of FEDs, Zorkis and a Moskva 5, and
there's some really good glass on some of them; the Industar-22 and
Industar-61 L/D stand out among the 35s, and the Industar-##
(forget the number just now) on the Moskva (6x9, 105mm) is an
outstanding Tessar.

You obviously never used the Helios-44 58mm f/2 for the Zenit SLRs.

I'm aware that there are some dogs in there, just haven't seen any
personally.

One lens that gets a bad rap turns out to be quite good: the
Industar-50, non-collapsible version. People don't like it because it
looks ugly, but it's actually quite good optically.

[Jeremy]

Post by Chris Loffredo
Actually, many Soviet/Ukranian are quite good. It's a matter of
checking/adjusting them and esp. checking the rangefinder on cameras which
have them.

There is something wrong with the notion of buying a new lens and then
having to check and adjust it so it works properly. Isn't that what buyers
of Kiev cameras do? Isn't there an importer of Kiev that "fixes" them to
correct defects from the factory?

That's crazy.

[Chris Loffredo]

Post by Jeremy

Post by Chris Loffredo
Actually, many Soviet/Ukranian are quite good. It's a matter of
checking/adjusting them and esp. checking the rangefinder on cameras which
have them.

There is something wrong with the notion of buying a new lens and then
having to check and adjust it so it works properly. Isn't that what buyers
of Kiev cameras do? Isn't there an importer of Kiev that "fixes" them to
correct defects from the factory?
That's crazy.

Many of the Sov/post-Sov lenses and cameras date back to the 1950's, so
they are not exactly new. How many "good" modern cameras & lenses will
work well 50+ years from now?

Even if a lens is new, I'd be glad to spend an hour or two checking and
adjusting it if that saves me thousands of dollars compared to a similar
performance lens without "issues".

Is that so crazy?

[Matt McGrattan]

Post by seog
I think the Russians/Ukrainians have that market sown up (with Chinese
closing fast). One of the first SLRs I owned was a Zenit with some atrocious
58mm lens (whose name now mercifully escapes me) my father smuggled from
Poland back in the early 70s. Well, it was great for portraits. It was the
first in a series of Eastern European gems he brought back over the years
including Kiev & Leningrad (or was it Stalingrad?) so I got to be pretty
familiar with their "quality" which later helped me appreciate real quality.

I assume the lens attached to the Zenit was probably a Helios 44-M. I
have one of those and I quite like it. It has an incredibly long focus
'throw' which makes it easy to focus very precisely. It's not quite as
sharp or as contrasty as the Japanese 'normal' length lenses I usually
use but it's by no means a terrible lens.

Of course Soviet quality control being what it was....


Matt

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Post by Matt McGrattan

Post by seog
I think the Russians/Ukrainians have that market sown up (with Chinese
closing fast). One of the first SLRs I owned was a Zenit with some
atrocious 58mm lens (whose name now mercifully escapes me) my father
smuggled from Poland back in the early 70s. Well, it was great for
portraits. It was the first in a series of Eastern European gems he
brought back over the years including Kiev & Leningrad (or was it
Stalingrad?) so I got to be pretty familiar with their "quality" which
later helped me appreciate real quality.

I assume the lens attached to the Zenit was probably a Helios 44-M. I
have one of those and I quite like it. It has an incredibly long focus
'throw' which makes it easy to focus very precisely. It's not quite as
sharp or as contrasty as the Japanese 'normal' length lenses I usually
use but it's by no means a terrible lens.
Of course Soviet quality control being what it was....

The numbers 58mm and f2 are strange but familiar... Zeiss Jena Biotar
originally launched for Contax-S. That may indicate its pedigree, but
not its QC...

-- Lassi

[Matt McGrattan]

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen

Post by Matt McGrattan

Post by seog
I think the Russians/Ukrainians have that market sown up (with
Chinese closing fast). One of the first SLRs I owned was a Zenit with
some atrocious 58mm lens (whose name now mercifully escapes me) my
father smuggled from Poland back in the early 70s. Well, it was great
for portraits. It was the first in a series of Eastern European gems
he brought back over the years including Kiev & Leningrad (or was it
Stalingrad?) so I got to be pretty familiar with their "quality"
which later helped me appreciate real quality.

I assume the lens attached to the Zenit was probably a Helios 44-M. I
have one of those and I quite like it. It has an incredibly long focus
'throw' which makes it easy to focus very precisely. It's not quite as
sharp or as contrasty as the Japanese 'normal' length lenses I usually
use but it's by no means a terrible lens.
Of course Soviet quality control being what it was....

The numbers 58mm and f2 are strange but familiar... Zeiss Jena Biotar
originally launched for Contax-S. That may indicate its pedigree, but
not its QC...
-- Lassi

Yes, apparently the Helios 44m is a Biotar copy.

As I said, I quite like mine although I wouldn't claim it's an amazing
lens it's perfectly OK for ordinary use.

Matt

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Matt McGrattan

Post by seog
I think the Russians/Ukrainians have that market sown up (with
Chinese closing fast). One of the first SLRs I owned was a Zenit
with some atrocious 58mm lens (whose name now mercifully escapes
me) my father smuggled from Poland back in the early 70s. Well, it
was great for portraits. It was the first in a series of Eastern
European gems he brought back over the years including Kiev &
Leningrad (or was it Stalingrad?) so I got to be pretty familiar
with their "quality" which later helped me appreciate real
quality.

I assume the lens attached to the Zenit was probably a Helios 44-M. I
have one of those and I quite like it. It has an incredibly long
focus 'throw' which makes it easy to focus very precisely. It's not
quite as sharp or as contrasty as the Japanese 'normal' length lenses
I usually use but it's by no means a terrible lens.
Of course Soviet quality control being what it was....

That's why they speak of such things as "Monday morning" components and
vodka consumption.

[Tony Polson]

Post by seog
One of the first SLRs I owned was a Zenit with some atrocious
58mm lens (whose name now mercifully escapes me) my father smuggled from
Poland back in the early 70s.

I think it might have been a Helios-44, a 58mm f/2 with pre-set
aperture, a lens that was unsharp at every aperture and focusing
distance.

Post by seog
Well, it was great for portraits.

Good point.

;-)

[Skip M]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.
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
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?)

[Bandicoot]

"Skip M" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:RefBf.12413$***@fed1read02...
[SNIP]

Post by Skip M
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

[Skip M]

Post by Bandicoot
[SNIP]

Post by Skip M
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...

[Matt Clara]

Post by Skip M

Post by Bandicoot
[SNIP]

Post by Skip M
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.

[Skip M]

Post by Matt Clara

Post by Skip M

Post by Bandicoot
[SNIP]

Post by Skip M
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...

[Matt Clara]

Post by Skip M

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.
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
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...

[Skip M]

Post by Matt Clara

Post by Skip M
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

Wow, and she (a) married you, and (b) has stayed married to you. That says
something about your staying power, if nothing else... ;-)

[Alan Browne]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
What is/are the worst lens/es you every took a picture with?

Maxxum 28-80xi

[Will Wagner]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
What is/are the worst lens/es you every took a picture with?
Leaving out the plastic-fantastics: Dianas, Empire Babies and
their cousins.

Got hold of a Mamiya C3 *real* cheap back in the early 90s, and it had
an old-school Mamiya-Sekor 80mm, with the chrome bezel. We're talking
NO contrast. I had to develop the bejeezus out of b&w, and anything
color was a complete lost cause. It's amazing how much better the newer
black-bezeled lens I now have is.

Will

[istoo]

Funny, how many accounts of 'bad' lenses come from early in the
photographer's experience. Think about it.

[Randy Stewart]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
What is/are the worst lens/es you every took a picture with?
Leaving out the plastic-fantastics: Dianas, Empire Babies and
their cousins.

During much of my photo-hobby life, money was too dear to make
ill-considered lens purchases, but I got nailed twice.

1. I bought a package of used lenses getting into Pentax 6x7. In the
package was a Komura Telemore 2x doubler - so bad that you could see the
defects though the viewfinder, or so I thought. You got low contrast, loss
of sharpness, and color fringing all in one lens. I put a rock bottom price
on it at a swap meet table and carried the guilt of selling it for several
years.

2. A Yashica 635 MF TLR with the Yashinor [3 element] lens which preceded
the later Yashinon.. [And the Yashinon was nothing to get worked up over
either.] It may not have been any worse than any other 3-element lens, but
it was the only one I ever owned. You could watch a medium format negative
image fall apart when enlarged to a fill frame 11x14 print. Fortunately, I
bought it at a forgiving shop which took it back.

[William Graham]

"Randy Stewart" <***@pacifier.com> wrote in message I put a rock bottom
price

Post by Randy Stewart
on it at a swap meet table and carried the guilt of selling it for several
years.

Yes. - At least the, "Billie Joe McAllister" solution carries no guilt......

[Randall Ainsworth]

Since this group is for medium format, I can't say I've ever had a
crappy lens. I've used Hasselblads since 1971 and you don't have a
choice for lenses.

In 35mm...anybody remember Lentar?

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

Post by Randall Ainsworth
In 35mm...anybody remember Lentar?

I had a 35/3.5 pre-set. It worked OK, I understand
this is unusual for this brand.

[Scott Schuckert]

Post by Randall Ainsworth
In 35mm...anybody remember Lentar?

NOW I do; unfortunately. Back in the 70's I bought a quantity of
"bargain" 135 f/2.8 and 35 f/2.8 Lentars to sell in my camera store,
for people who just wanted a basic lens. Both of these lenses had
large, impressive front elements but were very light. The on-film
results were just awful. Fortunately, most of them broke before people
could waste too much film.

[Tony]

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.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.
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
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.
--
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

[William Graham]

Post by Tony
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"....:^)

[William Graham]

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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"....:^)

The next time you get rid of a lens like that, please throw it off the
Tallahassee bridge........

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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"....:^)

The next time you get rid of a lens like that, please throw it off the
Tallahassee bridge........

Sheesh, cain't nobody spell no more? It's the Tallahatchee Bridge:
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/odetobil.htm

[William Graham]

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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"....:^)

The next time you get rid of a lens like that, please throw it off the
Tallahassee bridge........

Don't blame me.....Blame my spellchecker....It's the one who changed my
spelling (which was still wrong) to "Tallahassee".

[Tom Phillips]

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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"....:^)

The next time you get rid of a lens like that, please throw it off the
Tallahassee bridge........

Don't blame me.....Blame my spellchecker....It's the one who changed my
spelling (which was still wrong) to "Tallahassee".

Actually, it's "Tallahatchie," an obscure 230 mile
long river in Mississippi.

Clearly an Indian name or derivative, but anyone who
know classic 60's tunes knows the Tallahatchie...

[William Graham]

Post by Tom Phillips

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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"....:^)

The next time you get rid of a lens like that, please throw it off the
Tallahassee bridge........

Don't blame me.....Blame my spellchecker....It's the one who changed my
spelling (which was still wrong) to "Tallahassee".

Actually, it's "Tallahatchie," an obscure 230 mile
long river in Mississippi.
Clearly an Indian name or derivative, but anyone who
know classic 60's tunes knows the Tallahatchie...

I'm still trying to get "tchopatoulas" right........

[Chris Loffredo]

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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?)

[William Graham]

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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?

[istoo]

Post by William Graham
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?

I don't see any blobs. Anyone else see blobs? Think maybe William is having
a stroke maybe?

[rafe b]

Post by istoo

Post by William Graham
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?

I don't see any blobs. Anyone else see blobs? Think maybe William is having
a stroke maybe?

Anything "French" is likely to upset Mr. Graham.

PS: I thought the photo was crap, also, but not
because of its country-of-origin.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

[istoo]

Post by rafe b
Anything "French" is likely to upset Mr. Graham.

C'est malheureux.

Post by rafe b
PS: I thought the photo was crap, also, but not
because of its country-of-origin.

It works in series.

[no_name]

Post by rafe b

Post by istoo

Post by William Graham
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?

I don't see any blobs. Anyone else see blobs? Think maybe William is having
a stroke maybe?

Anything "French" is likely to upset Mr. Graham.
PS: I thought the photo was crap, also, but not
because of its country-of-origin.

Merely mundane, not really "crap".

[William Graham]

Post by rafe b

Post by istoo

Post by William Graham
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?

I don't see any blobs. Anyone else see blobs? Think maybe William is having
a stroke maybe?

Anything "French" is likely to upset Mr. Graham.
PS: I thought the photo was crap, also, but not
because of its country-of-origin.

When did I say it was crap because it's French? - I just didn't like the
black blobs that I see. (and, apparently, I am the only one who sees them)

[istoo]

Post by William Graham
When did I say it was crap because it's French? - I just didn't like the
black blobs that I see. (and, apparently, I am the only one who sees them)

I don't see any blobs. You really otta go to a doctor or something.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by istoo

Post by William Graham
When did I say it was crap because it's French? - I just didn't
like the black blobs that I see. (and, apparently, I am the only
one who sees them)

I don't see any blobs. You really otta go to a doctor or something.

You don't? I sure do. You might call them "interesting shapes" or
"figures" or even just moving pedestrians, but they're there.

There, there.

[Chris Loffredo]

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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?

Moving people: The photo is obviously a time-exposure.
: )

[William Graham]

Post by Chris Loffredo

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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?

Moving people: The photo is obviously a time-exposure.
: )

But the biggest blob is in the air, dead center, above the light
pole......Is that a "moving person?"

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by William Graham

Post by Chris Loffredo

Post by William Graham

Post by Chris Loffredo

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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?

Moving people: The photo is obviously a time-exposure.

But the biggest blob is in the air, dead center, above the light
pole......Is that a "moving person?"

Pretty sure that's another walking figure; it looks like the picture was
taken on an inclined walk looking up, like a subway entrance. So the
figure is in front of the streetlamp.

That's my theory, anyhow.

[Tony Polson]

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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.

;-)

[Matt Clara]

Post by Tony Polson

Post by William Graham

Post by William Graham

Post by Tony
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?

[Skip M]

Post by Tony
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.

[Bandicoot]

Post by Skip M

Post by Tony
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.

Post by Skip M
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.

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.)

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.


Peter

[Cheesehead]

Every once in a while one of those classic 90-180 "flat field" Series 1
zooms
shows up on eBay. And if there's a BIN, it goes right away. Even 20+
years old
and they'll regularly sell over $150. Another one of those older
lenses with a
special and excellent design.

Collin

[Skip M]

Post by Tony

Post by Skip M

Post by Tony
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.

Post by Skip M
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.

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.)
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.
Peter

Yeah, Pentax just released that lens, IIRC. But back then, that was the
trait the Vivitar was known for, and I'm sure it wasn't Cosina's intent! ;-)
I have a Series One 70-210 f3.5 and a 28-80 f3.5-4.5 (?) FD mount lenses,
great little things.

[Tony Polson]

Post by Bandicoot
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.

Post by Bandicoot
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]

Post by Skip M

Post by Tony
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.

[Stacey]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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

I had a 135 f4.7 xenar that was equally bad. It even was a "linhof" sample?
It was my first 4X5 lens and I almost gave up on LF fighting with this
thing!

[Jean-David Beyer]

Post by Stacey

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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

I had a 135 f4.7 xenar that was equally bad. It even was a "linhof" sample?
It was my first 4X5 lens and I almost gave up on LF fighting with this
thing!

I still have "the worst lens I ever had" because it is not so bad anymore.

It is a Meyer-Gorlitz 120mm f/6.3 Weitwinkel (wide-angle) Aristostigmat.
This is a (probably symmetric) 4-element 4 group lens. It may still be my
worst lens, but it is pretty good now. When it was bad, the problem was that
the lens elements had become unscrewed slightly, and the spacing was off. I
bet Hugo Meyer (or whoever designed it) would not have liked the spacing to
be off; I sure did not. I could not really focus it one day, and I checked
my glasses to see if they were dirty or steamed up, and lots of things until
I noticed the lens cells were loose.

[istoo]

The REAL question is - is your worst lens so bad that even Sally Mann
wouldn't use it?

[John]

Mamiya 80/1.9f/ 645 Pro. Pure garbage. Never seen a "normal" lens with
so much distortion.

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

[Chris Loffredo]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.

I'm also leaving out lenses which were obviously damaged or defective,
as well as lenses which needed cleaning, adjusting & other tweaks (lots
of Soviet stuff in that last category).

Probably my worst lens "experience" was a Sigma 28-105 4.0-5.6 which a
magazine had given top points to.
Interestingly that was also the time in which I was taking my worst
photographs (the most snapshotty and least though-out).
The Sigma got traded in at loss in less than a year.


Only good primes now.

[John]

Post by Chris Loffredo
I'm also leaving out lenses which were obviously damaged or defective,
as well as lenses which needed cleaning, adjusting & other tweaks (lots
of Soviet stuff in that last category).
Probably my worst lens "experience" was a Sigma 28-105 4.0-5.6 which a
magazine had given top points to.
Interestingly that was also the time in which I was taking my worst
photographs (the most snapshotty and least though-out).
The Sigma got traded in at loss in less than a year.

Jeez ! How could I have forgotten that POS of a Sigma I bought for my
30th birthday ! The 70 ~ 210/2.8 ! If there is a company that has
worse service than Mamiya, it's Sigma !

I get this POS from B-&-H and it was the middle of summer. My friends
were having a BBQ and I was invited over. There were a half dozen
crotch rockets outside and I was determined to catch a good photo or
two of them in action. About 2 hours into the party they decide to
have some fun. I heard the screaming of one of the Yammers and grabbed
my camera. I framed and snapped the image of this one really colorful
bike doing a burn out and .... and .... that was the last shot I took
with that lens before sending it to Sigma for service. The aperture
froze at f/11 ! Sigma returned the lens to me after 3 weeks and 3
phone calls from me. They hadn't even touched it. The aperture was
still closed down ! I sent it back to them and another 8 weeks went
by. Finally someone told me that they didn't have a replacement
aperture at hand and were waiting for a replacement to be sent from
headquarters. One week later I received my lens. The aperture was open
! So I'm all hopefull. I stil the lens on my camera and fire off a
snap of my wife. The aperture stayed closed ! I called them up and
asked them if they could replace the lens and they stated that they
couldn't. At no time was I able to speak with anyone that was helpful
or knowledgeable. I called B-&-H hoping that they might do something
however they stated that since the lens was outside of 30 days from
purchase date, there was nothing they could do. So I sent the lens in
again and they finally managed to get the lens back to me around March
or '93. 9 months after I bought it ! Oh, the story might end here but
guess what ? The lens elements weren't reinstalled correctly and the
lens was never sharp again. I sold it along with my entire Minolta
rig. I much prefer the FM2's anyway.

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

[Skip M]

Post by Chris Loffredo
Probably my worst lens "experience" was a Sigma 28-105 4.0-5.6 which a
magazine had given top points to.
Interestingly that was also the time in which I was taking my worst
photographs (the most snapshotty and least though-out).
The Sigma got traded in at loss in less than a year.
Only good primes now.

Funny how magazines love those Sigma lenses that turn out to be crap. I had
the same experience with the 2.8-4 version of that lens, thanks to
Shutterbug.

[no_name]

Post by Skip M

Post by Chris Loffredo
Probably my worst lens "experience" was a Sigma 28-105 4.0-5.6 which a
magazine had given top points to.
Interestingly that was also the time in which I was taking my worst
photographs (the most snapshotty and least though-out).
The Sigma got traded in at loss in less than a year.
Only good primes now.

Funny how magazines love those Sigma lenses that turn out to be crap. I had
the same experience with the 2.8-4 version of that lens, thanks to
Shutterbug.

OTOH, the one Sigma lens I have is quite good.

[Skip M]

Post by no_name

Post by Skip M

Post by Chris Loffredo
Probably my worst lens "experience" was a Sigma 28-105 4.0-5.6 which a
magazine had given top points to.
Interestingly that was also the time in which I was taking my worst
photographs (the most snapshotty and least though-out).
The Sigma got traded in at loss in less than a year.
Only good primes now.

Funny how magazines love those Sigma lenses that turn out to be crap. I
had the same experience with the 2.8-4 version of that lens, thanks to
Shutterbug.

OTOH, the one Sigma lens I have is quite good.

I have a Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 EX HSM and a 15mm EX Fisheye. The former was
good enough on my film cameras, and ok on my D30, but its weaknesses really
showed up on the 20D. On the 5D, it borders on unusable. The 15mm fisheye
is ok, but has an odd quirk with one of our 5D bodies. One that no other
lens has, including the Canon 15mm fisheye...
BTW, I bought both those lenses before I bought the 28-105...

[DD]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.
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
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.

Probably the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro. Most overrated lens I
ever had the displeasure of owning.

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

Post by DD
Probably the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro.

Ah, yes. I have a 28-70/2.8 Sigma. I can't bring
myself to sell it for thought of the pain I would
cause the buyer.

Post by DD
Most overrated lens I ever had the displeasure
of owning.

Ditto.

[Skip M]

Post by DD

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.

Probably the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro. Most overrated lens I
ever had the displeasure of owning.

Overrated, yes, but my example isn't that bad. But not really deserving of
the cult status it has achieved, mostly by its association with Angineux.

[istoo]

Some of my more memorable pictures were made with cheap lenses.

[Chris Loffredo]

Post by istoo
Some of my more memorable pictures were made with cheap lenses.

Some of my best lenses are cheap (at least used)...
; )

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

Post by istoo
Some of my more memorable pictures

Were made with good lenses: after all,
they made good pictures.

Post by istoo
were made with cheap lenses.

Cheap != bad

I guess to be a really bad lens it would have to
make any picture made with it worse.

[Norm Dresner]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.

A millennium ago, right after we got married in the mid '60s and had no
money, I needed a telephoto lens to shoot some car races. Wound up at Wall
Street Camera and got a 180mm preset T-mount lens. Well, it formed an
image -- sort of -- but it was probably no better than 20-30 lp/mm
resolution and had a yellow color cast. Strangely, the 35mm preset I bought
at the same time was a relatively decent performer.

Today, the sharpest manufacturer lenses I have are the Nikon 85mm f/1.8D and
(oddly enough) the Nikon 500mm f/8. Many years ago I bought a fast portrait
lens for a Minolta SR-1 --- the Exacta mount preset 75mm f/1.5 Biotar. At
f/5.6 or f/8 it's still the equal of anything I have today. Just the luck
of the draw, I guess.

Norm

[Cheesehead]

There's a lot of older lense that equal or better many newer lenses,
except perhaps in the far corners where there is often a little
softness in the older lenses. (aren't these aspheric designs just
wonderful) I think of Herb Keppler's comparison (3-4 years ago) of the
old SMC Tak 35/2 vs. the newer Nikkor. Pretty favorable comparison
all-around.

My Pentax K30/2.8 performs magnificenly. This is the one lens of which
I've never heard of a poor sample. And I've got an old Tokina 17/3.5
(RMC I think) that's so-so on C-41 film but shines on b&w & digitial.
So I'm keeping it. They sell for only about $100 on eBag.

Back during college I got the Pentax M28/2.8. Original version.
Softest lens I've ever used. (The second version fixed its issues and
was the same optics as the later A28/2.8 -- still just an average lens,
but at least not a lousy one.) And a few years ago I tried a couple of
the FA*43/1.9 lenses. Really, really sharp and outstanding color
correction. But unless your doing close-ups, the barrel distortion
will kill ya. Too bad the didn't get it right. But that was their
first of the Limited series. The other two have no problems at all.

It seems that all mfrs. produce some real gems that we just can get
enough of. I really want the FA* 31/1.8 and FA* 77/1.9. But alas.

Collin

[Mojtaba]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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.

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). Low contrast and ugly colours and
not sharp at all. this camera was stolen from my car and I got very
sad. In reality I did not like the camera but I did not like that I
loose it to thives either. My very good friend went and bought me
another copy of the camera. Damn, I wished she had chosen something
else. But no, she had thought to give me MY CAMERA. This one came with
a Sigma 28-70 f/3.5 -4.5. I had heard that Sigma was a pirat lens so I
was afraid I had to buy a real canon lens myslef. The appearance was
good in fact better than the Canon, both wider and faster. In fact,
the experience showed that this Sigma was a better lens than the
original Canon. This Sigma despite giving decent results gets the
second place among the worst lenses I have used.

Mojtaba (Likes good lenses)

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan
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
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.

[Tony Polson]

Post by Mojtaba
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]

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

: )

Collin

[Chris Loffredo]

Post by Cheesehead
Are there any *bad* Leica lenses which anyone feels free to mention?
: )

A pre-WWII non-coated Summitar gave disappointing (if not actually
terrible) results.

My 21mm R (70's vintage) isn't the best super-wide (17-21mm) I have.
I guess that should make the zoom crowd happy...
; )

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

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

Hektor

[Tony Polson]

Post by Cheesehead
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.

[istoo]

Post by Tony Polson
There are no *bad* M lenses,

Yes there are. Plain and simple, some just suck. Of course, that doesn't
mean the pictures made with them aren't just great.

[Doug Robbins]

Lenses that sell for $2000-$3000 each have no excuses for their
imperfections.

Post by istoo

Post by Tony Polson
There are no *bad* M lenses,

Yes there are. Plain and simple, some just suck. Of course, that doesn't
mean the pictures made with them aren't just great.