Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-05-2011, 02:58 PM   #76
Veteran Member
Lloydy's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Shropshire, UK
Posts: 1,114
I've read right through this topic with a slightly smug feeling that I haven't got any of the horrors mentioned so far. But any smugness was shortlived when I thought about my pair of horrors.

First up, my Soligor 35 f3.5. It's the 'chrome ears' series, pre-set, and very nicely built. But I've yet to get anything good out of it. I keep it because I have two other 'chrome ears' Soligors ( both very good, but obviously all from different manufacturers ) and they look good together. And it cost about £5,.

Yet another 35 f3.5, the 'Galaxy'. I have nothing good to say about this lens, it is truly the crappiest lens ever built in ALL respects. I keep it as a novelty and to keep the dust out of an old Zenit that sits on a shelf. I got it in a charity shop from a box of detritus under the table, along with a book I spent £2. It was a good book, so I don't feel cheated.

07-05-2011, 04:15 PM   #77
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
Probably my version 1 kit lens, but I still use it on the K100d. I don't have any real stinkers right now. I bought a lens for my Graflex Speedgraphic 23 that won't fit my model, but I don't know if that counts.
07-06-2011, 08:51 AM - 1 Like   #78
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21
QuoteOriginally posted by Ikarus Quote
Wow, nice collection! I can see why you don't need it then. I have the ST 55/1.8, ST 50/1.4, Helios 44-2 58/2 and SMC-A 50/2.8 macro in that focal range. The M50/2 is faster than the latter, beats the others in terms of flare resistance by quite a margin, and, opposed to what I heard some say, my copy is sharp even at f/2.
So's mine...

Outside in the street | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Though my 1.7 is just as good IMO (though not wide open here)...

Georgina's Bar - Jazz Singer | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
07-06-2011, 09:36 AM   #79
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
WillWeaverRVA's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midlothian, VA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 482
I'm not sure I have a "worst" lens...I fight with the Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 Di II macro, but I've managed to get great photos out of it. The DA L 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens that came with my K20D leaves a little to be desired, but I don't expect much - it's a DA L! Besides, I've managed to get some excellent shots from it, and the image quality's good enough to warrant me keeping it around (especially compared to the Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens I used on my old E-420...).

EDIT: Correction - I forgot about the Soligor 70-210mm (forgot aperture range). Despite how good I've seen this lens be, I just haven't had any luck with it whatsoever. Maybe I got a bad one...


Last edited by WillWeaverRVA; 07-06-2011 at 09:51 AM.
07-06-2011, 10:04 AM   #80
Veteran Member
Julie's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Illinois
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,067
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Actually I have 2 of them

Lens 1) rikenon 135 mm F2.8 M42 mount which suffered badly from sensor reflection and 1stop slower at any focal length plus an unusual color cast

Lens 2) sigma mini wide 28mmF2.8 which has the worst CA I have ever seen

I keep the Rikenon because for $30 that I spent I just can't be bothered unloading it. The 28 I have been experimenting with lens profiles and CA correction which makes this poor performer produce very good results that plus the KA mount make it worth keeping
I've got that Sigma and I agree with you. Why do I still have it? I've listed it up for sale, but no one was interested...

Another, the 18-55 kit lens that comes with the K-x, I don't know why, I just don't like it, it doesn't want to seem to produce good results for me (but maybe that's just my fault... ), why I still have them- they're my only auto focus lens and they're great to have on hand if I need to snap a quick shot and have no time to focus manually.
07-07-2011, 12:57 AM   #81
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21
I saw a special tutorial in one of these "Professional" monthly magazines in the UK, suggesting getting an old manual focus lens without multicoating, to creat atmospheric portraits with lots of flare. An old Vivitar 28mm non-multicoated lens was used as an example. sometimes a "bad" lens can be turned to good use. I would draw the line at a very soft, fuzzy lens though.
07-07-2011, 03:34 AM   #82
Senior Member
opfor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 276
My original post:
My worst is a very easy choice...
Hanimex 500mm 1:8 Lens Reviews - Fixed Focal Lengths - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database
It makes a nice paper weight, but it just isn't heavy enough for a door stop..:-(


QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
Manual lenses like that Hanimex are SUPPOSED to short all the contacts. My Kx freaks out a little if you replace an AF lens with a manual lens while it's turned on, maybe that was it. Turn it off before swapping lenses. I'm not surprised you can't get a sharp photo if you're using it through a teleconverter. My Tokina 500mm mirror is reasonably sharp, but as soon as you put a teleconverter on there is no possible way to get a sharp photo.
Charles.
I have to admit to getting this one partially wrong. It never occurred to me that I needed to get the paint off the flange. I have taken the paint off and now the lens acts normally with my cameras. It's still not sharp though.
07-07-2011, 11:11 AM   #83
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by midori Quote
I saw a special tutorial in one of these "Professional" monthly magazines in the UK, suggesting getting an old manual focus lens without multicoating, to creat atmospheric portraits with lots of flare. An old Vivitar 28mm non-multicoated lens was used as an example. sometimes a "bad" lens can be turned to good use. I would draw the line at a very soft, fuzzy lens though.
Yeah, soft and fuzzy sucks -- except for certain portraiture. But soft and sharp with ghostly-flarey outlines, now THAT is a prize! Not quite a David Hamilton look...

I have a project in mind, suggested by someone at the ManualFocusLenses forum. They mentioned slightly de-tuning the rear elements of a Helios-44 58/2, for just that look. I haven't a spare Helios (nor the slight funds for one at the moment) but I've a couple of otherwise-unusable lenses that I could experiment upon. Not *bad* lenses, just unsuitable for a Pentax mount. Like a Retina-C 35/4, built for a camera with the rear element in-body. On my K20D, it's effectively 105/12. I have some random bits of lens that might serve as rear elements. Step into my laboratory, eh?

And I've seen suggestions for 'bad' glass, like: Damage it. Scratch it. Whack it. Take chips out of the front. See how much torture it can take and still produce usable images, with 'character'. Ah yes, lenses never have flaws, just character. I've sure got a few characters around here.

07-07-2011, 11:20 AM   #84
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,864
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
...And I've seen suggestions for 'bad' glass, like: Damage it. Scratch it. Whack it. Take chips out of the front. See how much torture it can take and still produce usable images, with 'character'. Ah yes, lenses never have flaws, just character. I've sure got a few characters around here.
It can be surprisingly difficult to damage a lens, if you are trying. Anyone can do accidental complete destruction, but when you get out the hammer and the punch and whack something and it doesn't even scratch anything, it's annoying. I did this because I couldn't get the glass to break:

07-07-2011, 12:13 PM   #85
Veteran Member
Ikarus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 471
QuoteOriginally posted by midori Quote
Great shot!! One doesn't see such high quality output from the A50/2 and M50/2 very often, but you're nicely demonstrating that they can hang with the best.
07-07-2011, 12:21 PM   #86
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
It can be surprisingly difficult to damage a lens, if you are trying. Anyone can do accidental complete destruction, but when you get out the hammer and the punch and whack something and it doesn't even scratch anything, it's annoying. I did this because I couldn't get the glass to break:
Awesome! I'll have to try that with something worthless. Maybe the K50/1.2, eh?

Just joking. Put down the pitchforks. But when you've gone that far, isn't it difficult to test the optics?
07-07-2011, 12:29 PM   #87
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
Yeah I agree with you for today, but in the mid 1970’s things weren’t that bad economy wise.
Phil, Wow. Where to start with a statement like that!?! Not that bad? Interest rates at 14%, inflation running 20+%, unemployment high and rising...

A couple of dollars on the pricetag DID make a big difference then. Was it really that much better in Canada back then?

As for worst lens - right now its my SMC M80-200. It needs to be cleaned A LOT.
07-07-2011, 04:53 PM   #88
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,290
Cosmicar Auto MC 28mm 2.8 - a horror-show wide open (soft, ghosty, flares like a mofo) and contrast-free when stopped down to an acceptably sharp level. Like smearing vaseline on plexiglas.

I still have it because I might use the lensmount for an "x to K-mount" conversion of another lens someday... did that to a CPC Phase 2 once.
07-07-2011, 10:59 PM   #89
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,345
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Phil, Wow. Where to start with a statement like that!?! Not that bad? Interest rates at 14%, inflation running 20+%, unemployment high and rising...

A couple of dollars on the pricetag DID make a big difference then. Was it really that much better in Canada back then?

As for worst lens - right now its my SMC M80-200. It needs to be cleaned A LOT.
In the mid 1970’s all my friends and I had no problems getting good jobs after getting out of high school. I worked for a year saved up some money then quit my job and went to Europe for 10 weeks. I got rehired in the same job immediately after I got back. (I didn’t even want to go back, but they were short staffed.) The unions were also getting big contract settlements, with wage increases of around 10%. So yes things were pretty good in Vancouver back then.

Remember Canada has a separate economy than the US and is not necessarily in the same mess as the US at the same time. (Same goes for today, you’re worse off than us up here) One interesting stat, the Canadian dollar is currently at par or higher than the US and the last time that happened was in mid 1970's!

It was the early 1980’s that were bad here with high interest rates. I was laid off and out of work for a year, due to the lumber/mining industries collapsing.

Phil.
07-08-2011, 05:07 AM   #90
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,271
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
In the mid 1970ís all my friends and I had no problems getting good jobs after getting out of high school. I worked for a year saved up some money then quit my job and went to Europe for 10 weeks. I got rehired in the same job immediately after I got back. (I didnít even want to go back, but they were short staffed.) The unions were also getting big contract settlements, with wage increases of around 10%. So yes things were pretty good in Vancouver back then.

Remember Canada has a separate economy than the US and is not necessarily in the same mess as the US at the same time. (Same goes for today, youíre worse off than us up here) One interesting stat, the Canadian dollar is currently at par or higher than the US and the last time that happened was in mid 1970's!

It was the early 1980ís that were bad here with high interest rates. I was laid off and out of work for a year, due to the lumber/mining industries collapsing.

Phil.
the late 80's were pretty bad as well up here (my first mortgage was 13% interest YIIKES) but we do tend to avoid the really deep dips that hit less regulated economies
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, candidate, count, dog, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's the worst lens ever made? joefru Pentax DSLR Discussion 38 07-21-2008 08:18 AM
The "BEST, WORST LENS" in the Universe benjikan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 42 05-22-2008 08:28 PM
Pentax Fisheye Worst Lens EVER! J.Scott Post Your Photos! 19 02-09-2008 11:49 AM
Worst lens ever for your DSLR.....Very funny. You must read this! ebooks4pentax General Talk 3 06-15-2007 05:16 AM
LOL. worst lens ever! skaktuss General Talk 11 06-07-2007 03:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:43 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top