What is your worst lens?

RioRico · 07-02-2011, 06:01 PM

Actually it's a double question: WHAT is your worst lens, and WHY do you keep it?

Broken lenses don't count. Lenses filled with fungi, tapeworms, sawdust, also don't count. Neither do lenses that are inappropriate for your camera, like those 8mm cine projector lenses I can't use on my K20D.

No, your candidate must be something that was made for your camera, just not made very well. It might be a dog that you bought new, or a used one where you found too late why the seller was glad to be rid of it.

I'll throw in another condition: You must still possess it. I can't list many lenses as among my worst because I've already sold or exploded them. No, I want to know WHAT dog you still own, and WHY. That's all.

I'll start with my candidate.
WHAT: Pentax SMC-A 35-80/4-5.6 zoom. Plastic lens, sloppy build, lousy optics, etc.
WHY KEEP IT: Because reversed, it's a decent macro lens. And it's not worth selling!

**Lowell Goudge** · 07-02-2011, 06:39 PM

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

**LaurenOE** · 07-02-2011, 06:44 PM - **1 Like**

My worst lens...

Tamron AF XR LD [IF] 28-300 1:3.5-6.3 Macro

Why do I keep it? I'm too lazy to sell it and it is a benchmark of bad.

magkelly · 07-02-2011, 06:44 PM

Haminex 35-75mm, M42. It has a really nice case and it might make a useful junker lens for a mount switch out but as lens quality goes it's only a so-so performer at best. At least it was on my *ist, but to be fair I haven't tried it on my K-x as yet and maybe I should, because I have a couple of lenses that I had basically categorized as mediocre that really surprised me once I stuck them on my K-x. This one Ricoh 135 I got a while back? I thought it was a total dud on the *ist but on my K-x it's been almost like having another lens entirely.

magkelly · 07-02-2011, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by LaurenOE

My worst lens...

Tamron AF XR LD [IF] 28-300 1:3.5-6.3 Macro

Why do I keep it? I'm too lazy to sell it and it is a benchmark of bad.

Really? Darn I was actually looking at one of those as an alternative to the 55-300. Is it really "that" bad?

adpo · 07-02-2011, 06:48 PM

my albinar adg 28mm f/2.8 macro, super soft until about f/8

got it for 10 bucks and im too damn lazy to sell it now.

**LaurenOE** · 07-02-2011, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by magkelly

Really? Darn I was actually looking at one of those as an alternative to the 55-300. Is it really "that" bad?

The build quality is there and it's a nice lens per se, but I can't seem to get good results from it. Tuesday I should have my DA55-300 in my hands. Maybe I should sell it in the marketplace?

AOShep · 07-02-2011, 07:15 PM

My worst is the F 35-80 f/4-5.6
It was a kit lens with my wife's P30t which she rarely used. It is a nice light weight lens and focuses quick. But it is just toooo slow (f/ stops) and not quite wide enough for my needs.
On the other hand, my least used lens is the Takumar 135mm f/2.5
It is rather redundant sense I got the DA* 50-135.

**Digitalis** · 07-02-2011, 07:18 PM

I'll pick a lens from my current top shelf( I keep a selection of lenses on my top shelf above my computer) - I have wayy too many lenses that I don't like, especially amongst the 178 50mm lenses I own.

my most hated 50mm lens from pentax:

Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 - why do you ask? it has only five aperture blades, Plastic is the dominant material in it's construction and it is softer in the corners at f/4 than my SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2

Why do I keep it? because it is much smaller than my SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2

jimr-pdx · 07-02-2011, 07:21 PM

I'd have to say the Chinon 28mm f/2.8 hasn't impressed me. I suspect it isn't awful but it doesn't work the way I use it, sure doesn't seem prime-like in IQ. A distant second is my Rikenon 50mm f/2 -- not that it's bad ordinarily, but the flare with most older lenses is awful. As long as I watch what (and how) I'm shooting it's really quite nice. I've a few low-grade zooms but since I don't use them and I'm trying to sell, I don't count them.

ps - I had the Tam 28-200 and found my copy to be unuseable after 120mm or so. I chose it over a Di 70-300, regret that decision even now..

**Just1MoreDave** · 07-02-2011, 07:42 PM

I have a 135/2.8 that's pretty bad. The lens has a brand on it but the letters are either not the English alphabet, or so stylized they're unreadable. The second word looks like Sicor and that works in Google. The lens is small for a 135/2.8, looks pretty typical otherwise, good build quality, M42 mount with M/A switch. What's bad is corner sharpness. Even on APS-C the corners are squishy-soft at f8.

I still have it because I don't see any redeeming qualities to mention in a listing. I'll probably give it away for shipping costs or include it in a flat-rate box.

**GregK8** · 07-02-2011, 09:49 PM

Mine is an old Sigma 135mm manual focus. It's contrast is really not good and it is a bit soft. The reason I keep it is that it makes a great paperweight. I'm being serious about that. When people come into my office, they see it and we usually start a conversation about photography.

timo · 07-02-2011, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by AOShep

My worst is the F 35-80 f/4-5.6
It was a kit lens with my wife's P30t which she rarely used. It is a nice light weight lens and focuses quick. But it is just toooo slow (f/ stops) and not quite wide enough for my needs.
On the other hand, my least used lens is the Takumar 135mm f/2.5
It is rather redundant sense I got the DA* 50-135.

That may be my worst lens too. Just after getting my *istD all those years ago I wanted a longer zoom to complement the FAJ 18-35 that went with the the camera in those early days. Big mistake. Pretty awful IQ and build quality off the scale (at the wrong end) - a bit has fallen off the front. Why have I still got it? Inertia.

Correction. On second thoughts my really worst lens is the cheapo Sigma 18-50 that was widely popular at one time. That's still sitting around somewhere. It gives the term 'centering defect' new meaning. The 55-200 that often went with it was much better.

**Ash** · 07-02-2011, 10:24 PM

Sigma 18-50 f/3.5-5.6
Only ever got decent results with it in the most optimum of lighting conditions.
But that's for AF.
MF, I'm not sure - the Hanimex Auto 28-80 "macro" has got to be up there amongst the worst. It wasn't even sharp at f/8.

taurus9 · 07-02-2011, 10:47 PM

Does it have to be Pentax K mount lens?

If not, then here's my candidate;
the Canon 17-85mm USM IS lens mounted on a Canon Xti.

Fast silent AF, great zoom range, relatively portable/lightweight, very effective Image Stabilization

Optically it trails behind the other K mount lenses I own such as the Tamron 17-50mm. Vignetting distortion, and poor corners really dog this lens in the 17-28mm range. Also, the build quality is just cheap plastic zoom. The Tamron is better and it's a third party lens maker. Would I buy it again? No. But it stays in the bag though because of all the pros and I have produced some memorable pics from it.

Which goes to show, sometimes, that IQ is not everything...

07-02-2011, 06:01 PM	#1
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	What is your worst lens? Actually it's a double question: WHAT is your worst lens, and WHY do you keep it? Broken lenses don't count. Lenses filled with fungi, tapeworms, sawdust, also don't count. Neither do lenses that are inappropriate for your camera, like those 8mm cine projector lenses I can't use on my K20D. No, your candidate must be something that was made for your camera, just not made very well. It might be a dog that you bought new, or a used one where you found too late why the seller was glad to be rid of it. I'll throw in another condition: You must still possess it. I can't list many lenses as among my worst because I've already sold or exploded them. No, I want to know WHAT dog you still own, and WHY. That's all. I'll start with my candidate. WHAT: Pentax SMC-A 35-80/4-5.6 zoom. Plastic lens, sloppy build, lousy optics, etc. WHY KEEP IT: Because reversed, it's a decent macro lens. And it's not worth selling!

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

07-02-2011, 06:39 PM	#2
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	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

07-02-2011, 06:44 PM - 1 Like	#3
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	My worst lens... Tamron AF XR LD [IF] 28-300 1:3.5-6.3 Macro Why do I keep it? I'm too lazy to sell it and it is a benchmark of bad.

07-02-2011, 06:44 PM	#4
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	Haminex 35-75mm, M42. It has a really nice case and it might make a useful junker lens for a mount switch out but as lens quality goes it's only a so-so performer at best. At least it was on my ist, but to be fair I haven't tried it on my K-x as yet and maybe I should, because I have a couple of lenses that I had basically categorized as mediocre that really surprised me once I stuck them on my K-x. This one Ricoh 135 I got a while back? I thought it was a total dud on the ist but on my K-x it's been almost like having another lens entirely.

07-02-2011, 06:45 PM	#5
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	Originally posted by LaurenOE My worst lens... Tamron AF XR LD [IF] 28-300 1:3.5-6.3 Macro Why do I keep it? I'm too lazy to sell it and it is a benchmark of bad. Really? Darn I was actually looking at one of those as an alternative to the 55-300. Is it really "that" bad?

07-02-2011, 06:48 PM	#6
adpo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 888	my albinar adg 28mm f/2.8 macro, super soft until about f/8 got it for 10 bucks and im too damn lazy to sell it now.

07-02-2011, 07:11 PM	#7
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	Originally posted by magkelly Really? Darn I was actually looking at one of those as an alternative to the 55-300. Is it really "that" bad? The build quality is there and it's a nice lens per se, but I can't seem to get good results from it. Tuesday I should have my DA55-300 in my hands. Maybe I should sell it in the marketplace?

07-02-2011, 07:15 PM	#8
AOShep Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Eastern PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 293	My worst is the F 35-80 f/4-5.6 It was a kit lens with my wife's P30t which she rarely used. It is a nice light weight lens and focuses quick. But it is just toooo slow (f/ stops) and not quite wide enough for my needs. On the other hand, my least used lens is the Takumar 135mm f/2.5 It is rather redundant sense I got the DA* 50-135.

07-02-2011, 07:18 PM	#9
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	I'll pick a lens from my current top shelf( I keep a selection of lenses on my top shelf above my computer) - I have wayy too many lenses that I don't like, especially amongst the 178 50mm lenses I own. my most hated 50mm lens from pentax: Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 - why do you ask? it has only five aperture blades, Plastic is the dominant material in it's construction and it is softer in the corners at f/4 than my SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2 Why do I keep it? because it is much smaller than my SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2

07-02-2011, 07:21 PM	#10
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	I'd have to say the Chinon 28mm f/2.8 hasn't impressed me. I suspect it isn't awful but it doesn't work the way I use it, sure doesn't seem prime-like in IQ. A distant second is my Rikenon 50mm f/2 -- not that it's bad ordinarily, but the flare with most older lenses is awful. As long as I watch what (and how) I'm shooting it's really quite nice. I've a few low-grade zooms but since I don't use them and I'm trying to sell, I don't count them. ps - I had the Tam 28-200 and found my copy to be unuseable after 120mm or so. I chose it over a Di 70-300, regret that decision even now..

07-02-2011, 07:42 PM	#11
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	I have a 135/2.8 that's pretty bad. The lens has a brand on it but the letters are either not the English alphabet, or so stylized they're unreadable. The second word looks like Sicor and that works in Google. The lens is small for a 135/2.8, looks pretty typical otherwise, good build quality, M42 mount with M/A switch. What's bad is corner sharpness. Even on APS-C the corners are squishy-soft at f8. I still have it because I don't see any redeeming qualities to mention in a listing. I'll probably give it away for shipping costs or include it in a flat-rate box.

07-02-2011, 09:49 PM	#12
GregK8 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Western New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 614	Mine is an old Sigma 135mm manual focus. It's contrast is really not good and it is a bit soft. The reason I keep it is that it makes a great paperweight. I'm being serious about that. When people come into my office, they see it and we usually start a conversation about photography.

07-02-2011, 10:11 PM	#13
timo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: former Arsenal football stadium Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	Originally posted by AOShep My worst is the F 35-80 f/4-5.6 It was a kit lens with my wife's P30t which she rarely used. It is a nice light weight lens and focuses quick. But it is just toooo slow (f/ stops) and not quite wide enough for my needs. On the other hand, my least used lens is the Takumar 135mm f/2.5 It is rather redundant sense I got the DA* 50-135. That may be my worst lens too. Just after getting my *istD all those years ago I wanted a longer zoom to complement the FAJ 18-35 that went with the the camera in those early days. Big mistake. Pretty awful IQ and build quality off the scale (at the wrong end) - a bit has fallen off the front. Why have I still got it? Inertia. Correction. On second thoughts my really worst lens is the cheapo Sigma 18-50 that was widely popular at one time. That's still sitting around somewhere. It gives the term 'centering defect' new meaning. The 55-200 that often went with it was much better.

07-02-2011, 10:24 PM	#14
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Sigma 18-50 f/3.5-5.6 Only ever got decent results with it in the most optimum of lighting conditions. But that's for AF. MF, I'm not sure - the Hanimex Auto 28-80 "macro" has got to be up there amongst the worst. It wasn't even sharp at f/8.

07-02-2011, 10:47 PM	#15
taurus9 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 120	Does it have to be Pentax K mount lens? If not, then here's my candidate; the Canon 17-85mm USM IS lens mounted on a Canon Xti. Fast silent AF, great zoom range, relatively portable/lightweight, very effective Image Stabilization Optically it trails behind the other K mount lenses I own such as the Tamron 17-50mm. Vignetting distortion, and poor corners really dog this lens in the 17-28mm range. Also, the build quality is just cheap plastic zoom. The Tamron is better and it's a third party lens maker. Would I buy it again? No. But it stays in the bag though because of all the pros and I have produced some memorable pics from it. Which goes to show, sometimes, that IQ is not everything...