[Lloydy]

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.

[GeneV]

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.

[midori]

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!

[WillWeaverRVA]

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.

[Julie]

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.

[midori]

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.

[opfor]

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..:-(

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.

[RioRico]

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.

[Just1MoreDave]

...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:

[Ikarus]

So's mine...

Outside in the street | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

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.

[RioRico]

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?

[Docrwm]

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.

[panoguy]

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.

[gofour3]

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.

[eddie1960]

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.

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