Your biggest disappointment lens of 2008

dugrant153 · 12-30-2008, 02:18 AM

I would've said my DA*16-50, but after learning how to manually focus it (and now with a Katz Eye, it's a whole lot easier) on my K100D, it's actually one of my most used and best lenses.

So the award of biggest disappointment lens of 2008 would have to go to my Sigma Macro (manual focus) 50mm F2.8 because it suddenly just died on me. The focus ring started to give this horrible screeching crunching noise... It is not in the retired lens bin, of which there is only one other.

No more Sigma for me.

a a i b · 12-30-2008, 11:14 AM

I'd say the DA*50-135. First copy didn't even focus. Exchanged for another that seems OK ... but I just don't love it. The persnickety hood has some tiny plastic bit that promptly broke. The zoom is smooth and the focus pleasingly silent, but I don't personally buy that this zoom replaces primes in its range. It's bulky and compared to primes I use awkward.

So a bit of a disappointment for me. I don't take it out of the drawer much. It was OK for a wedding, I guess.

newarts · 12-30-2008, 11:25 AM

I was given a Sigma 80~200mm 1:4 zoom. It is reputed to be the worst lens ever made. I haven't proved that yet but suspect it is true.

It seems to flare if any light at all enters it.

m8o · 12-30-2008, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by newarts

It seems to flare if any light at all enters it.

Mandating no light pass thru a lens should make it hard to take pictures with it unless you are using it for Infared only.

(I know I know, incident vs. direct... just having fun w/it)

hinman · 12-30-2008, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by nostatic

I know this is total heresy, but I'm somewhat lukewarm to the 31ltd that I just picked up. It just isn't a quantum leap up from my 35ltd, and the 35 is more flexible (doing close focus and having quick shift). While it is a very nice lens, it just doesn't pop *for me* like my 77ltd does. It also has from front focus issues. It may just be what and the way I shoot.

I'm actually pondering sending it back and instead going with a Zeiss 25/2.8 to get a little wider.

I share the same feeling. You may feel better to hear my stories. I get more wow when I take pictures with the 77mm limited than the 31mm. Maybe my style of photos. Please don't get me wrong, I think the 31mm is the best in its focal range, but it just falls short in justifying its cost. I sold it after a month of ownership.

I feel pressured in having the most expensive lens for street shooter. I feel it not justified in my bag. I contemplate in choosing one of the two lens to go -- the 31mm f/1.8 limited and the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8. I almost sold both but kept the DA* 50-135mm as I find it harder to replace the DA* zoom than the 31mm limited.

If you have the 35mm limited, you may even find it harder to justify both. But I will suggest you to take it for some low light shooting as I do find the prime picking up details way better in the shadow than others, and the color and bokeh are outstanding like the 77mm limited.

newarts · 12-30-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Mandating no light pass thru a lens should make it hard to take pictures with it unless you are using it for Infared only. (I know I know, incident vs. direct... just having fun w/it)

That's what I meant; it even flares with direct light I think!

I've got to do some testing to be sure. I'll probably be disappointed if it isn't as bad as reputed, because that'll be one more nail in the coffin of believing what I read on-line.

Dave

Alfisti · 12-30-2008, 11:51 AM

I had 4 purchases, the 12-24, 77, 35/2 and the 18-250. As crazy as it sounds the 77 is probably the dissapointment, the first day I got the lens I took half a dozen stunners and I just cannot seem to do anything right with it now.

It has a tendency to back focus, it needs to be almost undserexposed when shot wide open or images seem to be almost too bright but the real killers are horrendous cyan fringing in OOF areas and atrocious AF.

The 12-24 and 35/2 are just aboslute screamers.

stevebrot · 12-30-2008, 12:02 PM

Two disappointments:

1) My first copy of the Zenitar 16/2.8. It had defective focus, aperture, and aperture couplings. When I mounted it on my Ricoh XR7, it caused irreparable damage to the camera body

The replacement Zenitar was fine, but I was really fond of the Ricoh. (I was able to get a replacement body on eBay, but it is still not the same.)

2) Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4. I paid a premium price on eBay for what appeared to be a pristine copy. The first bunch of photos were disappointingly soft however. I gave the lens a good look-over with oblique light and found fungus. The seller graciously refunded my money and I took the LBA pledge the next day.

Steve

borno · 12-30-2008, 01:07 PM

My dissapointment was selling my tamron 300 f2.8 because I wasn't using it much since I got the da* 300mm f4 but it was nice to have for a backup or in case I got a different mount body (not likely) I am trying to save for a nice long AF lens like the sigma 500mm maybe that would cure the empty feeling

Blue · 12-30-2008, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by pentkon52

60-250 F4

Dave

Ding Ding Ding

Edit: Followed by the DA* 200mm f3.5 Macro.

**xs400** · 12-30-2008, 02:41 PM

Rexatar 55mm f/1.7. I bought this M42 lens at a thrift shop for $8. I have never gotten a sharp picture from this lens, both on my K100D and when used on a Spotmatic. The colors are also always off. I would say the Rexatar 55mm performs almost as poorly as a Holga (but since I've never actually used a Holga, this is only a guess). But for $8, I shouldn't be too upset.

Mechan1k · 12-30-2008, 03:02 PM

I'd have to say the Super Takumar 200mm f/4 ... it's colour and contrast aren't as good as I was expecting ... although i can't complain ... I didn't paid too much for it.

It still produces sharp images .... but I was hoping for a bit better in the colour/contrast department (when comparing to my other lenses)

**G_Money** · 12-30-2008, 03:11 PM

Phew, Mechan1k, I thought for a minute you might say it was the Zenitar I sold you!! lmao

jsherman999 · 12-30-2008, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Mechan1k

I'd have to say the Super Takumar 200mm f/4 ... it's colour and contrast aren't as good as I was expecting ... although i can't complain ... I didn't paid too much for it.

It still produces sharp images .... but I was hoping for a bit better in the colour/contrast department (when comparing to my other lenses)

Simon, is that the Super Tak or S-M-C Tak 200 f/4? I found the S-M-C Tak to have
pretty good color/contrast.

...

Maybe you got a bad copy, are there any problems or fungus on the elements?

.

Mechan1k · 12-30-2008, 04:02 PM

I just have the plain old garden variety Super Tak ... although I keep trying to compare it to the 105, 135 and the 85 though ... which i really shouldn't do ... as nothing can really match those.

12-30-2008, 11:46 AM	#50
hinman Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fremont, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,473	Originally posted by nostatic I know this is total heresy, but I'm somewhat lukewarm to the 31ltd that I just picked up. It just isn't a quantum leap up from my 35ltd, and the 35 is more flexible (doing close focus and having quick shift). While it is a very nice lens, it just doesn't pop for me like my 77ltd does. It also has from front focus issues. It may just be what and the way I shoot. I'm actually pondering sending it back and instead going with a Zeiss 25/2.8 to get a little wider. I share the same feeling. You may feel better to hear my stories. I get more wow when I take pictures with the 77mm limited than the 31mm. Maybe my style of photos. Please don't get me wrong, I think the 31mm is the best in its focal range, but it just falls short in justifying its cost. I sold it after a month of ownership. I feel pressured in having the most expensive lens for street shooter. I feel it not justified in my bag. I contemplate in choosing one of the two lens to go -- the 31mm f/1.8 limited and the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8. I almost sold both but kept the DA* 50-135mm as I find it harder to replace the DA* zoom than the 31mm limited. If you have the 35mm limited, you may even find it harder to justify both. But I will suggest you to take it for some low light shooting as I do find the prime picking up details way better in the shadow than others, and the color and bokeh are outstanding like the 77mm limited. Last edited by hinman; 12-30-2008 at 11:58 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Your biggest lens surprise	Erik	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	05-17-2009 11:24 AM
Disappointment with award wining lens. Is it me?	veezchick	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	42	05-01-2009 09:24 AM
Your biggest surprise lens of 2008	TKH	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	02-23-2009 08:04 PM
Disappointment...	Buddha Jones	Photographic Technique	44	01-18-2009 08:46 AM
Disappointment	bluespearbone	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	18	03-03-2008 10:50 PM

12-30-2008, 02:18 AM	#46
dugrant153 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,059	I would've said my DA*16-50, but after learning how to manually focus it (and now with a Katz Eye, it's a whole lot easier) on my K100D, it's actually one of my most used and best lenses. So the award of biggest disappointment lens of 2008 would have to go to my Sigma Macro (manual focus) 50mm F2.8 because it suddenly just died on me. The focus ring started to give this horrible screeching crunching noise... It is not in the retired lens bin, of which there is only one other. No more Sigma for me.

12-30-2008, 11:14 AM	#47
a a i b Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brooklyn Photos: Gallery Posts: 315	I'd say the DA*50-135. First copy didn't even focus. Exchanged for another that seems OK ... but I just don't love it. The persnickety hood has some tiny plastic bit that promptly broke. The zoom is smooth and the focus pleasingly silent, but I don't personally buy that this zoom replaces primes in its range. It's bulky and compared to primes I use awkward. So a bit of a disappointment for me. I don't take it out of the drawer much. It was OK for a wedding, I guess.

12-30-2008, 11:25 AM	#48
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	I was given a Sigma 80~200mm 1:4 zoom. It is reputed to be the worst lens ever made. I haven't proved that yet but suspect it is true. It seems to flare if any light at all enters it.

12-30-2008, 11:41 AM	#49
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by newarts It seems to flare if any light at all enters it. Mandating no light pass thru a lens should make it hard to take pictures with it unless you are using it for Infared only. (I know I know, incident vs. direct... just having fun w/it)

12-30-2008, 11:48 AM	#51
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Quote: Mandating no light pass thru a lens should make it hard to take pictures with it unless you are using it for Infared only. (I know I know, incident vs. direct... just having fun w/it) That's what I meant; it even flares with direct light I think! I've got to do some testing to be sure. I'll probably be disappointed if it isn't as bad as reputed, because that'll be one more nail in the coffin of believing what I read on-line. Dave

12-30-2008, 11:51 AM	#52
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	I had 4 purchases, the 12-24, 77, 35/2 and the 18-250. As crazy as it sounds the 77 is probably the dissapointment, the first day I got the lens I took half a dozen stunners and I just cannot seem to do anything right with it now. It has a tendency to back focus, it needs to be almost undserexposed when shot wide open or images seem to be almost too bright but the real killers are horrendous cyan fringing in OOF areas and atrocious AF. The 12-24 and 35/2 are just aboslute screamers.

12-30-2008, 12:02 PM	#53
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Two disappointments: 1) My first copy of the Zenitar 16/2.8. It had defective focus, aperture, and aperture couplings. When I mounted it on my Ricoh XR7, it caused irreparable damage to the camera body The replacement Zenitar was fine, but I was really fond of the Ricoh. (I was able to get a replacement body on eBay, but it is still not the same.) 2) Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4. I paid a premium price on eBay for what appeared to be a pristine copy. The first bunch of photos were disappointingly soft however. I gave the lens a good look-over with oblique light and found fungus. The seller graciously refunded my money and I took the LBA pledge the next day. Steve

12-30-2008, 01:07 PM	#54
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	My dissapointment was selling my tamron 300 f2.8 because I wasn't using it much since I got the da* 300mm f4 but it was nice to have for a backup or in case I got a different mount body (not likely) I am trying to save for a nice long AF lens like the sigma 500mm maybe that would cure the empty feeling

12-30-2008, 02:30 PM	#55
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by pentkon52 60-250 F4 Dave Ding Ding Ding Edit: Followed by the DA* 200mm f3.5 Macro.

12-30-2008, 02:41 PM	#56
xs400 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,929	Rexatar 55mm f/1.7. I bought this M42 lens at a thrift shop for $8. I have never gotten a sharp picture from this lens, both on my K100D and when used on a Spotmatic. The colors are also always off. I would say the Rexatar 55mm performs almost as poorly as a Holga (but since I've never actually used a Holga, this is only a guess). But for $8, I shouldn't be too upset.

12-30-2008, 03:02 PM	#57
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	I'd have to say the Super Takumar 200mm f/4 ... it's colour and contrast aren't as good as I was expecting ... although i can't complain ... I didn't paid too much for it. It still produces sharp images .... but I was hoping for a bit better in the colour/contrast department (when comparing to my other lenses)

12-30-2008, 03:11 PM	#58
G_Money Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 598	Phew, Mechan1k, I thought for a minute you might say it was the Zenitar I sold you!! lmao

12-30-2008, 03:36 PM	#59
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Mechan1k I'd have to say the Super Takumar 200mm f/4 ... it's colour and contrast aren't as good as I was expecting ... although i can't complain ... I didn't paid too much for it. It still produces sharp images .... but I was hoping for a bit better in the colour/contrast department (when comparing to my other lenses) Simon, is that the Super Tak or S-M-C Tak 200 f/4? I found the S-M-C Tak to have pretty good color/contrast. ... Maybe you got a bad copy, are there any problems or fungus on the elements? .

12-30-2008, 04:02 PM	#60
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	I just have the plain old garden variety Super Tak ... although I keep trying to compare it to the 105, 135 and the 85 though ... which i really shouldn't do ... as nothing can really match those.