Reading mode: Light Dark

What is your worst lens purchase and why?

Go to last post
I, honestly can't think of a single one; including a number of lenses, I have given to relatives for their use. The lenses, I currently have for myself are listed in my profile and here again, I consider them all as having been good/exceptional purchases, at the time I purchased them (and, all were purchased brand new, since the year 2005 when I got into digital photography as a "hobby)". ;)

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


Luke Koleosho said:
Mine would be a Canon 75-300, didn't like the IQ and the plastic feel of the lens. Recently sold it on Ebay.
Click to expand...
 
By far, on my first DSLR, second generation Canon Rebel. Bought at B&H while on a trip to NYC. I used it for no more than a week, pretty dark , not sharp at all, anywhere, colour is somehow muted. After a week, got my first L lens and never looked back.

That Tamron has been sitting in my cabinet , not touched , for quite few years now.
Rgds
 
Pentax 18-250mm. Not bad in terms of picture taking ability but the worst lens creep that I have ever dealt with bar none.
 
Like many I have gone out and bought a lens because; not because I needed that particular lens, I just wanted a new lens. Those lenses sat dormant, not really used for much as I never "needed" them in the first place. Now I only purchase a lens that I have a need for.

I just used a lens about 6 months ago that I bought in 1992, used it twice in all tht time; now I need it and use it, and love it.

The worst lens is an unused lens.

--
An excellent lens lasts a lifetime, an excellent DSLR, not so long.
 
Tokina 12-24. Not a bad lens at all but I've used it about three times in a couple of years because my 17-50 is usually wide enough for what I'm shooting.
 
I bought my first SLR back in 1977 ... and I bought it with a 50mm normal lens and a 80 ~ 200 zoom - the name escaoes me. The quality of that lens was attrocious. It took me almost 20 years to pick up the courage to buy another zoom lens. My second zoom lens was a Sigma 28 ~ 105 (or thereabouts) which I was happy with.

But along the way I piked up quite a number of primes so I am not so much into zooms

A.
 
Peter A. Stavrakoglou said:
Must be a bad copy you've got, mine performs quite well.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://ntotrr.smugmug.com

Click to expand...
You might be right but it's gone now. And if I tell you that electronics died 4 months after new (bought overseas, no AU warranty, beyond economical repair as quoted $350 to have it repaired), you can't really expect me to be happy at all.... and that is what this tread is all about. No other lens I owned EVER failed, last Nikon serviced was 1982 (F2 prism) - so it had to happen sometimes, had been lucky for quite a while.

cheers
 
scott karch said:
Really. I was thinking that would be an expensive but fun toy to have for air shows, outdoor events, out in the woods looking for deer and animals.

What was horrible about it? Can you compare it to something? I have seen really nice posts on Flickr from it.
SeeRoy said:
Sigma 150-500
'orrible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't really want to get into this can of worms too much. In the end some people are happy with it and some aren't. I'm in the latter category. IMO even when the images are stable and at sharp(ish) focal lengths they have a nasty tonality which I'm not sure I could quantify. I've seen it in other people's posted images as well as my own.

Not too bad if there's a lot of bright light and it's stopped down to even smaller apertures and the ss is high enough that you could have used a lens without stabilisation (with a bit of luck and a few rejects) or a tripod.

Posting images as evidence won't change my mind about it and I don't really care if I change anyone else's. I'm convinced that it's better to by a second hand 300mm F4 and later add a TC. Even a new one's not that much more.

Anyway, no contest, I really regret buying this one. There were enough negative reports that I wish I'd paid more attention to.
Roy
 
Ouch! Sorry to hear about this, it's unfortunate that you had to go through that. Both my 18-200mm DC OS (Sigma SA mount) and my 18-250mm DC OS (Canon mount) have performed very well for me, no complaints.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://ntotrr.smugmug.com

 
Was reviewing my last post when I remembered an imbarrissing experiance in New York back in the mid Nineties . I was shooting video with a Canon UC-X40 Hi E and went into a store on 5th Avenue to buy a cassette of Hi-8 . A very persausive sales Person with the charm of Smiegle from the Rings talked me into buying a "Titanium Infrared Series Super Wide Macro Lens 0.42x AF " that he assured me would shoot wide angle in the dark ! Okay , it did'nt , and I got suckered ! But what really hurt was when I got back to the UK the same lens was half the price !

Now have since learnt that it can be used on my DSLR if I buy the mount for it and that it will give very wide distorted results . I hav'nt bothered !
Now I feel like I've Mooned in the Co-oP window !
--
Roygbiv
 
Bought it 'cos I was desperate to get a lens to play with my recently acquired D30. Didn't have any lenses yet and it was cheap in a shop.

Lousy autofocus, lousy range, so-so image quality, so-so build quality. I also made a loss when I traded it in, and I made a profit on everything else I traded at the same time. Still have a couple of pictures I took with it though...



--
http://www.pbase.com/thecellartroll
 
Canon version of Sigma 50-150 f 2.8. I had the highest hopes for this lens. I knew that many people have had trouble with front-focusing with it, but I hoped to get a "good copy" or to have my lens recalibrated by Sigma. Two trips to Sigma repair centers and three copies of the lens later, I gave up. Too bad, because this is a superb lens when it works properly, and if you don't need image stabilization.

OTOH - for a while I had a Sigma 70-200 which was a wonderful lens in every respect.

I've bought several Canon lenses, and have never been disappointed with any of them. Some were not of "L" lens quality, but I knew that when I bought them and they performed much better than I expected, much better than most of the reviews indicated.

Bill
 
and fall prey to merchants

I've owned a DSLR for two weeks now, a Nikon D7000, and I just hate that whole "oh it would be better with different / more glass". But only one lens can be on at a time.

and I DO own good glass - but this whole thing is just a scam, and it clearly is not the future of photography
 
Sadly its the only long auto focusing image stabilised lens available for the excellent G1/G2, etc. range of M4/3 cameras.

It is not sharp, has poor bokeh with LoCA and also seems to have low contrast - possibly due to lack of definition.

Everyone keeps saying its a good lens for the money - whatever that means. It is not good for anything except fast focusing.

So now I use a manual focus lens with no stabilisation and get stunning results.
...I must sell the 45-200 panny soon.

Gosh I wish they would bring out a good quality long lens.

--
Adrian

http://www.t1000.co.uk/photography/gallery1/ (New Gallery)
http://www.t1000.co.uk/photography.htm
 
I bought all the accessories for this camera including the extra lenses
and they were a royal PIA to use so I rarely used them. Waste of money.

As for DSLR lenses, I never bought a lens I'd regret.

Wayne B.
Luke Koleosho said:
Mine would be a Canon 75-300, didn't like the IQ and the plastic feel of the lens. Recently sold it on Ebay.
Click to expand...
 
WBirch said:
I bought all the accessories for this camera including the extra lenses
and they were a royal PIA to use so I rarely used them. Waste of money.
Click to expand...
I had a 950, and bought the fisheye lens and the wide converter. I STILL use them both, especially the wide angle. I plan on converting the fish adapter for use with other lenses as well. Two of the best purchases I have ever made.

Like you, however, I never saw an advantage to the 2x or 3x tele lenses.

--
http://homepage.mac.com/cheilman1/
 
I was young, naive, had a credit card, and was hypnotized by the pretty sales girl. In my shooting on 'P' mode days, I was going to shoot my first wedding and asked the girl 'Do I need this lens? (Quantaray 70-300mm)' Stupid question. Spent a couple hundred dollars and it ended up being absolute rubbish. Fast forward 6 years, I tried to sell it at my garage sale for $20. There were no takers. Decided that no one should own this lens, so I threw it in the garbage can. A camera body cap with a hole drilled in it will take better pictures. Lesson learned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top