Worst lens u have ever used

Atsel · Mar 16, 2022

Just to compare

Good copy of Fujinon 18-55@wide end, 26 Mpix, -2EV exposure correction

Canon kit 18-55mm IS soft at left side, 18 Mpix

Images from Tamron are in previous post: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66010664

GossCTP · Mar 16, 2022

Bought a used Vivitar 135mm f/3.5 some years ago for $1 with $10 shipping. Everyone says they never made a bad 135mm lens. Well, that is a lie. This thing was hazy, unsharp at any aperture, and washed out if the sun wasn't behind you.

Halina123 · Mar 16, 2022

The standard 50mm Cosina lens that came with my used SLR, back in 1984.

Howard V · Mar 16, 2022

Auto Rikkenon 55mm f2.8 on my first SLR, a Ricoh Singlex TLS in 1969. $149. That would buy a handsome $1,000 mirrorless outfit in today’s dollars.

--
https://www.flickr.com/people/vrankin/

Cagey75 · Mar 16, 2022

BeatX said:
Hi

Im just curious... what is the worst lens You have ever experienced? (in any system, and why?)
Mine is without a doubt Tamron 17-50/2.8 introduced from early ''00
Everything about this lens is just soooo BAD (worst bokeh ever seen in my life)
This lens was so bad that after almost 20 years I just cannot even watch towards Tamron new releases to see whats up
I dont even where to start of off with my criticism.

I think it will be better to just stop here, and ask You if anyone experience something similar?

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 was the first 2.8 zoom I ever owned, for Nikon. I loved it, but then I knew sweet FA about quality at the time, learned later it wasn't so great after using some better lenses but at the time it did the job, good for an entry into faster zooms I'd say.

I don't think i ever had an 'atrocious' lens, I remember a few iffy ones, but could well have been bad copies more than bad lens overall. The earlier version of the sigma 70-200 2.8 for Nikon, for me at least, was bad, it had awful fringing and softness at 2.8, really needed to be stopped down. Then it was fine ... but I guess it was bad because I bought it to shoot wide open. Had a few old manual focus only lenses that were just not good, didn't age well, but can't reall count those in modern terms.

LDJS Photography · Mar 16, 2022

Threaded said:
LDJS Photography said:

Canon E-FS 18-55 iii

Click to expand...

That would be one of mine too. Not sure if it was the mkiii or not, but the plastic 18-55 lump that came with my first DLSR, a 500D, was pitiful. Slow, never remotely sharp, and the build quality was awful. I remember it had a silver metallic looking ring around it that turned out to be a thin string of silver tape, which subsequently came undone and fell off

The difference between that and Fuji’s 18-55 kit lens, which I picked up a few years later, cannot be overstated.

I too have the Fuji XF 18-55 F2.8-4 OIS

I like it a lot

The Canon 18-55 III - one day I got so fed up with how soft the photos were I threw it at a concrete floor in order to break it which I did. I didn't even want to sell it to anyone else I disliked it so much lol

michaeladawson · Mar 16, 2022

Without going back to the early 1980s, where I had a real ultimate dog of a zoom lens...

The worst lens I have ever used was the Tokina 24-200 (AT-X 242 AF) from the early 2000s. It was the first of its kind back then. And given what was available back then it may have been a half-way respectable lens. But compared to today's lenses, in hindsight it was a piece of trash.

007peter · Mar 16, 2022

BeatX said:
Mine is without a doubt Tamron 17-50/2.8 introduced from early ''00. Everything about this lens is just soooo BAD (worst bokeh ever seen in my life)

I can't say it's the worse lens I'd own, but it's definitely the most overhyped lens. I'd bought it full retail when I had my Canon 40d~50d dslr. My main complaint were:

Very Loud high-pitch AF motor. It sounded like scratching Blackboard with nails, or killing a chicken. My ears still bleeds from bad memories

Horrible bad Field Curvature @17mm F/2.8, entire corner sharpness is as soft as a water painting, only get remotely acceptable @f/5.6, achieve maximum corner sharpness at F/11.

Donut within Donut Bokeh. My Canon 17-55/2.8 produce nice cats eyes bokeh, my Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro has the best Round Bokeh. All Tamrons lens I'd own suffer from multiple circle within tiny circles bokeh. It's very distracting. Once you see it, you cannot unseen it. All Tamron suffer from this Bokeh problem

Yet my Canon 18-55mm Kit lens is way sharper in the corner and doesn't suffer from any Field Curvature wide open, AF is Fast / Quiet, and have lens image stabilization.

I bought it full retail in Asia (no return), it remain my worse lens purchases today.

Paul Hoppe · Mar 16, 2022

I had the first version that came with my 20D. Cheap, plasticky, quite some distortions.....but the only lens I could afford for a while and I took a bunch of nice pictures with it anyway

Halina123 · Mar 17, 2022

Halina123 said:
The standard 50mm Cosina lens that came with my used SLR, back in 1984.

I quickly replaced it with a brand new Kiron 28-70 zoom, which was better, and that's the only good thing I can say about it. It was better.

In other words I replaced a 1/10 lens with a 2/10 lens.

nitrokill · Mar 17, 2022

Yashica 500mm f8 , soft as a baby skin .

bs1946 · Mar 17, 2022

Roughly 50 years ago, I bought a Super Kalimar 24-70mm. That lens was so bad, I used it once, wasting a roll of film plus developing, and used it for the next 20 years as a door stop until I finally tossed it.

If we are talking about this century, then It would be a three-way tie between the Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35mm f1.4 MC Version 1, Viltrox 23mm f1.4, and the Viltrox 33mm f1.4.

Tom Schum · Mar 17, 2022

mkmorgan said:
BeatX said:

Hi

Im just curious... what is the worst lens You have ever experienced? (in any system, and why?)

Click to expand...

Kamlan 50mm F/1.1 Mk I. However, that's relative. I got a better-than-average copy and it does great for portraits and still life. It's not too bad on distortion and it doesn't have the common issues with fringing or vignetting. However, the coma is bad enough make this lens less than desirable for low-light shots (night sky shots don't show up as fields of stars but fields of cones). Because of this it's a lens that I use very infrequently.

I have both the Mark I and the Mark II versions. With the Mark II you can closely inspect the dental work of complete strangers on the street or read license plates a half mile away. The Bokeh is real good, too, but that Mark II is huge.

I kept the Mark I (actually I ordered it after I got the Mark II) because like you said it can make some good portraits. It is nice as a street prime because it is so small and light, but the 7artisans 55mm F1.4 Mark II x-mount is really spectacular, so I don't use the KamLan much anymore.

My first 7artisans lens was a 25mm F1.8. It could make nice sharp images but the focus helicoid was loose. Take your hand off it to make the shot, and the focus would drift out. Very frustrating! I gave it away.

My second 7artisans lens was a 50mm F1.8. It just didn't have much sharpness or contrast. I used the mounting flange on a project and that was a much better use than leaving it on this lens.

Why I went to them a third time for the 7artisans 55mm F1.4 Mark II I do not know, but this one has worked out like a champ!

I think 7artisans has stepped up their quality quite a bit lately and they are making some good lenses now.

BeatX · Mar 18, 2022

bs1946 said:
are talking about this century, then It would be a three-way tie between the Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35mm f1.4 MC Version 1, Viltrox 23mm f1.4, and the Viltrox 33mm f1.4.

Im curious... why You rent Viltrox 23/1.4 so low?
I mean this lens has its own flaws - no doubt about that, but is it rally worst lens You had in this "century" ?

Same goes for Viltrox 33/1.4 (?)
Not to mention that You own Tokina 33/1.4, which is basically exact same lens as Viltrox)

bs1946 · Mar 18, 2022

BeatX said:
bs1946 said:

are talking about this century, then It would be a three-way tie between the Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35mm f1.4 MC Version 1, Viltrox 23mm f1.4, and the Viltrox 33mm f1.4.

Click to expand...

Im curious... why You rent Viltrox 23/1.4 so low?
I mean this lens has its own flaws - no doubt about that, but is it rally worst lens You had in this "century" ?
Same goes for Viltrox 33/1.4 (?)

I shoot mostly landscapes and vintage colonial buildings and almost very photo I took had CA or vignetting, or both in the corners.

BeatX said:
Not to mention that You own Tokina 33/1.4, which is basically exact same lens as Viltrox

Supposedly both Viltrox and Tokina are getting these lenses from a third-party Chinese OEM and while at first glance, the Tokina ATX-m lenses and the Viltrox lenses look identical, there are differences. The most obvious difference is the Viltrox lenses have a microUSB port for firmware updates on the bottom of the lens mount, while there is a small metal plate covering the hole for the port on the Tokina lenses. However, the most important thing is Tokina licensed the mount interface and the lens firmware from Fuji, while Viltrox decided to do their own reverse engineering. So I do not see the same CA and Vignetting problems I saw on the Viltrox lenses.

I also got a new Tokina ATX-m 56mm f1.4 at the beginning of the week and except for the difference in the focal length, performance is the same as my Tokina ATX-M 33mm f1.4.

BeatX · Mar 18, 2022

Fair enough

My wife has Tokina 23/1.4, and decision to pick up Tokina instead of Viltrox, was to have in camera lens correction available for .jpg, so I understand Your point of view

tribpc · Mar 18, 2022

Old Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 and Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 for DSLR. I think old lenses from Sigma are not very good in build & image quality. They lack contrast, sharpness and got flare easily

deednets · Mar 18, 2022

BeatX said:
Hi

Im just curious... what is the worst lens You have ever experienced? (in any system, and why?)
Mine is without a doubt Tamron 17-50/2.8 introduced from early ''00
Everything about this lens is just soooo BAD (worst bokeh ever seen in my life)
This lens was so bad that after almost 20 years I just cannot even watch towards Tamron new releases to see whats up
I dont even where to start of off with my criticism.

I think it will be better to just stop here, and ask You if anyone experience something similar?

In my case I would have to qualify the "worst" into 2 categories:

A bad lens when it was to be expected
A lens where I had expected better.

In light of this, my "worst" lens was the Fuji 16/2.8. A cute and REALLY good looking lens, including the lens hood!

But after seein the results - of MY sample - I couldn't wait to sell this baby.

Deed

jrk · Mar 18, 2022

I never blame the lens, I figure it's probably me when a picture doesn't come out the way I would have liked it to.

bs1946 · Mar 18, 2022

Joachim Gerstl said:
Hi,

Not used, only tried out in my camera store. The fastest lens for Fuji X:

https://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=6231

f0,85/40mm, 1,1kg.

Ah, the infamous HandeVision iBelux 40mm f0.85, still sold as the Kipon iBelux 40mm f0.85, and the fastest lens period. It was actually originally designed for the Leica M system and cost close to $3000 when it came out, which is cheap for most Leica M shooters. If somebody buys an f0.85, they're not looking to shoot it a F8. I've seen several reviews that said the lens is almost impossible to focus wide open and forget about using it handheld.

Worst lens u have ever used

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts