Your "worst ever" lens

[bfitzgerald]

I will sit this one out for a while I think!

It can be for any reason, not purely on sharpness, distortion, CA..any reason, even not as good as expected aka bang per buck.

So fire away!

[01af]

My 'worst-ever' lens was an cheap RMC Tokina SL 24 mm 1:2.8 lens for Minolta SR mount. I spoilt one of my nicest shots with it 25 years ago; it had severe centering problems. I sold it at a loss and bought a used MD W.Rokkor 20 mm 1:2.8 lens instead which costs four times as much; I still have it today. That Tokina lens tought me to avoid 3rd-party lenses and to buy Minolta lenses instead.

Today, I own exactly one lens for Alpha mount which is not Minolta, Konica-Minolta, or Sony: it's the Sigma AF 12-24 mm 1:4.5-5.6 EX DG (which I bought used at a good price). The reason why I have that is obvious---Minolta or Sony simply don't make a 122° super-wide. I use it rarely.

By the way, currently my best lens ('best' not so much in terms of optical performance---it's a great telephoto zoom but some primes are better still---but in terms of usefulness, fitness for the job for my kind of shooting, versatility, and frequency of actual use) is the Sony SAL 70-400 G SSM.

-- Olaf

[David Kilpatrick]

A Photax Paragon 28mm f2.8 screw thread lens around 1970. Must have been one of the worst examples ever made.

David

[PhotoTraveler]

Minolta Master Lens. It just isn't usable.

The min focus distance of 2m is limiting, but the max focus distance of 2m is even more limiting.

The F1.7 aperture is nice and bright, but since its min aperture is also it's F1.7, getting the DOF I want is difficult, and can be a challenge on bright days.

I don't mind the lack of AutoFocus, but lack of manual focus really ups the challenge.

I also wish it had filter threads.

On the plus side, its all metal and glass. Also the lack of any moving parts helps make it a very solid lens. If I had some bellows, it could be more interesting for some close up work.

[KevinBarrett]

Now I'm very curious but cannot find anything about a "Minolta Master Lens," please tell us more about it! My worst ever lens is the kit lens, the 18-70, oh well, limited experience with the system. However, I did try out a Sony 70-200/2.8 in a store the other day that that was softer at f/5.6 than my beercan at f/4. That, realizing that Sony's only demo "G" lens in the whole metropolitan area is horribly off, was my worst lens experience.

[pakodominguez]

Worst: a cheapo Minolta 35-80 (like this one http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=41) - it didn't even resolve the 7D's 6MP...
Unexpected bad: Minolta 20mm 2.8 -I expect much more from this one. I bought it really cheap and sold it for almost twuice the price I paid for.
Dissapointing: 28-135 -I don't understand all the noise people make about this lens. It was probably good at the time it came out, but not for today's standards. I put it on eBay the same week I got it and got my money back.

[bfitzgerald]

That 35-80mm with the built in lens cover was never a liked lens, even with film users at the time.
I tried a few 28-80's II version, and they were rather poor as well, nowhere near as good at the D one, maybe I tried ropey copies, not that the D is astonishing, but it's reasonably decent.

The Tokina 24-200mm was not as good as I expected, not really "bad" on APS..passable, but on 35mm it really showed up the floors. Even at f13 24mm, it never really gets there for sharpness..and the corners are just plain bad below that. Tele end has wicked distortion (pincushion) coupled with some bad CA (not sensor bloom, as I ist expected) Sharpness again, it needs to be stopped down at all focal lengths. Serious vignetting also an issue on FF. Shame as the metal body inspires a bit, very nice build, heavy though. Maybe ok for a budget APS shooter, but 35mm users should stay well away.

Maybe my impressions were not helped, I was shooting the 28-85mm with it, and it just blew the Tokina apart in it's focal length. The Minolta lens has a very nice contrast, the Tokina is one of the lowest contrast lenses I have used. Saying that, even the 75-300mm D murders it on film..in it's range.

[PhotoTraveler]

It's a lens used by Minolta for servicing cameras. It's not clear the exact function of the one I have. But it is a Genuine Minolta A mount lens, has a ROM and all.

I need to try again at getting it in the dyxum lens database, but I always get errors when I try (this is a good reminder to do this). Then if one shows up on ebay again some folks will know what it is. I bought mine blindly not knowing what it was, but that it was something special.

Now I'm very curious but cannot find anything about a "Minolta Master Lens," please tell us more about it! My worst ever lens is the kit lens, the 18-70, oh well, limited experience with the system. However, I did try out a Sony 70-200/2.8 in a store the other day that that was softer at f/5.6 than my beercan at f/4. That, realizing that Sony's only demo "G" lens in the whole metropolitan area is horribly off, was my worst lens experience.

[UrsaMajor]

Disappointing: 28-135 -I don't understand all the noise people make about this lens. It was probably good at the time it came out, but not for today's standards. I put it on eBay the same week I got it and got my money back.

I wonder if you had a bad example of this lens. I have read that the 28-135mm is somewhat more vulnerable to handling damage than most Minolta lenses, and perhaps that affected the copy you had.

Just before the introduction of the KM 7D, when the prices of Minolta lenses were way down, I bought a copy of the 28-135mm for use with my film Maxxums, based pon its reputation. I loved it so much that I then bought two spare copies of the 28-135mm as insurance. (I paid about $70 each at that time - he he he. )

I like the 28-135mm on both my 7D and my A700, and I gave one of my spares to my son-in-law when I gave him an A100 for his birthday - along with a 70-210mm f:4 (beercan) and a 50mm f:1.7. It is my son-in-law's favorite lens, and the one he has on his camera far more than any other lens. It has a few weaknesses - such as a tendency to flare when shooting toward light - but as long as you work around those limitations the lens just seems to produce images that have a special quality.

I freely admit that the opinions of both myself and my son-in-law regarding lenses are based upon subjective opinion about the appearance of the images they produce. Neither of us attempts to make scientific comparisons of resolution, distortion, or anything else. We just go with the "feel" of the images produced and how the lens seems to "handle" in service. FWIW (in no particular order), my other favorite lenses - all Minolta - are the 135mm f:2.8, the 50mm f:1.7, the 70-210mm f:4.0, and the 28-75mm f:2.8 (a relatively recent NOS purchase).

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[alphaPDX]

No really poor lenses, thank goodness. My worst choice however is easy: I put down the Tamron Di 70-300 and spent $100 or $150 more on their 28-200. That lens was decently sharp up to 135mm but was soft above that unless stopped well down - and stopped down that much, image shake took care of the rest. Pretty bad fringing wide open, too. Hey, maybe this was a lousy lens!

My lineup has been shuffled a lot since that choice was made, but I cannot blame all that on this one lens.. tempting, though!

[stevecim]

the Tamron Di 70-300 is one of my best lenses. says a lot for my kit

[TomB]

Sigma 100-300 mm 1:4.5-6.7 DL

I borrowed this lens from my friend who used it with a film Minolta camera (I don't know the model). This lens is impossible to focus on anything with my A350. It has nothing to do with FF or BF. The camera signals focus but on the picture there is nothing sharp at all. Crop from Sony 16-105 is much better than Sigma at 300 mm, not speaking of the joint range 100-105 mm. Maybe the A350's chip creates reflections...