How many really bad lenses are there?

Roger Hicks said:
True enough. But there are a few disasters, such as the 43-86 Nikkor and the lens described by Redisburning. Or my Yashinon. What puzzles me is when people start agonizing over the differences between two very similar, very good lenses (different 50 Summicrons, for example).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

the height of any pursuit exists in the minute subtleties that separate one work/tool/consumable from another.

that is not the same as saying that you will find that in an internet discussion on said items. if you want a high end wine experience you can drink two different years of the same wine; same strain of grapes but you get slight differences in taste due to the weather, the iron content of the soil that year or things like that. asking someone about it doesnt really do you much good other than to prejudice your experience.

people with the financial means don't worry about such things. but not many people can afford to simultaneously purchase 4 Leica lenses, 2 Zeisses and a Konica to test side-by-side in a controlled way. such people are reliant on others to figure out which works better to their taste.

IME I have had little success doing so and have been better off when I just bought something on a whim 😀
 
There are probably some really bad lenses out there. I think a bad lens would have more than one of these "defects" in noticeable amounts: Chromatic aberration, linear distortion, vignetting, jangly bokeh, element decentering, focus shift, field curvature, poor corner resolution... But perhaps a "perfect" lens would have a "sterile" look? Maybe that's ok, and let the oohs and ahhs come from the subject treatment.

I don't quite get that a lens has a Summicron look, or a typical Sonnar character... and when I don't see that am I just being insensitive?

Same with wines, actually... the hints of plum and sage with a smooth finish leaves me wondering if I'm missing something (probably!), or whether two experts would agree with each other's comments!

There are certain lenses that just seem to sparkle for me; something they do with the light I guess... for instance the C Sonnar ZM and the 75mm f/2.8 SMC Pentax-67 AL.
 
redisburning said:
the height of any pursuit exists in the minute subtleties that separate one work/tool/consumable from another.

that is not the same as saying that you will find that in an internet discussion on said items. if you want a high end wine experience you can drink two different years of the same wine; same strain of grapes but you get slight differences in taste due to the weather, the iron content of the soil that year or things like that. asking someone about it doesnt really do you much good other than to prejudice your experience.

people with the financial means don't worry about such things. but not many people can afford to simultaneously purchase 4 Leica lenses, 2 Zeisses and a Konica to test side-by-side in a controlled way. such people are reliant on others to figure out which works better to their taste.

IME I have had little success doing so and have been better off when I just bought something on a whim 😀
Click to expand...

The highlighted sentence is very close to my own viewpoint. But I'd dispute the conflation of work/tool/consumable. Agonizing about whether Version II or Version III of a lens is better is meaningless unless one version makes a significant (or even detectable) difference to the pictures taken by its user - cats and coffee cups being the classic example.

Cheers,

R.
 
A different twist on this: We all have experienced lenses that we really didn't like. These we put in the back of the cabinet, never used again, and perhaps sold. Some of these were bad, perhaps a bad design, perhaps a bad example, or one that got broken. Some of these just got a bad rap. (When I feel this way about a lens, I try to set up a side-by-side test of some kind.)

In my case, a 55-200 G VR Nikkor produced bad images. It was actually bad. I bought another that gives me great images.
 
I have two m-mount 2.8 summarons, both in prefect condition one is mediocre at best, the other is the best 35 I have for monochrome

... but having said that I'm confident I would be the only person who could see the difference in a print, and anyway the quality of the light and the processing of the film is 95% of the quality of the neg anyway.

I would much rather use a bad lens in good light than the reverse, I know which would produce the better photo
 
I think each lens has it's own limitations and we need to be aware of that. For example I love using my Helios 58 f/2 from my zenit in cloudy days but on a sunny day with a lot of contrast, it is a horrible horrible lens, it's when my Takumar gets most of it's use....
 
If you say "bad" in absolute terms, you have to specify the metric(s). Impossible to say that there are lenses that are bad for everybody and everybody's purpose. Somebody's metrics for "good" might be the opposite of what somebody else is looking for.

However, there sure are lenses that I don't like. For example, the Canon 50/1.2 you mentioned, the Leica 35/1.4 pre-asph, or 35/2 v4, and any ZM lens. Why ? The Canon and Summilux because of their wide-open rendering, the v4 and ZM lenses for their price vs. build quality (I would feel ripped off buying one).

In any case, the longer I use RFs, the more I care about a lens' build, handling, filter size, etc. Most well built lenses are "good" for my metrics.

A mini-van might be a good car. However, I will never buy one.

And what's wrong with people discussing what they like or don't, anyways ?

Roland.
 
a bad lens is one that's use is superseded in all manners by an economically realistic alternative.

the Kalimar I mentioned is a good example. if my goal was to make a distinctly unsharp image, I could simply pull the focus on a good zoom a bit towards myself and get the plane of best focus off of the subject to get the same effect. it's build quality, handling, etc. are also clearly inferior to many, many lenses I could buy for the same price.
 
Roger Hicks said:
True enough. But there are a few disasters, such as the 43-86 Nikkor and the lens described by Redisburning. Or my Yashinon. What puzzles me is when people start agonizing over the differences between two very similar, very good lenses (different 50 Summicrons, for example).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger, your mentioning the 43-86 brings back memories. It was so hyped by Nikon as being revolutionary,and ended up being soft and slow and probably set back the Nikon zoom business for a while. I stuck with primes during my PJ career primarily due to that lens.
 
No bad lenses in my book either. Some of my lenses are better put together than others, nicer to use, more linear etc etc, but if I can´t make a picture with the lesser of them, then a better one won´t matter.

For instance. I know that toy cameras get the stick most of the time, but just look how Wolfgang Moersch manages to get wonderful images out of these measly little plastic thingeys. He´s a better photographer than I, by a country mile.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Among the endless discussion of whether Version II or Version III of a particular lens is better, I can't help wondering: if you can't take a good pic with a Version II, what are your chances with a Version III?
Click to expand...


I have had cases where a version of a lens was an absolute no-no: I once borrowed a "V2" (version 2, not the rocket) 35mm Summicron and I just couldn't feel right with it: the aperture "thingy" was just a pain for me to use (having to hunt for that thing while aiming and not looking at the lens itself made me lose quite a few shots).

Then the goggled version of the 35mm Summicron (V1); as much as I loved it optically, the thing did not lend itself to being carried by me like I did the other lenses.

Then there's the so-called V4 50mm Summicron (1969 version): I am so used to the "V5" version with the concave tab, that its handling felt very foreign to me.

Then the early version of the 50mm Elmar (f/3.5): the aperture...who "designed" that (or rather, slept through that meeting)?

I also tried the chrome version of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 LTM lens, and liked it much better than the black/chrome.

Then, I tried the so-called V1 and V2 50mm Summilux(ae?), and really really loved them, but the close focusing of the "pre-ASPH", and option of adding a focusing tab to it closed the deal for me.

So, bref: the handling and how comfortable you are with the gear is just as important as not forgetting to take the lens cap off.
 
Roger:
-the Leitz Thambar is certainly a 'bad' lens in a traditional sense, pics look as if they were made with a fungus infected mirror reflex lens, but some people seem to be willing to spend $5000 to get one...
-I own a 43-86mm Nikkor, but must admit I didn't use it often enough to say something about the performance, but then, back in the sixties only a few makers built zooms anyway, it would be unserious to compare it to a 50 or 85mm Nikon prime lens !
even the US Navy famously used it on their motorized F bodies, focus locked on infinity, they must have had some reason to prefer it to other Nikkors
 
I was never able to make a decent picture with a 28-85 vivtar zoom I bought in the 80s - so I gave it away an dsuspect it now sitting, unused due to the advent of digital imaging, in a cupboard somewhere.

I also had an 80s HOya 200 in canon FD mont that broke in two pieces about 2/3 of the way throgh a 7 month trip around Africa in my rucsac. The 135 survived, but the focus became pretty gritty (as did the canon 28)
 
bowieknife said:
Roger:
-the Leitz Thambar is certainly a 'bad' lens in a traditional sense, pics look as if they were made with a fungus infected mirror reflex lens, but some people seem to be willing to spend $5000 to get one...
Click to expand...
Hmmm... When I borrowed one, I expected to be underwhelmed. I wasn't. My Shutterbug review is here: http://www.shutterbug.com/content/leitz-thambar-90mm-f22brwhy-it-considered-legendary-portrait-lens . Subsequently, I bought the one I borrowed (though not for $5000). Yes, conventionally, if you're after sharpness and contrast, it's awful, but I certainly wouldn't draw any parallel with a fungus infected mirror reflex lens. Used for what it's meant for, with understanding, it's gorgeous.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom