Disappointments

The one true disappointment for me, equipment-wise, was the Pentax LX. This is something of a "situational disappointment", rather than an outright slam of the camera, because (1) I had bought two early-production samples of the camera, and (2) the early-production run of this camera had a fatal engineering error, where the shutter/mirror mechanism would randomly lock up, and couldn't be remedied in the field for love or money. Both my LX bodies exhibited the same behavior, and numerous trips to Pentax' service center (then on Long Island, where I enjoyed pro-level priority rush service) couldn't lick the problem. Didn't matter whether I used the cameras alone or with motors/winders attached. After two months of this, I bailed, desperately trading the whole lot in at Ken Hansen for a Nikon F3-based system. (At a subsequent Camera Show at the New York Colliseum, I discussed my horror story with a Nikon rep at their booth; he just grimaced wanly and said, "Surprise!")

This sucked, because I really loved everything else about the LX. Were it not for that major-league glitch, I could have stuck with that camera for a hell of a long time.

The only other big disappointment was my time with a Canon EOS 1D. In that case, the camera performed like it was supposed to. I still hated it. That convinced me that my days with SLRs, film or digital, were essentially over.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AI
Worst lens I ever used. Probably something wrong with it but VERY soft in the corners.
 
I had an Canon EOS RT once, that I really 'wanted to love'. But - it had a tendancy to underexpose when the shots were critical. If I was just playing around, it always exposed perfectly. Always felt like the images were not quite as sharp as they could have been too, passing the light through the Pelicle mirror.
 
Worst lens I ever owned: Nikkor 24mm f2.8

I cringe when I hear others praise this lens. Mine was so bad it could have been the posterchild for poor Quality Assurance practices.

Someone else said they had a bad 55mm f2.8 - I had one that was really steller!!

And so it went with the Nikkor's - you had to try 'em first - I stopped buying them new from NYC, and only bought used and only after 'trying it out for a week'.
 
Leica Minilux, great lens, crap camera, now landfill minus lens now used as a magnifier!!
Fuji 645 "Professional" folder, don't get me started on this one!!!!:bang::bang:
Thats why I'm blowing rather cool about the new Bessa 111!!:(
 
Zuiko 3.5/24 shift. tried 2 copies both had poor borders. Likely suffered an injury somewhere as they where both used in mint condition cosmetically. An impressive "looking" optic at least but, I'm soured to them now. Also most anything Canon FD. Could never get in the flow of that system.
 
reala_fan said:
Worst lens I ever owned: Nikkor 24mm f2.8

I cringe when I hear others praise this lens. Mine was so bad it could have been the posterchild for poor Quality Assurance practices.
.
Click to expand...
Same experience here.. had two samples of the 24/2.8 AFD, and they just were not sharp despite all the hoopla about CRC. Finally (it's great to shop in stores with a 2 weeks return policy) settled for the 28/2.8 AFD, which lacked CRC, but also lacked the fuzziness. Great little lens!

Perhaps the added complexity of CRC causes a lot of sample variation..
 
Livesteamer said:
Nikkor 28mm f2.0 in original Nikon F mount. I just never liked the images I got from it. The Nikkor 24mm f2.8 is an all time favorite. Joe
Click to expand...

Almost the same thing for me (AIS 28/2,8 vs ZF 25/2,8) but to me its more an angle of view issue. Though its minor it has a big impact.
Best regards
 
mhv said:
Everything Nine Inch Nails did after "The Downward Spiral"
Click to expand...

^^ I second that !

Speaking of cameras / lenses: Leica MP. My copy spent more time being serviced (Leica, warranty) than for taking photos. 35mm Summicron-M IV. I still don't get what the hype is about this lens, I sold it after a while and kept my 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Yep, I have never had a piece of hardware yet that was so good or so bad that it really broke that old ratio of the quality of my photos being 2% equipment and 98% my eye, heart, and soul.
Click to expand...

Dear Bob,

I have. The difference between a great shot and one that's so-so can be down to choosing the kit that you're happiest with. Yes, I can get good shots with the Biotar on my Exakta Vx -- but they're different from the shots I get with (say) the 1,5/50 C-Sonnar on my MP, which gives me far more good shots across a wider range of cirumstances. This is partly the look of the lens, and partly the hassle of using the Exakta.

Or to look at it from another direction, the handling of Rollei TLRs is so bad for me that I get hardly any pictures at all, because I can't be arsed to use the things.

Or from yet a third direction, a lot of disappointment comes from artificially inflated expectations. Sure, I can use a Tessar. I just don't like 'em very much (except the f/6.3) and I can't see why people rave about 'em.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bob,

I have. The difference between a great shot and one that's so-so can be down to choosing the kit that you're happiest with. Yes, I can get good shots with the Biotar on my Exakta Vx -- but they're different from the shots I get with (say) the 1,5/50 C-Sonnar on my MP, which gives me far more good shots across a wider range of cirumstances. This is partly the look of the lens, and partly the hassle of using the Exakta.

Or to look at it from another direction, the handling of Rollei TLRs is so bad for me that I get hardly any pictures at all, because I can't be arsed to use the things.

Or from yet a third direction, a lot of disappointment comes from artificially inflated expectations. Sure, I can use a Tessar. I just don't like 'em very much (except the f/6.3) and I can't see why people rave about 'em.

Tashi delek,

R.
Click to expand...

Maybe it comes down to what you regard good image quality, what you wanna do with the gear and what you want to put into your pics?
I really like the results from the 135mm f/4,5 Heliar on my Voigtländer Bergheil
or the 45mm f/3,5 Novar on my Ikonta 544/24. Though both are a hazle to use I'll happily press them into service when I feel for the look they give.
Best regards
 
reala_fan said:
Worst lens I ever owned: Nikkor 24mm f2.8

I cringe when I hear others praise this lens. Mine was so bad it could have been the posterchild for poor Quality Assurance practices.

Someone else said they had a bad 55mm f2.8 - I had one that was really steller!!

And so it went with the Nikkor's - you had to try 'em first - I stopped buying them new from NYC, and only bought used and only after 'trying it out for a week'.
Click to expand...

I've owned three: The 24/2.8 Nikkor NC, 24/2.8 Nikkor-N, and 24/2.8 AiS series. I prefer the original versions, just do not like the look and feel of the newer one. I'm wondering if the lighter mechanics mess with the alignment of the floating element. That would cause problems.

My Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 is so sharp that after seeing pictures with it, my Mom asked why I bother with other lenses.
 
Nikkor 24mm f2.8 mine is an early version. It has always produced wonderful images.
It seems we all have different criteria and it has been illuminating to hear others criticisms. Thanks to All. Joe
 
Yes. Nikon Lens. The 50mm F1.4 AFn I thought would be 'better' than my Pentax 50mm f1.7, it was not (OK Maybe at f8, but at no wider apertures). Same goes for the 28mm f2.8AF and the pentax 28mm f2.8, Pentax better at every aperture up to f8. I latter found out the first Nikkor AF 28mm was the 'E' optics - to keep the price down.

However, the 60mm is fine and supprisingly, I and getting on with the 35mm f1.4 OK.
 
Disappointments:
  • Benjamin Marks said:
    Mamiya 7II 80/4 lens. Would it have killed them to have the lens focus another foot closer? Jeez. Fabulous optics, but just not suited to how I want the world to look on film.
    Click to expand...
    Have the same issue with the 150mm lens for the Mamiya 7II... if the 150mm lens focused closer, I would have set the MF SLR aside forever.
Satisfaction Exceeding Expectations:
  • Recently purchased a Contax G2 system that exceeds my expectations in mechanical quality, handling, and resulting image quality.
  • Same with the Bronica RF645, excellent mechanical quality, handling, and resulting image quality that is simply superb with more negative area than 35mm... and, isn't that noticeably heavier or larger than the Contax G2.
  • The Minolta 7s Hi-matic. Simplicity at it's best - a good lens, metering that was good enough, and a reliable mechanical body. Wish I would not have sold it... let alone sold it for next to nothing.
 
Off the top:

- Anything by Olympus, and unlike Brian I don't see what's so great in Zuikos
- Contax SLR system, unreliable and inflexible controls even on high end boides
- Leicaflex: no, it ain't an M in SLR disguise
 
Mamiya C330, didn't notice what's so great about the lens and the camera. Sold it, bought Rolleiflex, never looked back.

Contax ST. Shutter died, got it replaced. New one died after a little drop. Ok, my fault, but you don't except such fragility from next-to-the-top-of-the-line camera.

Contax 167MT. Impossible to operate in manual mode. Ended up borrowing Leica from varjag for a week. Sold all Contax gear (with lenses), bought M6, again never looked back.
 
35mm Summicron, version 4. What a dog! Breathtakingly mushy wide open: great bokeh from 2" to infinity. The Emperor's New Clothes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom