How bad can a lens be........

[zuikologist]

Apologies for posting this at the home of Leicadom.

I picked this up in a pile of other junk. It is a Welmy 28mm f2.5 in Pentax K mount. It is amazing.......how bad it can be. The results at f2.5 are worse than a Lensbaby or a Holga. By f5.6 things have improved a lot. The AF confirm system in my DSLR could not provide focus confirmation due to the lack of sharpness at f2.5. There must be some fault with the lens - it really is unusable wide open except for dream sequences.

 

[zuikologist]

At f2.5....

 

[iamzip]

why don't you post some pics taken with the lens as well.

EDIT: Oh, sorry, you were in the middle of posting. I kind of like the look of that, though - a little dreamy, maybe a nice alternative to the vaseline on the lens thing. Obviously a bad lens though, but it might be nice to have in your bag for that one time you can use something like that...

 

[zuikologist]

why don't you post some pics taken with the lens as well.

Taken at f5.6...a lot better.

 

[iamzip]

Looks passable at 5.6. Maybe a good lens if you don't want to bring along your good lenses, for some reason.

 

[Anupam]

Hey, I like that f2.5 shot. Must be the worst wide open performance for an actual SLR lens. Do some wide open portraits to try it out - preferably with a busy background with lots of leaves. Who knows, it might be you own little portable petzval.

 

[zuikologist]

I think that might be the only use for it - impressionist painterly photos!

The lens is so bad I think it must be defective.

 

[zuikologist]

Looks passable at 5.6. Maybe a good lens if you don't want to bring along your good lenses, for some reason.

Not sure I could be seen in public with this lens.

 

[Anupam]

My suggestion for a test above was a serious one though 🙂 . If it torns out to be sharp in the center with wildly falling off at corners and, who knows, even some swirl in the bokeh - I'd be after this lens. Not many 35mm lenses do that. Crappy can be good at times, and this is certainly the crappiest that I have seen in a while 🙂

 

[zuikologist]

why don't you post some pics taken with the lens as well.

EDIT: Oh, sorry, you were in the middle of posting. I kind of like the look of that, though - a little dreamy, maybe a nice alternative to the vaseline on the lens thing. Obviously a bad lens though, but it might be nice to have in your bag for that one time you can use something like that...

I might try Holga type shots. Closed one stop down, it might work.

 

[zuikologist]

My suggestion for a test above was a serious one though 🙂 Crappy can be good at times, and this is certainly the crappiest that I have seen in a while 🙂

I couldn't agree more. It's dark here now. Swirly bokeh time tomrrow.

 

[retnull]

Wow. So bad it's good? Some people would kill for a look like that.

 

[zuikologist]

Wow. So bad it's good? Some people would kill for a look like that.

Good idea.

Now, where is that Lomo website.....

 

[Kin Lau]

Perhaps it's been dropped or the lens is out of alignment.

You never know with used lenses. I ended up with a Contaflex 35mm that literally had a floating element 😀 ... the one element inside had come loose, and was bouncing around.

 

[Matthew Allen]

Interesting. Specialist soft-focus lenses where you vary the softness with the aperture cost serious money and are relatively rare. Seems like you've got a cheap one.

I think you're right in saying that it's faulty but for some purposes this could produce lovely effects. Maybe around f4 you'd get a nice dreamy large format-ish look.

Matthew

 

[zuikologist]

Perhaps it's been dropped or the lens is out of alignment.

You never know with used lenses. I ended up with a Contaflex 35mm that literally had a floating element 😀 ... the one element inside had come loose, and was bouncing around.

There does not seem to be any external damage or rattling. The focusing ring is a little loose, so the lens may have been opened up at some time.

 

[zuikologist]

Interesting. Specialist soft-focus lenses where you vary the softness with the aperture cost serious money and are relatively rare. Seems like you've got a cheap one.

I think you're right in saying that it's faulty but for some purposes this could produce lovely effects. Maybe around f4 you'd get a nice dreamy large format-ish look.

Matthew

I agree - f4 should be ok with the right subject.

 

[lemalk]

I think it's difficult to gauge the lens with static shots of another lens... I agree with some other posters here - take it out and shoot some portraits and see what you get!

 

[Sonnar Brian]

It looks like one of the elements is in backwards. I've bought two lenses that were misassembled. Turning the element around did wonders. They did what yours does now- center sharp wide-open, got better stopped down. Once fixed, they were great wide-open.

Or the Welmy is just a real dog...

 

[dexdog]

Also, concur with Brian's idea that one of the lens elements might be in bass ackwards. Makes me wonder if someone w/o necessary skills performed a CLA on the lens