How many really bad lenses are there?

There's only one lens that I don't like at all, to the extend that I don't even dare to sell it: the Leica 90mm elmar-c 90mm. It's just un-contrasty and full of chromatic aberation. Any other lens has 'features'.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but that's SO personal it's probably impossible to get a good idea from anyone else: "Will I prefer roast beef or roast lamb?"

But you're right: I was thinking mostly about the way in which some people attempt to draw distinctions in optical performance, when quite honestly, it wouldn't matter what they used. The good photographers would still be good and the bad ones would still be bad.

Cheers,

R.
 
Ok ill admit I had a 135 2.8 nikon series E that was truly meh.

I've also seen a good number of zoom lenes with weird mustache distortion I could never feel comfortable with.
 
jippiejee said:
There's only one lens that I don't like at all, to the extend that I don't even dare to sell it: the Leica 90mm elmar-c 90mm. It's just un-contrasty and full of chromatic aberation. Any other lens has 'features'.
Click to expand...

maybe it needs a service.
my 135 probably did.
 
I had 2 versions of a Rolleicord vb a few years ago. The first gave a wonderful plasticity to skin tones and the resolution was terrific. The second was more contrasty, didn't have the same plasticity and seemed to have lower resolution. Both Xenar f3.5's - just very different. I sold the second and didn't regret it. I sold the first one some years later - and still regret it!
 
Leaving aside mechanical problems or poor build quality, a truly bad lens -- optically speaking -- is pretty rare, IMHO. Aside from lenses that are intended to be fuzzy -- like the lenses on Holgas -- virtually all photographic lenses for decent cameras (which excludes disposable cameras) are probably sharp enough for the vast majority of photographers and the images they produce. It continues to amaze me how much people improperly extrapolate from lens comparisons/tests in saying one lens is "better" or "sharper" than another. Leaving aside the tons of poorly designed and hence meaningless lens comparisons -- involving different subject matter, different lighting, moving subjects where focus accuracy comes to the forefront, photos taken by handheld cameras, images displayed on a computer monitor, etc. -- even a properly and well executed lens test can, AT MOST, indicate what a particular lens model's POTENTIAL performance could be. This because of inevitable manufacturing tolerances of lenses, variations in condition, and the interplay in the tolerances between a given lens and given camera body, etc. Also, the vast majority of purported differences between different lenses' performance probably are unnoticeable or essentially non-existent in real life situations where proper technique is adhered to.
Even unsharp lenses prone to flare can't be described as necessarily bad. I had a Vivitar Series 1 28-90 lens that was a fine performer until it ended up submerged in an overturned raft on a white water river in Chile for about 8 hours. After draining out the water and drying it out, numerous water marks and fine grit coated the lens elements, resulting in dream like images. (Amazingly, the lens continued to function perfectly mechanically). I foolishly had it cleaned out, instead of simply buying another clean sample, which I now regret as the lens lost its rather unique character.
 
Unless people who are comparing lenses back up their opinions with pictures of the same scene taken with the lenses that they are talking about then I find myself thinking: 'Where is the evidence for this?'
 
Well, I do own a Plaubel Tele-Peconar. And that one - a zoom predecessor from the early twenties - is worse than the proverbial coke bottle bottom. I don't seem to be the only one to think so, as I got it for 40€, clean and almost unused in original box - given its state of preservation every previous owner seems to have shelved it after one single attempt, and the dealer was mischievously happy to part with it, almost as if he had just sold me a Mogwai and a jug of water.
 
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?
Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Roger Hicks said:
I was thinking mostly about the way in which some people attempt to draw distinctions in optical performance, when quite honestly, it wouldn't matter what they used. The good photographers would still be good and the bad ones would still be bad.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


I might suggest that he who maintains a Version III lens (or an M9 in the M8 vs M9 discussion) will enhance his photography significantly must believe (whether there's any truth to it or evidence to support it) that his photographic skill exceeds the capabilities of his gear and is therefore constrained by it.

At one time I drank a pitcher of that Kool-Aid and ended up buying a stable of ASPH lenses (21, 35 (f/2 and f/1.4), 90 and 135-APO). I no longer own any of them, and my only regret in not keeping them involves my lack of clairvoyance in re how much they are now worth in resale. Some would say I must lack photographic skill and discernment not to have appreciated the optical enhancements, but I'm willing to take that insult lying down.
 
There are certainly some bad lenses (zooms from the 70s, etc) and some poorly constructed FSU lenses, but the lenses we are talking about, there is little difference.

I did a comparison of four 50mm lenses, the Nokton 50/1.5, the Heliar 50/2, the Summicron 50/2 DR, and the Summitar 50/2.

My overall conclusions is that while there were differences and that the Nokton was clearly the sharpest, it was sharper by a minor margin, not an order of magnitude.

My other conclusion was that I didn't need five 50mm lenses (also have an Elmar), so I sold two.
 
When I first started out taking photographs (1974), I wanted to shoot motor sports - specifically motorcycle speedway at Belle Vue in my native Manchester.

My first "long" lens was a "Prinzflex" 300mm with a maximum aperture of about f5.6 or f6.3. This was all I could afford at the time. The split screen went black when trying to focus in low light and the lens barrell / focusing mechanism wasn't fastened together properly.

Consequently, despite up-rating 400 ISO film to 1600, I never managed to get a sharp image of any sort. I think I eventually gave the lens away when I managed to afford an upgrade to an OM system. I haven't had what I would call a "bad" lens since as most lenses have at least some redeeming or interesting features.
 
Last edited:
What is a bad lens?
Is the lensbabys a bad lens?
To my opinion the photographer makes a choice for a certain picture. If the picture does not work out well then it's easy to blame the equipment.
If you know your equipment well enough then you know what the result will be.
From the other hand if the lens falls apart then you probably got a bad copy.
 
Ben Z said:
I might suggest that he who maintains a Version III lens (or an M9 in the M8 vs M9 discussion) will enhance his photography significantly must believe (whether there's any truth to it or evidence to support it) that his photographic skill exceeds the capabilities of his gear and is therefore constrained by it.

At one time I drank a pitcher of that Kool-Aid and ended up buying a stable of ASPH lenses (21, 35 (f/2 and f/1.4), 90 and 135-APO). I no longer own any of them, and my only regret in not keeping them involves my lack of clairvoyance in re how much they are now worth in resale. Some would say I must lack photographic skill and discernment not to have appreciated the optical enhancements, but I'm willing to take that insult lying down.
Click to expand...

To quote the old Southern Baptist preachers, "YA GOTTA HAVE FAITH, Dearly Beloved."

If it can move mountains, it should make for better pictures too...

Cheers,

R.
 
Surely the only bad lens is the one that introduces some defect in your photo that you did not intend? Putting aside damaged or faulty lenses (and even they might be put to good effect if the defect is known) then a lens forms an image. If that image agrees with your intentions, it's not a bad lens.

If you want sharp and get blurred or the lens has flare, aberrations etc that you didn't expect or intend, yes it's a bad lens in the sense that it spoiled the photo you intended to take. That still might make it a bad choice on your part rather than bad lens. After all, the perfect lens does not exist; it behoves the user to know the faults.
 
One of my favorite photos was taken with my least favorite lens, primarily because it was on my camera as the scene presented itself. To be at the right place in the right time with good enough gear is much more important than browsing reviews when you should be out shooting.
 
Marel said:
One of my favorite photos was taken with my least favorite lens, primarily because it was on my camera as the scene presented itself. To be at the right place in the right time with good enough gear is much more important than browsing reviews when you should be out shooting.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Especially the point about 'good enough'.

Cheers,

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