What is a bad lens?

[Spanik]

In category 2, I propose every Soviet rangefinder lens because of their completely random manufacturing quality

Funny. While it isn't a rangefinder lens I find the Arsat 55 PSC a very nice lens. Mechanically it might be only acceptable (it doesn't fall apart and doesn't make grinding noises like the 45psc) but optically it delivers. And if I look at the ergonomics it is far ahead of the Mamiya 50 shift. Could say the same for the 30mm P6 fish-eye. Can't say I ever looked closer at the 50mm on the Zorki because the results were iffy.

Now the 18-55 that came with my 300D, that is something else. Maybe not "bad" as "Coke bottle bottom" but for me it was what made me doubt the reason people found digital "good enough".

 

[Sid836]

A great (technically) lens does not necessarily produce a great photo, and a bad/poor lens does not necessarily make a bad shot.
I have seen photos taken with the most expensive lens I have ever seen and they had been as if they were taken by a child that had just been playing around with what seemed an expensive toy.
I have also seen jaw dropping photos taken with toy cameras on almost useless expired film.
One should thing more about it creatively and enjoy the process of photo taking, than just wasting time and effort on defining a good and a bad lens.

 

[lawrence]

Leaving aside lenses that fall to pieces, which are clearly 'bad' by any standards, Roger's point about the C Sonnar sums it up. He's happy to put up with the focus shift because of the 'other qualities' but I sold mine because, for me, the focus shift was a PITA and I didn't really appreciate the other qualities either. So for me the Sonnar is a 'bad lens' but not for Roger.

You wanted some examples posted but I'm not sure how useful that would be. I could show you how the Sonnar gives a softer, more etherial rendering than the Planar but others prefer that look to the more clinical Planar. In other words, it's just a matter of personal taste. So take a look at this thread and then let us know if the Petzval lens is 'good' or 'bad'.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Leaving aside lenses that fall to pieces, which are clearly 'bad' by any standards. . .

Dear Lawrence,

Even then, Holga/Diana users fall (?apart) for them...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, may be there's no one good answer to my question, but it doesn't mean that the answers here are not interesting. . . .

Very true! Sorry for the apparent negativity.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A great (technically) lens does not necessarily produce a great photo, and a bad/poor lens does not necessarily make a bad shot.
I have seen photos taken with the most expensive lens I have ever seen and they had been as if they were taken by a child that had just been playing around with what seemed an expensive toy.
I have also seen jaw dropping photos taken with toy cameras on almost useless expired film.
One should thing more about it creatively and enjoy the process of photo taking, than just wasting time and effort on defining a good and a bad lens.

Absolutely, totally and indisputably true, but we can sometimes gain a faint idea of which lenses might suit us, personally, more than others.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have once wide Tamron zoom, it was sharp, but awful with colors.

 

[Bob Michaels]

A "bad lens" is one you do not use because it does not fit your style. No more, no less.

Any lens over 50mm, in 35mm format, is a "bad lens" for me because they do not fit my style. But there sure are some lenses in that group that work great for others.

OTOH, that little round piece of plastic on the front of my Holgas is a good lens because it works for me. But that is not true for everyone (like Roger)

I think the concept of good lenses vs. bad lenses came about with the popularity of the internet. Even back in the old days Pop Photo and Modern Photo magazines would never call a lens bad.

 

[genotypewriter]

There can be bad lenses only when more than one lens exists for the job. Otherwise, any lens is better than not taking the photo at all 🙂

Also a lens that might be bad for one purpose might be better for another (others have indicated this also I think). E.g. close up portraits vs. landscapes.

 

[Tom A]

A "bad" lens is one that does not do what you want it to do. It can be the look of the image - or something as simple as the ergonomics of the lens. I have a lot of lenses - but I use the ones that fit my hand and the camera. You have to look hard for a truly bad lens today - at least with fixed focal length. There are some duds, the first version Nikkor 58mm f1.4 (1959/60), the first version Nikkor 43-86 zoom, Canon's 35mm 3.5 Ltm, a few of the russian lenses in 39mm screw mount - though with those it was more sample variations than anything. I was never very impressed with the Summaron 35mm f3.5 - but I like the 35 f2.8 version. It is all a matter of personal preference anyway.

 

[zuiko85]

The guy who sold me his CV lenses said they were too "clinical", he wanted to use older, first generation Leica M lenses. Said they had a "rounder" look?

 

[Chris101]

I've got a couple of bad lenses. They are not aesthetically bad, or have a negative effect on me personally, but they do have flaws which are bad enough to keep the issues in mind when using them.

First is the left Anaston on my Kodak Stereo Camera. It is not as sharp, nor contrasty as the right lens, and it looks like there might be a lens surface condition that is causing the problem. Look at the attached picture and you can see it, in the upper left reflection (from an interior surface) vs the reflection (off the front surface) in the lower right. Those little dots may be the start of mold colonies, so I plan to put the camera in the sun, next chance I get. I'll go in from the front, AND through the body from the back. That ought to kill those little fun-guys.

The other bad lens (shown in the other attached picture) is my 35mm f/2 AF Nikkor. This is the second such lens I have had, and they both broke. The problem is that their construction materials emphasize weight rather than durability. This one has been glued in multiple places on the part of the lens barrel that sticks out beyond the outer rings. Recently a big chunk just broke off after a minor bump.

 

[mfunnell]

Now the 18-55 that came with my 300D, that is something else. Maybe not "bad" as "Coke bottle bottom" but for me it was what made me doubt the reason people found digital "good enough".

I still have that lens, though I haven't used it in anger in many years. It inspired me to buy better lenses, that's for sure. However I have photos I took with that lens which I like - but they were taken within the limitations of the lens. I just found those limitations too restrictive. I have a later version of the same lens, with image stabilisation added, which I find to be observably better (though not enough so that I actually use it). The improvement seems to be optical, not just the IS, as I've shot the old and the new(er) side-by side (with IS off on the latter) and can see considerable improvement. Of course, on a lens this cheap (in both price and build quality) sample variation may account for the difference.

...Mike

 

[konicaman]

When I was young many moons ago, I tried 2 Kenlock lenses on my Autoreflexes; a 200mm and a 28mm. The 200 was extremely low contrast and even stopped down not sharp - pics looked like I had used Vaseline on the front element. The 28 was very contrasty but not really capable of rendering a sharp image either.

Presently I have Sigma 18-200 EOS mount. It has a few sweet spots but at most focal lengths and aperture combos it is just plain foggy.

All 3 bad lenses in my book.

 

[Brian Atherton]

Like many here there lenses are I favour over those that I don’t, the principle for me being, "do I use them and do they fit my way of working?"

By way of an example one of my all-time favourite lenses was Nikon’s Mk 1 43-86mm zoom, an acknowledged absolute stinker in terms of lack of sharpness, contrast, vignetting and distortion. Many consider this to be a “bad” lens and one of the worst lenses Nikon ever produced.

Despite its “faults” I loved it, especially for portraits. Whereas I just couldn’t “gel” with my optically superb 1981 50mm Summicron, a lens acknowledged to be “good”.

What are the “bad” lenses? The ones you bought and never take out and use.

 

[David Hughes]

In category 2, I propose every Soviet rangefinder lens because of their completely random manufacturing quality (no quality control whatsoever!). I once bought eight Jupiter 8 lenses, and every one had production faults (not wear and tear), from misfocusing to poor mechanics to weird colour casts (from cold blue to warm yellow!).

If you daren't buy a lens because getting a "good" one is like Russian roulette in reverse, then poor quality control is one definition of a "bad" lens!

Were they all brand new and sealed in the box?

Or were they second-hand with an unknown history and an unknown seller? In that case, why blame the factory for the state of them?

Regards, David

 

[pgk]

Whilst it has many adherents, to me Canon's 24~105 was a 'bad' lens. I detested its (perfectly viable I hasten to add), mechanics and it distorts badly. Two qualities I really do not like. That said to many it is a very versatile and useful lens so probably 'good'. Which leads me to think that its as much about taste as anything else especially in these days of high performance equipment.

 

[lxmike]

I have found that i can make a lens that is considered good into a bad lens with my ineptitude on the other hand I can sometimes be very surprised by results from lenses that are considered less than stellar

 

[Ronald M]

Since digital, bad lens has expanded considerably. Lenses that worked on film, do not always work on digital. The worst offenders are wide angles that smear in the corners. Photoshop is of no help. Next comes CA or color fringing especially in the corners. PS usually helps.

The newer nikon lens are much better optically. Mechanically I am not impressed and they have grown to hugh sizes. I have also purchased some newer Leica lenses that are much improved.
The last was a 28 2.8 ASPH. Corners are perhaps a touch soft at 2.8, but no CA. Lens is small and light. The instruction book said it was the first lens they designed for digital and film. It shows.

 

[dee]

OOPs.

My 1st SLR camera was a budget [Chinon] Prinzflex STTL with a 55mm f 1.7 [ if you can believe that accuracy] standard lens.
I could not quite run to a Pentax Spotmatic at the time as an SLR in 1972 took a big chunk out of my income.
Now most would consider both camera and subsequent inexpensive Chinon/Prinzflex lenses, to be markably inferior to Pentax etc optics.

However, in my ignorance, I was perfectly content with my slides even though colour rendering erred on the cool side and was differed from lens to lens.
What I did recognise is that it was better to stop down to around f5.6- should I not prefer the softness at wider apertures.

Moving on to a new Olympus OM1, I was thrown by the contrasty nature of the Zuiko,plus the sharp fiddly nature of the camera and swapped it for a used, outdated Minolta SRT 202 with Rokkor.
This was coming home to my perfection, although a 100mm Vivitar which tended to be rather soft focus became a favourite lens.

With the M8, it's a contrasty Helios, creamy CV 35 F2.5, amazing Fed collapsible and vintage Summitar, though I would concur that my several Jupiter 8 lenses ex-Kiev can be somewhat variable!!!

With the exception of damage,I guess it's down to what an individual prefers and the budget available.

dee