farlymac
PF McFarland
My favorite bad lens is an Elmar 90/4 with a scratched front element. It has just the right touch of softness to it. Would make a nice portrait lens.
PF
PF
Your favorite "bad" lenses
- Thread starter aizan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 2K
Dogman
Veteran
I have a couple of Nikkor 50/1.4 lenses from the 70s, maybe the 60s. One has a front element someone must have cleaned with sandpaper, the other is still pretty well cared for. I love the look from both of them. Low contrast, soft edges, smooth blending tones. Also lots of flare and quite a bit of barrel distortion which may or may not bother someone.
zuiko85
Veteran
You make your own 'bad lens'. Starting point is a plastic body cap for your camera. From there you will also need a thin Chinese made focusing helical in M42 mount. A plastic M42 body cap, and black construction paper and other odd bits plus a lens, perhaps a single element plastic lens from a cheap 126 camera (they are usually about 41 or 42mm focal length). If you want something longer try getting a lens from a 6x9 box camera. Also a hot glue gun can be handy. The 126 lens will be ok for mirrorless bodies with short backfocus but not for SLR's
muser53
MUSER53
Try to experiment with a UV filter, Vaseline and women's stockings/nylons. They'll soften up any lens.
Tom R
Established
By some definitions, all of my Leitz lenses are "bad" or at least offer inferior optics compared to their "ASPH" replacements. But oddly enough every one of these is my "favorite" when I need that focal length.
charjohncarter
Veteran
AristaEDUultra100 AristaPremiumDeveloper by John Carter, on Flickr
First Six by John Carter, on FlickrThis is mine and the second image is the camera.
Dogman
Veteran
Maybe someone has already brought this up but Holga lenses are available in normal camera mounts. At least in Nikon mount, probably others. I have the Nikon version but I've never used it. COVID got in the way of lots of things.
Orthogonal
Established
I had this lens for a while, it was originally designed for half frame (the Chaika I think) and even vignettes somewhat on that. I used it on APSC mirrorless and actually really liked it - you can loosen one of the grub screws and get some macro ability and it generally had a glowy but also weirdly saturated and high-ish contrast look, heaps of CA and smearing also. Hope you enjoy it.
Bill Clark
Veteran
How about pinhole? No lens!
I bought a “zero” a few years back from Freestyle.
Info:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/search?q=pinhole
I bought a “zero” a few years back from Freestyle.
Info:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/search?q=pinhole
narsuitus
Well-known
I have a few favorite "bad" lenses:
1. Bad image quality
For example, my first zoom lens (Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5) had image quality that was so bad that it soured me to zoom lenses for decades. I sold the lens
For example, my f/8 Holga lens with a micro 4/3 lens mount is a bad lens because it produces images with bad quality. However, the images are not bad enough to scrap this low-cost lens.
For example, I once had a Tokina AT-X 400mm f/5.6 auto focus lens that I loved. It had fast auto focus, low cost, nice design, and good material. However, I could never get a sharp image out of this lens. I used it for few years before I finally replaced this bad lens with a 400mm f/5.6 manual focus Nikkor.
2. Broken
For example, I accidentally dropped the only Sigma lens I ever owned down a flight of stairs. It would have cost me more to repair it than I paid for the lens. I still have the lens and it is still broken.
For example, I have a 1000mm f/11 Nikon mirror lens that has a mirror that has started to de-silver. The images have not yet been seriously affected by the mirror defect. It would cost too much to have the mirror repaired. This bad lens is still worth keeping until its image quality is seriously affected.
For example, I have a Mamiya-Sekor C 180mm f/4.5 lens for my RB67 medium format SLR that is loaded with fungus. I bought it in a lot that contained an RB67 prism finder that I wanted. I could either reject the entire lot or keep the lot with the contaminated lens. I kept the lot. The lens is now safely stored in a sealed plastic bag.
3. Keeps breaking
For example, my 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikon auto focus zoom has a broken auto focus motor that will cost me
$200 or $300 to fix. Even after the lens is repaired, the motor is likely to break again. The lens is bad now but I will keep it because it is a favorite lens when it is working. One day, I may decide to have it repaired.
4. Costs more than the lens is worth
For example, I bought a Nikon 105mm f/3.5 lens that would not focus on infinity. However, since I only planned on using it for close-ups and portraits, I was able to use it in its broken state for years. I finally decided to have this bad lens repaired. Now this repaired lens cost more than the lens is really worth.
5. Has poor design, material, or workmanship
For example, I once owned a Nikkor 45mm GN f/2.8 lens that had great image quality but had design features that I could not stand. The lens was too small for my hands. The focus ring rotated in a direction that was opposite to all my other Nikon lenses. Its ergonomic design problems were too much for me. I sold this "bad" lens.
For example, I received a 28-200mm f/3.8-f/5.6 Tamron auto focus zoom as gift. The lens was built with too much plastic material and was so poorly constructed that it would not mount on some of my bodies. Its image quality was mediocre and its maximum focal length was not 200mm but more like 150mm. Also, the lens also has a variable maximum aperture and I do not like lens with variable maximum apertures. However, after I tried this bad lens for a while, I discovered that it made a very good portrait lens. I also decided the lens was really worth keeping for use on the beach where I would not suffer a great financial loss if it were damaged by sand.
1. Bad image quality
For example, my first zoom lens (Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5) had image quality that was so bad that it soured me to zoom lenses for decades. I sold the lens
For example, my f/8 Holga lens with a micro 4/3 lens mount is a bad lens because it produces images with bad quality. However, the images are not bad enough to scrap this low-cost lens.
For example, I once had a Tokina AT-X 400mm f/5.6 auto focus lens that I loved. It had fast auto focus, low cost, nice design, and good material. However, I could never get a sharp image out of this lens. I used it for few years before I finally replaced this bad lens with a 400mm f/5.6 manual focus Nikkor.
2. Broken
For example, I accidentally dropped the only Sigma lens I ever owned down a flight of stairs. It would have cost me more to repair it than I paid for the lens. I still have the lens and it is still broken.
For example, I have a 1000mm f/11 Nikon mirror lens that has a mirror that has started to de-silver. The images have not yet been seriously affected by the mirror defect. It would cost too much to have the mirror repaired. This bad lens is still worth keeping until its image quality is seriously affected.
For example, I have a Mamiya-Sekor C 180mm f/4.5 lens for my RB67 medium format SLR that is loaded with fungus. I bought it in a lot that contained an RB67 prism finder that I wanted. I could either reject the entire lot or keep the lot with the contaminated lens. I kept the lot. The lens is now safely stored in a sealed plastic bag.
3. Keeps breaking
For example, my 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikon auto focus zoom has a broken auto focus motor that will cost me
$200 or $300 to fix. Even after the lens is repaired, the motor is likely to break again. The lens is bad now but I will keep it because it is a favorite lens when it is working. One day, I may decide to have it repaired.
4. Costs more than the lens is worth
For example, I bought a Nikon 105mm f/3.5 lens that would not focus on infinity. However, since I only planned on using it for close-ups and portraits, I was able to use it in its broken state for years. I finally decided to have this bad lens repaired. Now this repaired lens cost more than the lens is really worth.
5. Has poor design, material, or workmanship
For example, I once owned a Nikkor 45mm GN f/2.8 lens that had great image quality but had design features that I could not stand. The lens was too small for my hands. The focus ring rotated in a direction that was opposite to all my other Nikon lenses. Its ergonomic design problems were too much for me. I sold this "bad" lens.
For example, I received a 28-200mm f/3.8-f/5.6 Tamron auto focus zoom as gift. The lens was built with too much plastic material and was so poorly constructed that it would not mount on some of my bodies. Its image quality was mediocre and its maximum focal length was not 200mm but more like 150mm. Also, the lens also has a variable maximum aperture and I do not like lens with variable maximum apertures. However, after I tried this bad lens for a while, I discovered that it made a very good portrait lens. I also decided the lens was really worth keeping for use on the beach where I would not suffer a great financial loss if it were damaged by sand.
Forest_rain
Well-known
I thought about getting a telephoto aux lens adapter for my yashica TLR since I like the telephoto length. Supposedly this adds vignetting at narrow apertures.
Wide angle aux lens supposedly adds some interesting distortion around the edges. Results are pretty sharp though, which I did not expect for aux lenses.
Wide angle aux lens supposedly adds some interesting distortion around the edges. Results are pretty sharp though, which I did not expect for aux lenses.
Mark C
Well-known
I've come to realize how few really bad lenses there are. Junky zooms are an obvious exception, but aren't bad in any way I find interesting.
I like Forest_rain's auxiliary lens idea. Cheap and interesting. I also like some of the results from the original Diana cameras, they range from mild to wild. My Holga is fairly interesting, but most seem a bit too good to be interesting.
I like Forest_rain's auxiliary lens idea. Cheap and interesting. I also like some of the results from the original Diana cameras, they range from mild to wild. My Holga is fairly interesting, but most seem a bit too good to be interesting.
aizan
Veteran
Really? Hold on, let me do some more research! I might take you up on that.
k__43
Registered Film User
Jupiter-3 ? low contrast and hard to get in focus, bad mechanics but (some) results ..
