Worst lens you have ever used? - Page 2

***Geurt*** · #21 28-02-2008, 06:32 AM

Sigma 170-500 soft all over and Canon 70-300 USM II, man that was shocking.

Wolfaardt · #22 28-02-2008, 07:50 AM

Sigma 600mm mirror. Got it as a PK mount, had it converted to fit Canon.

The results are 'interisting'.

ianweatherburn · #23 28-02-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariusbez

Sigma 70 -300 non APO Must be surely.

This is my vote as well. Sigma 70-300. Terrible terrible lens...
Glad it got stolen!

Luc Hosten · #24 28-02-2008, 09:00 AM

Had several lenses that I am trying to forget. A Zuiko 75-150 that was just blunt and mechanically unsound - it hurt even more because it cost a month's earnings at a roadhouse when I was a student. The one that took good pics, a Sigma 100 - 300, that spent the majority of it's life waiting for a "worm drive" at the agents. My vote however goes for Makinon 500mm mirror that was spectaculary bad and even had to be butchered to fit on my camera.
Luc

bladecatcher · #25 28-02-2008, 11:47 AM

my zuiko 50mm 1.8 on my 1970 olympus OM10 is insanely sharp - especially at f/4

CFD · #26 28-02-2008, 01:27 PM

For the price the curent 17-85mm IS Canon is a joke! Worst distortion of any lens ever tested, horrific CA and corners as soft as a baby's b....m!

tcmiller · #27 28-02-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Voortman

I hated the plastic 35-80mm pentax kit lens that came with my MZ50.

I had that and the 80-320 and have to say I wasn't disapointed at all. I got some really decent shots with it. Of course its got nothing on my new Nikon 24-70 F2.8 but they are worlds apart and its like comparing a '69 VW beetle to a porsche 911.

arran · #28 28-02-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheronFamily

this the one you refering to?
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forum/...r=4273&cat=500

very impressive. I really dont like the lens though. I feel its just a poor construction.

James Voortman · #29 29-02-2008, 10:29 AM

A few respondents seemingly happy with their pentax 35-80 kit lenses and must admit mine was sharp enough, I just never trusted the construction of it. Eventually replaced it with a Pentax MZ5n and a cheap sigma 24-70 which was low on contrast but otherwise great for the price.

Got lots of dramatic landscapes with it and that MZ5n...man that has to be the nicest most ergonomically perfect camera I ever used. All the essential control at your fingertips...nothing missing and nothing extra. why can't modern DSLRs be that simple ? (fresh from a bout of manual gazing to try and understand the intricacies of D200 AF system) .

lmr · #30 29-02-2008, 11:09 AM

Tamron 70-300 ,even the canon 75-300 USM III is sharper and faster

BigAl · #31 29-02-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arran

very impressive. I really dont like the lens though. I feel its just a poor construction.

Just remember, there are two versions of that lens: F3.5-5.6
and F2.8 EX. The F2.8 lens is quite highly rated.

My worst lens is Canon 75-300 III, BUT I've since thrown the skylight filter away and my wife is taking some amazing pics with it.

Picshaman · #32 29-02-2008, 11:31 AM

I can relate to that... Had a UV filter on the 75-300 mkIII USM, and cursed it. Sold it to a colleuge without the filter, and am amazed at the (comparative) sharpness of his photos

TheronFamily · #33 29-02-2008, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigAl

Just remember, there are two versions of that lens: F3.5-5.6
and F2.8 EX. The F2.8 lens is quite highly rated.

this was with the non highly rated one

marlon · #34 29-02-2008, 12:26 PM

Pentax DA 18-55 Kit lens,
had my worst experiences with this one.

Werny · #35 29-02-2008, 01:01 PM

sigma 70-300 for sure, but once I glanced thru a L lens my world changed forever, I now have the L disease

tcmiller · #36 29-02-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werny

sigma 70-300 for sure, but once I glanced thru a L lens my world changed forever, I now have the L disease

I have the gold ring disease

Once you use a decent pro grade lens you wonder how you ever managed without it.

arran · #37 29-02-2008, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheronFamily

this was with the non highly rated one

But you must also remember that your using the lens in a way it was never designed for. Turn it around and the 18-50 f3.5-f5.6 is just a noisy and slow focusing lens.

drljv · #38 01-03-2008, 03:37 PM

Canon 18 - 55 lens kit. It's a bit of a cliche but once the L-disease has you then there is no turning back.

Johanvv · #39 02-03-2008, 07:22 PM

Maybe this is not the correct place to discuss this.

I am a biginner and as you can see this is my first post. I own a Sony SAL-500F80 500mm f/8 Reflex Super Telephoto Lens for Sony Alpha 100, and I dont know if I am just stupid but I just can not get the focussing correct on this lens.

Did I waste R 7000 buying this lens or is there anybody out there that can help me. - Johanvv

arran · #40 02-03-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johanvv

Maybe this is not the correct place to discuss this.

I am a biginner and as you can see this is my first post. I own a Sony SAL-500F80 500mm f/8 Reflex Super Telephoto Lens for Sony Alpha 100, and I dont know if I am just stupid but I just can not get the focussing correct on this lens.

Did I waste R 7000 buying this lens or is there anybody out there that can help me. - Johanvv

I think its cause your camera cant focus at f8. Probably find that your camera needs a min aperature of f5.6.