Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Coffee With Mentors > Roger Hicks -- Author of The Rangefinder Book

Roger Hicks -- Author of The Rangefinder Book

Roger Hicks is a well known photographic writer, author of The Rangefinder Book, over three dozen other photographic books, and a frequent contributor to Shutterbug and Amateur Photographer. Unusually in today's photographic world, most of his camera reviews are film cameras, especially rangefinders. See www.rogerandfrances.com for further background (Frances is his wife Frances Schultz, acknowledged darkroom addict and fellow Shutterbug contributor) .


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

How many really bad lenses are there?
Old 04-21-2012   #1
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,582
How many really bad lenses are there?

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?

Yes, some lenses are better than others: I'd far rather have a 50/1 Noctilux or a 50/1.5 C-Sonnar than a 50/1.2 Canon, because they better suit the sort of pictures I take. But I can see that the Canon would suit some kinds of pictures.

How far can you tell from someone else's pictures whether a particular lens (focal length, speed, marque, let alone version) will suit you? Especially if the differences are as much illusory as real?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #2
bowieknife
Registered User
 
bowieknife is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 90
a bad lens is an unreliable lens, that falls apart because of cheapo build quality, otherwise there are good arguments for every lens, just as there a different beers, or whiskeys, for example I'm quite happy with my pre-1945 uncoated lenses, others may find them totally unsuitable for their work
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #3
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 71
Posts: 3,209
Roger: you are preaching to the choir in my case.

I am amazed at the conclusions people draw about the lens' contrast or sharpness for looking at a small JPG on a screen. People say "that is a high contrast lens" and I want to say something about film developing time or adjustments in Photoshop.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #4
Moriturii
Unsui
 
Moriturii is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 659
bowieknife said it all
/thread
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #5
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 3,248
And then there's the question of how one treats one's gear. I've seen stuff sold here that looks like its thrown into the trunk at the end of a work day. Expecting lenses to withstand unnecessary bashing about will test just about any gear. I've had so called 'cheap' vivitars and nikon series e lenses that worked as well as the day I bought them, after years of use. And they looked pretty good too.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today.

Nikon Df; Nikon 1 V3; Speed Graphic; Polaroid 250
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #6
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,639
To tell the truth, I have only used one lens that just could not be made to take a decent photo. I'll grant some have more limitations than others but that is about it. If the limitations of a lens keep you from getting certain shots that you want then it is not for you and a bad lens in the users eyes.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #7
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 2,118
I noticed that, for me, lenses I once considered "bad," I now consider to have "character." You mention the Canon 50/1.2. Years ago I considered the bokeh of this lens as bizarre. I now consider the bokeh one of this len's strengths. If properly used, it can give a lot of personality to a picture (especially a portrait).

I've also learned that not every picture has to be tack-sharp (my pinhole camera has taught me that).

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:

http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #8
johannielscom
500C/M & 532/16
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,762
No bad lenses in my book either, but of course it's horses for courses.

I've switched over to ergonomics and IQ in equal shares, and coverage of focal lengths. Currently downsizing to two four-lens sets:

Canon Serenar 28/3.5
Canon Serenar 35/3.2
Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 uncoated
Leitz Elmar 90/4.0 uncoated

Leitz SA 21/3.4
Leitz Summilux 35/1.4 (arriving next month)
Voigtlander 50/2.5
Jupiter-9 85/2.0 (Zeiss cell, set to Leica specs)


I'd like to keep the Jup-9 but someday add a Summicron 90/2.0

Bodies are Leica II and Leica M2 once I've sold off my Leica M3

Lenses that I've never shot but would be wary about: Elmar 35/3.5 LTM and the pre-war Schneider-Kreuznach 35/?? LTM. Also Isco-Göttingen lenses in LTM, I've never read any praise about them yet and eBay prices are low. Apparently all these lenses have a quite bland IQ...
__________________
Cheers, Johan Niels

My photography & gear articles: www.johanniels.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #9
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
 
AusDLK's Avatar
 
AusDLK is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 960
I'm with ya. For example, I've read here and elsewhere about the 18mm lens for the XP1 being crappy. Well, sez who?

If all of the optical people, managers, etc. at Fuji are happy enough to put this (or any lens) into production then just how crappy can it really be??? And compared to what?

Y'all, quit your pixel (or grain) peeping, grab a camera, and let your pictures do the talking.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #10
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,272
I pay very little attention to lens tests, reviews, etc. Just generally stick to camera brand: Leica and Nikon (except for I do have some CV lenses). Generally I have been very satisfied. Over the years (many) I've only had one lemon, a Nikon 28mm 2.8 AI. Others tell me this is a good lens so maybe I had a bad one. And more recently the 16mm Sony pancake lens for the NEX. This is one is a dog. That they cripple such a great system with such a bad lens is beyond explanation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #11
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,603
I will trade anyone in this thread any lens for my OM mount Kalimar 35-70 f3.5~f4.5

I assure you there is no redeeming quality to this lens other than the fact that it is, in fact, a lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #12
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by redisburning View Post
I assure you there is no redeeming quality to this lens other than the fact that it is, in fact, a lens.
For a given value of 'lens'...

Then again, I'd have said the same about my long-gone 90-190/5.8 (no mis-typing) Yashinon. But I'd love to try it now as a soft focus portrait lens...

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #13
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 20,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by AusDLK View Post
If all of the optical people, managers, etc. at Fuji are happy enough to put this (or any lens) into production then just how crappy can it really be??? And compared to what?
True enough. But there are a few disasters, such as the 43-86 Nikkor and the lens described by Redisburning. Or my Yashinon. What puzzles me is when people start agonizing over the differences between two very similar, very good lenses (different 50 Summicrons, for example).

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #14
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 928
Even a meniscus lens can do a credible job at moderate angles and small apertures.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #15
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 812
Everyone is afraid to appear inegalitarian in the fear that some artiste somewhere might have made a good picture using a clod of dirt for a lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #16
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,096
Probably depends on the usage. I've definitely seen lenses that were poor choices for portraits, and too much contrast and ugly bokeh are my pet peeves with any bad lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #18
skibeerr
Home and away.
 
skibeerr's Avatar
 
skibeerr is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne Vic
Posts: 902
There may be few really bad lenses, however there can be a significant difference which makes the lesser performing one a "BAD" lens.

Like the racer did really bad this time, he came in second.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #19
Mr_Toad
Fluffy Marsupial
 
Mr_Toad's Avatar
 
Mr_Toad is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Age: 57
Posts: 286
.

Bad lens, incarnate...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 60sMiniatureSpyCamera.jpg (48.5 KB, 65 views)
__________________
__________________


My Transaction Feedback Link...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...2809&protype=9
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #20
defektive
Aussie
 
defektive is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 65
I used to judge the performance of a lens primarily on sharpness whereas now I tend to look at the end result others have been able to produce on a similar camera to mine. I think the change in thinking has come about due to a couple of reasons:
1) My photography has evolved from a rank beginner to a point where I have found various 'styles' that I like better than others.
2) Budget. I simply can not afford to own the new summilux/summicron lenses. This should probably be point number 1 as it is what has forced me to branch out and look at results obtained with 'inferior' lenses.

I still love the results produced by 'perfect' lenses such as the 35 asph summilux but equally enjoy those produced by more affordable ones like the summarit 5cm and canon 1.2.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-21-2012   #21
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
True enough. But there are a few disasters, such as the 43-86 Nikkor and the lens described by Redisburning. Or my Yashinon. What puzzles me is when people start agonizing over the differences between two very similar, very good lenses (different 50 Summicrons, for example).

Cheers,

R.
the height of any pursuit exists in the minute subtleties that separate one work/tool/consumable from another.

that is not the same as saying that you will find that in an internet discussion on said items. if you want a high end wine experience you can drink two different years of the same wine; same strain of grapes but you get slight differences in taste due to the weather, the iron content of the soil that year or things like that. asking someone about it doesnt really do you much good other than to prejudice your experience.

people with the financial means don't worry about such things. but not many people can afford to simultaneously purchase 4 Leica lenses, 2 Zeisses and a Konica to test side-by-side in a controlled way. such people are reliant on others to figure out which works better to their taste.

IME I have had little success doing so and have been better off when I just bought something on a whim
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2012   #22
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 11,196
There are probably some really bad lenses out there. I think a bad lens would have more than one of these "defects" in noticeable amounts: Chromatic aberration, linear distortion, vignetting, jangly bokeh, element decentering, focus shift, field curvature, poor corner resolution... But perhaps a "perfect" lens would have a "sterile" look? Maybe that's ok, and let the oohs and ahhs come from the subject treatment.

I don't quite get that a lens has a Summicron look, or a typical Sonnar character... and when I don't see that am I just being insensitive?

Same with wines, actually... the hints of plum and sage with a smooth finish leaves me wondering if I'm missing something (probably!), or whether two experts would agree with each other's comments!

There are certain lenses that just seem to sparkle for me; something they do with the light I guess... for instance the C Sonnar ZM and the 75mm f/2.8 SMC Pentax-67 AL.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2012   #23
George Bonanno
Registered User
 
George Bonanno is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Northern New Jersey & Vũng Tŕu
Posts: 529
There aren't any bad lenses... just bad photographers producing bad images.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2012   #24
Johann Espiritu
Lawyer / Ninja
 
Johann Espiritu's Avatar
 
Johann Espiritu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 474
Unless they're designed to be "bad", like those used for Lomography...
__________________
“One photo out of focus is a mistake, ten is an experiment, and one hundred is a style.”

My Flickr

manilacamerastyle
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2012   #25
L David Tomei
Registered User
 
L David Tomei's Avatar
 
L David Tomei is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy now but originally from Buffalo, New York.
Age: 69
Posts: 366
A bad lens for one photographer can become a tool for another. The only clearly bad lenses are ones that are built poorly with cheap parts and frequent failures. They end up in the back of a dusty drawer.
__________________
L David Tomei
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:11.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.