How many really bad lenses are there?

[Roger Hicks]

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.

[bowieknife]

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

[Bob Michaels]

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.

[Moriturii]

bowieknife said it all
/thread

[Jamie Pillers]

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.

[Nikon Bob]

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

[Mackinaw]

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.

[buzzardkid]

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...

[AusDLK]

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.

[Pablito]

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.

[redisburning]

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.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by redisburning

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.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by AusDLK

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.

[zuiko85]

Even a meniscus lens can do a credible job at moderate angles and small apertures.

[mdarnton]

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.

[Steve M.]

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.

[Ranchu]

Most are bad, I think.

[skibeerr]

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.

[Mr_Toad]

.

Bad lens, incarnate...

[defektive]

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.

[redisburning]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

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

[Doug]

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.

[George Bonanno]

There aren't any bad lenses... just bad photographers producing bad images.

[Johann Espiritu]

Unless they're designed to be "bad", like those used for Lomography...

[L David Tomei]

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.