What Is Your Worst Lens

50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 24-105mm f/4L IS

The f/1.8 was just cheap and broke after two days.
The f/1.4 is the softest lens wide open that I have. I even think it might be softer than the 18-55mm kit lenses. For that reason I hardly ever use it. I didn't buy a 50mm f/2.8 USM, I bought a f/1.4. Replaced the 50mm f/1.4 with a 40mm f/2.8 Pancake and love it!
The 24-105L just wasn't worth the money to me. They didn't have a 5D2 body only so I bought the kit. Waste of extra tax money for me. Just wasn't the hyped up performer everyone raves about. I'm happy with a 28-135mm IS USM over the 24-105L if I need a general walk around lens. Plus I just don't need that range, so it's money sitting around for nothing.

Currently the worst lens I own is the Rokinon 650-1300mm f/8-16 ultra tele... I only bought it because I want to dabble in that focal range and am not about to spend $10,000 on a lens I won't use often. Within a couple hundred feet the 650-1300mm is actually pretty good. But over 1000ft it's not great. Heavy purple fringe, low contrast, and over all just not sharp. I still like it more than the 50mm f/1.4 though

-Canon 50mm 1.4 - Focal length just wasn't right on a crop body, never got used.

-Tamron 70-300mm VC - Poor image quality, which got worse as you went past 135mm

and last but not least,

-Sigma 30mm - 3 copies, all with inconsistent autofocus that couldn't be rectified with microadjust. Worst auto-focusing lens I've ever used.

probably my 17-40L

Not that there's anything wrong with the lens...I just don't find myself using it at all

50mm 1.8.its not bad but its my only lens since I cant find any sigma second hand 24-70 here

It would be a shame to call my 50 1.8 & 18-55 kit lens my worst as they have both taken some great shots, but they are my cheapest and are now my least used lenses.

Opteka 650-1300mm. It gives great results for such a cheap telescope lens but you need the hands of a surgeon to get proper focus at higher MM

Worst? That depends on how you stack them up.
EF 70-300 IS USM, not "L", way too soft at 300mm.
EF 135mm f/2L and EF 200mm f/2.8L, not versatile enough for me, switched to zooms
EF 24mm f/2.8, way too soft at 2.8, and my 18-55 was better at f/5.
Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

I do not own a "worst" lens. Now, my Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 is my least used lens.


Jason C

Quantaray 28-80 (Minolta Mount). I was using it with a sony alpha several years ago and was up in monument valley when a mild breeze kicked up a bit of dust. The lens immediately started making crunching noises, and the AF stopped working. It's garbage.

Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro with life size extender

Maybe I have been lucky. Out of 6 lenses I don't have a worst, just a least used. That would be the 70-200 F/2.8L IS. It is not bad, just heavy and never seems to reach as far as I need.

Worst lens yet was a tamron 70-200 2.8, it broke internally with in the first 6 months, tamron wanted 500 to repair, replaced with sigma OSS, then with the MKII from canon. When the tammy worked it was really a great lens, but it's workmanship and repair quote sent me on to better brands.

Sigma 90mm 2.8 macro.

Looking at a high contrast shot is like looking at a welder with no safety's on the chromatic aberration is that bad. Not to mention it sounds like an angle grinder when the AF is hunting. Besides that its not too bad for macro and very sharp.

24-105 f/4L IS.
Have 0 confidence in the IS unit. Canon have already replaced it, but still don't even get 1 stops increase in handholdability on a regular basis.

Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS.

Cheap lens, quality isn't fantastic, focus is slow and inaccurate and makes a irritating noise.