Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 19 Jul 2009 (Sunday) 23:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Worst Lens You've Ever Owned

 
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:07 |  #61

mentospure wrote in post #8312356 (external link)
How come?

My guess he got some bad copies...That really sucks dude!

And im noticing the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 50 f/1.8 as well as my Tamron 28-75 making the list a lot...

For the record, my Tammy is my least favorite lens in my lineup right now and i ponder if it was a mistake to have gotten it...Not a bad lens optically, i just dislike the AF quite a lot...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
packpe89
Senior Member
Avatar
731 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
Location: North Carolina
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:09 |  #62

Canon 100-300 4.5/5.6 USM. Had to be stopped down to at least F8 to be usable. The very similair 70-210, was the exact opposit, great lens for sports.


Canon 7D, 40D, 300f2.8L, 70-200f2.8L IS, Sigma 30f1.4, 60EF-S 2.8 Macro, 15-85EF-S , Sigma 10-20, A couple of flashes, strobes and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anke
"that rump shot is just adorable"
UK SE Photographer of the Year 2009
Avatar
30,454 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Royal Tunbridge Wells, UK
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:16 |  #63

Luke Cern wrote in post #8310523 (external link)
So why was it a bad lens??? and why should it be avoided?

It wasn't bad, it just was unsuitable for me and I wish I'd purchased something else.


Anke
1D Mark IV | 16-35L f/2.8 II | 24-70L f/2.8 II | 70-200L f/2.8 II | 50 f/1.4 | 600EX-RT and ST-E3-RT
Join the Official POTN UK South-East Thread | Follow me on Twitter (external link) | Tunbridge Wells (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Anke
"that rump shot is just adorable"
UK SE Photographer of the Year 2009
Avatar
30,454 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Royal Tunbridge Wells, UK
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:18 |  #64

bluefox9er wrote in post #8311981 (external link)
lol..if the focal length is not right for your personal use that dosnt make it a duff lens!! :-)

that totally cracked me up.

The original poster asked for "biggest purchasing regrets", that was mine.


Anke
1D Mark IV | 16-35L f/2.8 II | 24-70L f/2.8 II | 70-200L f/2.8 II | 50 f/1.4 | 600EX-RT and ST-E3-RT
Join the Official POTN UK South-East Thread | Follow me on Twitter (external link) | Tunbridge Wells (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:20 |  #65

nureality wrote in post #8309931 (external link)
Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III, softest picture, flat bland colors, slow as hell AF, and its one of the ugliest lenses to boot.

I'm embarrassed to say this was mine, too.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 732
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:30 as a reply to  @ Tony-S's post |  #66

mentospure wrote in post #8312356 (external link)
How come?

They have a tendency to focus poorly at the wide end of the range. Most people are even unaware as many test their lenses at the long end but not the wide end. Also, if you are stopped down, it's harder to see if your focus has missed the mark. In addition, it also depends on your subject to lens distance... it seems the worst shooting at F/2.8 around 10-15ft subject to lens distance.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelharmony
Senior Member
Avatar
857 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:32 |  #67

The Pinhole lens I tried to make :)

But my worst would have to be the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. This was the first version that was huge, heavy, and had a AF that sounded like a dentist drill. Glass had subpar contrast and color rendition.. Soon replaced it with a 24-70L.


Eugene Kim
5D Mark II . Sigma 50mm f1.4
R.I.P - D700, D300, D200, 40D, D50

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvrr
Goldmember
Avatar
2,755 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 134
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Chicago,IL
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:33 |  #68

80-200 3.5-5.6

(Not the L not the USM version, the slow buzzzy plastic version)


Past Sale Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aebrown
Maybe the next victim
Avatar
1,285 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:35 |  #69

50 1.8 SOFT SOFT SOFT!


-Aaron Brown :D
1D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 35L, 85L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 580 EX II
Where to goandWhat to do (external link) in the Pacific Northwest
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
verdantsound
Senior Member
Avatar
272 posts
Joined Sep 2008
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:39 |  #70

:)

aebrown wrote in post #8312554 (external link)
50 1.8 SOFT SOFT SOFT!

agreed


T2i
Sigma 30mm f1.4, Canon 80-200mm f/2.8L, Tamron 17-50mm, Canon 100mm f2.0 550 EX Flash
Budget: College Kid

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Truckman
Hatchling
Avatar
7 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Conroe Texas
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:40 |  #71

My lenses are fine, my skills suck...Ben


"This is the old war, the war of civilization against the barbarian; of peacefulness, order and hard work against the heedless, the cruel, the destructive" - Louis L'Amour

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bob_r
Goldmember
2,473 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 723
Joined Aug 2006
Location: West Tennessee, USA
     
Jul 20, 2009 13:59 |  #72

I bought a Sigma 28-300 for a vaction trip because I wanted to travel light. I wasn't expecting "L" quality, but thought a majority of the shots would be acceptable. There were not many keepers from that trip. I returned it as soon as I arrived home.


Canon 7D, 5D, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 200L, 10-22, 17-55, 70-300, 100-400L, 500D, 580EX(2).
Sigma 150 macro, 1.4X, 2X, Quantaray 2X, Kenko closeup tubes, Yongnuo YN685(3), Yongnuo YN-622C-TX. Lots of studio stuff.
** Image Editing OK **

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mystwalker
Senior Member
608 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Jul 20, 2009 14:21 |  #73

28-135 came in kit and was my first lens - I jumped from that to a 17-40 so probably not fair to judge :)

First lens I bought was 50 f/1.8 - I think it was more "me" (user error/ignorance) then any issues with lens. Flash with 17-40 solved all motion blur issues I had with 28-135 and 50mm. On other hand, for less then $100, I really can't complain.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
versedmb
Goldmember
4,448 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2006
     
Jul 20, 2009 14:27 |  #74

Anke wrote in post #8309947 (external link)
I'm probably going to get shot for this, but the 70-200 f/4 L.
Reason: the focal length was just too short for birding and wildlife and I found myself never using it as it was not much longer than the 24-105 I had at the time and couldn't be bothered to attach it to the camera and just walked closer :D

Burn that man at the stake!!!!....;)

Seriously, the 70-200 f/4 is an amazing lens.

f/5...

IMAGE: http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/521719929_eNWGY-XL.jpg


f/4.5...
IMAGE: http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/538141200_HKTgB-XL.jpg


IMAGE: http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/487563825_Ggixi-XL.jpg



IMAGE: http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/403194304_RqgTV-XL.jpg

Gear List

Michael

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
merp
Senior Member
490 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2006
     
Jul 20, 2009 14:27 |  #75
bannedPermanently

I really didn't like my 50 f1.8, but I've seen some good photographs taken with it. So maybe it was just me being a bad photographer that day =/

Still yeah, I hate it. I want it gone, so it needs to be gone. It still sits in my lowpro bag as if I'm ever going to use it. That lens won't fool me this time! >.< But I mean it was only $80 bucks =/




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

28,259 views & 0 likes for this thread
Worst Lens You've Ever Owned
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kenf
1293 guests, 304 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.