Worst Lens You've Ever Owned

mentospure wrote in post #8312356
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...

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.

Luke Cern wrote in post #8310523
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.

bluefox9er wrote in post #8311981
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.

nureality wrote in post #8309931
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.

mentospure wrote in post #8312356
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.

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.

80-200 3.5-5.6

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

50 1.8 SOFT SOFT SOFT!

aebrown wrote in post #8312554
50 1.8 SOFT SOFT SOFT!

agreed

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

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.

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.

Anke wrote in post #8309947
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

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

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

f/5...

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 =/