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

 
alt4852
Goldmember
Avatar
3,419 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Jul 20, 2009 14:28 as a reply to  @ post 8312845 |  #76

canon ef 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6

what a useless piece of plastic.


5D4 | Z21 | 35L2 | 50L | 85L2 | 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Citizensmith
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
     
Jul 20, 2009 14:30 |  #77

Another vote for the 75-300 being pretty craptastic. Now I owned 'worse' lenses, but I was learning and they were all I could afford so I'm fine with that, they did their job at the time. The 75-300 was the first lens I'd made a decision to get that turned out to be a major disappointment.


My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bjyoder
Goldmember
Avatar
1,664 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Central Ohio
     
Jul 20, 2009 14:33 |  #78

The popular choice for the worst lens is the 50 f/1.8, but I like mine a lot. Best lens ever? Not even close, but I've gotten plenty out of it for the $76 new I paid for it.

Biggest regret - Sigma 30 f/1.4. I got it knowing I'd have to probably send it back for calibration, and, sure enough, it went from B&H to my door to Sigma. I got it back, it still didn't focus right, so I sent it back in, and it got fixed properly. So I started to use it, and found out it was a terrible focal length for me. I either needed wider or more telephoto, and I wish the MFD could have been shorter. Sold it to fund my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (oddly enough, my 2nd most regretful purchase).


Ben

500px (external link) | Website (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DeCeccoNET
Senior Member
Avatar
708 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Eastchester, New York
     
Jul 20, 2009 14:39 |  #79

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

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this way!

But I WILL get shot for saying the worst lens (biggesrt regret is more applicable) I ever owned was my 85L mk2....

The cost was high, and because it shipped after amazon started charging NY sales tax, I was hit for extra fees and almost an over-draft... not to mention problems with the order nesessitated I log into my account while on vacation (from a crui$e ship)...

The focusing was too slow for my needs in sports, and aside from a few test shots, it sat unused for almost 6 months.

When I finally did take it out for an outdoor portrait session on my front porch, a gush of wind came along and took out one of my umbrellas and almost a 430ex flash as well.

I took it all as a sign and was VERY happy to the 85L it and put that money twords better use. Since then I have also started to re-think my lens collection so that each of my lenses can play multiple roles depending on my needs and nothing is specilized.


Sold all my gear to support starting a family... who inspired me to re-focus on photography again.
70D, EF-S 24 2.8, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 100 2.8L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DeCeccoNET
Senior Member
Avatar
708 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Eastchester, New York
     
Jul 20, 2009 14:44 |  #80

Citizensmith wrote in post #8312878 (external link)
Another vote for the 75-300 being pretty craptastic. Now I owned 'worse' lenses, but I was learning and they were all I could afford so I'm fine with that, they did their job at the time. The 75-300 was the first lens I'd made a decision to get that turned out to be a major disappointment.

While I generally agree with the build being crappy, I found ways to work with mine to the point that 2 of my online portfolio shots (external link)were taken with this lens;

"Rose" and "Coney Island"

That being said, I'd actually be really interested in seeing other people's "best" pictures from their "worst" lenses


Sold all my gear to support starting a family... who inspired me to re-focus on photography again.
70D, EF-S 24 2.8, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 100 2.8L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CAL ­ Imagery
Goldmember
Avatar
3,375 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
Location: O-H
     
Jul 20, 2009 14:45 |  #81

I didn't own it, but used it (I'll still qualify it for this thread...): Sigma 24-70. If that was the first Sigma I used, I probably wouldn't use any others.

For my own, although I love its optics, the 24-60 has the AF that makes the 50 1.8 look like the 300. Like Lloyd's 24-70, my Sigma is worst wide-open at 10-15 feet.


Christian

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jbergdoll
Goldmember
Avatar
1,176 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Tempe, AZ
     
Jul 20, 2009 15:00 as a reply to  @ CAL Imagery's post |  #82
bannedPermanent ban

15mm 2.8 and 18-55 EF-S


-Joseph
bergdollphoto.com (external link)
flickr (external link)
gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jxg
Senior Member
400 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: RI
     
Jul 20, 2009 15:34 |  #83

toss up between the canon 18-55 non IS and the Quantaray 70-300


John

Gear List: More than I should have for a "hobby"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Menelaus
Goldmember
Avatar
1,265 posts
Likes: 182
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Dallas
     
Jul 20, 2009 15:48 |  #84

50mm f/1.8, no question about it. Terrible build quality, noisy motor, slow AF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Jul 20, 2009 15:57 |  #85

Mine was a Tamron as well, a 35-80mm (or thereabouts) adaptall2 zoom. Total rubbish, soft? it was like marshmallow! with a fog-like flare overlay. Build quality dreadful, I eventually threw it away, but it had been a birthday present from my wife, so I had to keep it for some time before doing that.

I have never forgiven Tamron. It was immoral selling something that bad at the price.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
packham
Member
Avatar
118 posts
Joined Nov 2006
     
Jul 20, 2009 16:24 |  #86

This is a good thread! Subscribed...
bw!


5D | 24-105 f/4 L IS| 85 f/1.8 | 430EXII
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
     
Jul 20, 2009 17:02 |  #87

DeCeccoNET wrote in post #8312961 (external link)
That being said, I'd actually be really interested in seeing other people's "best" pictures from their "worst" lenses

All my bad lens days were with film. Since moving to digital and the arrival of teh intarweb kind of coincided I've been able to use sites like this to avoid some of my previous indiscretions. Threads like this are the perfect example of how great it is that people can easily come learn and see the best and worst of a lens, and from people who are not financially invested in the info they provide and so more likely to be impartial.


My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,355 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Likes: 2579
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jul 20, 2009 17:56 |  #88

Citizensmith wrote in post #8313776 (external link)
All my bad lens days were with film. Since moving to digital and the arrival of teh intarweb kind of coincided I've been able to use sites like this to avoid some of my previous indiscretions. Threads like this are the perfect example of how great it is that people can easily come learn and see the best and worst of a lens, and from people who are not financially invested in the info they provide and so more likely to be impartial.

Exactly! though i did a lot of research when i bought my lenses, at the time places like photozone didnt exist [or i couldnt find them] so i did most research at Ben Atkins, Frary Photography Index and Photography Review, later on, Fred Miranda played into things some more...

My problem was IGNORING a lot of the negatives thinking people were being too picky...

Sadly most of my crap shots not only were on film but were trashed because i dont have tons of storage space...

I do have some i took that show how terrible i am with flash however..:)


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
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Jul 20, 2009 19:59 |  #89

Menelaus wrote in post #8313362 (external link)
50mm f/1.8, no question about it. Terrible build quality, noisy motor, slow AF.

,,,but great image quality..


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stealthy ­ Ninja
Cream of the Crop
14,387 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Mythical Tasmania (the one with lots of tall buildings in the semi-tropics, A.K.A. Hong Kong)
     
Jul 20, 2009 20:30 |  #90
bannedPermanent ban

KenjiS wrote in post #8314019 (external link)
My problem was IGNORING a lot of the negatives thinking people were being too picky...

Yeah, I tend to ignore the 10/10 posts and read the negatives. A lot of the time they vote it down because it was the wrong focal length for them, or they got a bad copy, or they obviously don't know how to use it. But occasionally you get someone who knows what they're doing who say it sucks, they're the ones I consider.

That's why I'm having trouble choosing a lens around the 35mm mark. It seems nothing but the L comes up to standard.

85 1.8 and 100 2 seem to come up to standard enough to buy them, but the 28 and 35 f/2 seem to be lacking. The sigma 30 seems OK but it's a DC lens so no good on FF. :rolleyes:

More on topic...

It seems a lot of people are saying the 50 1.8. I've used this lens for a bit (my mum has it) it seems quite good for what you pay for it... you can't expect L performance for that price. ;) I think a lot of people buy this lens when they first get a DSLR because it's a cheap and handy prime (since most people get a crop cam first, it makes a good portrait lens... and it probably looks very good to their "P&S" accustomed eyes). Since it looks good to them at this stage, it gets pretty good "reviews". Then when they progress and try some L lenses or whatever, they see it's actually not as good as they thought.

Darn L fever. ;)




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

25,748 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 mstave
1077 guests, 285 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.