What Is Your Worst Lens

The 75-300 that came with my XSi... what a horrible lens.

facedodge wrote in post #14417261
in reality... it's probably my Tamron EF-S 17-50 VC

Worse than the 75-300mm ?

Canon 50mm 1.8

sigma 150 -500 terrible luck with this lens

I got the 50 1.8. Piece of junk...even at it's price. Very bad focus accuracy. Bokeh just terrible. Build quality was like a toy. Do I need to go on? Just sits on my shelf...don't want to burden anyone else with it.

Hogloff wrote in post #14417934
I got the 50 1.8. Piece of junk...even at it's price. Very bad focus accuracy. Bokeh just terrible. Build quality was like a toy. Do I need to go on? Just sits on my shelf...don't want to burden anyone else with it.

I also had a complaint about this lens. The problem is, I was honest about IQ. The IQ of the 50mm 1.8 is astounding. It does feel like a piece of junk, but it produces the opposite of junk.

tuftsr wrote in post #14417894
sigma 150 -500 terrible luck with this lens

My Sigma 150-500mm OS has been great. My worst because of build and errratic focusing would be the Canon 50mm 1.8 II. Replaced with the mk1 version and love it!

I'm sure all of the stories about Sigma's problematic focusing is true, and although my worst lens is also a Sigma, it isn't because of focusing issues.

I never use my Sigma 10-20mm enough to justify having it around. My shooting style changed and I realized that the sharpness and contrast of this lens falls short of my expectations.

Its funny because my FAVORITE lenses are actually all 3rd party: Sigma 30mm, Sigma 85mm, Samyang 35mm. I love those!

Canon 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 EF II Kit Lens that came with a Rebel 2000 film camera years ago. Noisy when focusing and about the worst build quality of any lens I've ever seen.

My worst lens is the 17-40 but there is nothing out there that is any better, imo.

18-135

Worst was a Tamron 28-200 (210?) back on my old film EOS. I wanted to a "all in one lens" to prevent having to change lenses in dusty conditions. I'll take dust and good IQ. After about three to four rolls of film and very few keepers it was retired and 28-70, 70-210, and other got used. The Tamron got sold. Buy the way, I told the buyer I thought it was a crummy lens with poor IQ.

50mm 1.8 - It's sharp and cheap, and that's about it. Terrible build quality, displeasing bokeh, persnickety auto-focus.

Canon 50mm f/1.4. Very soft and not good at AF. Too bad about Sigma's 50mm lotto, otherwise I would buy in a heartbeat. I might wait to get a Canon 50L

The worst of my current lenses is the EF 16-35 f/2.8 II, although I think it is pretty good for what it is. The corner and edge sharpness are just not spectacular.

Some past worsts, meaning lenses that perhaps were below expectations / conventional wisdom:
1) EF 50 f/1.4 USM. The lens is not great below f/2 and the AF performance in low light is frankly disappointing even when used with a 1D camera.
2) EF-S 17-55 IS USM. The lens is very sharp which seems to please most people. It has cool / dull colors and can yield heavy veiling flare in a lot of situations. Overall it is a good lens, but the color, build and flare all add up (IMO) to make the lens overhyped.