p.5 #1 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
This is a most interesting thread.
I've had some disappointments in past - for example some mirror lens I bought 25-30 years ago - but for the last 15 years - the biggest disappointment was the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8L. When I bought it new it was the best WA zoom going for Canon at the time - but even my Sigma 15-30 had better IQ on a FF.
p.5 #3 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
It is an interesting thread. Disappointing lenses for some are all time favorites of others. Part of that likely has to do with built-up expectations of popular lenses around here as well as personal preferences/ uses but I would bet lens sample variation also plays a part (as well as adapter issues).
p.5 #5 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
I am disappointed in Leica M lenses, considering their price. Yes, the ASPH versions are nice but the results on NEX 5N don't blow me away me when comparing to Leica R or best Zeiss lenses. Maybe it's a relative lack of character, at least to my eyes. They are just good little lenses.
The Leica 35/1.4 ASPH still is my most used lens right now, but if my Contax 35/1.4 was of the same size I would use it instead.
p.5 #6 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Ataboy wrote:
I am disappointed in Leica M lenses, considering their price. Yes, the ASPH versions are nice but the results on NEX 5N don't blow me away me when comparing to Leica R or best Zeiss lenses. Maybe it's a relative lack of character, at least to my eyes. They are just good little lenses.
The Leica 35/1.4 ASPH still is my most used lens right now, but if my Contax 35/1.4 was of the same size I would use it instead.
I wonder if it's possible the NEX 5n sensor is homogenizing the differences between these lenses and the unique character of each lens is not coming through?
p.5 #8 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I wonder if it's possible the NEX 5n sensor is homogenizing the differences between these lenses and the unique character of each lens is not coming through?
meh, i'm sure the lux is a more perfect lens, but i suspect the contax has more character. i believe luka has actually said he prefers the look of his rollei version to his lux on the m9, it's just a lot nicer to use an m9 + lux than a 5D + zeiss.
p.5 #9 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
sebboh wrote:
meh, i'm sure the lux is a more perfect lens, but i suspect the contax has more character. i believe luka has actually said he prefers the look of his rollei version to his lux on the m9, it's just a lot nicer to use an m9 + lux than a 5D + zeiss.
...and probably any FF sensor is going to show more lens character than the same lens on APS.
I read Ataboy's post to basically say he can't really see the difference between these lenses on the NEX 5n but perhaps that's not what he meant.
p.5 #10 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
When I was using a Sony body (a100), I had only "alt" lenses, in that all of my lenses were Tamron. I used the 28-75mm f/2.8 extensively. That lens was soft at f/2.8, even in the center. Fine by f/4.
On the flip side, I thought their 90mm f/2.8 macro lens was amazing. It was the only lens I ever used on my nearly black (some dark liver color) on white dog where I could see contrast in her face without any level adjustments. *It* was sharp at f/2.8...
Not an "alt" lens, but I was also disappointed by the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR macro. To the best of my knowledge, they never tell you that the maximum aperture decreases as you get closer to an object. Given how I use the lens, that is irrelevant 90+% of the time, because usually I have too little DOF at MFD. So the disappointment was not the behavior nearly as much as the specs and the behavior don't agree. Why didn't they just spell it out?
And there *are* times when I am a foot or two from an object, and I want f/2.8, but it won't give me better than say f/3.2 or f/3.5.
p.5 #11 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
It is a great thread, high expectations is the big factor maybe for the better alts.
'Maybe it's a relative lack of character, at least to my eyes.'
Many of the Leica Rs and quite a few Zeiss SLR lenses fall away and distort outside the APS-C frame, but have fine centres, so that might be it. With the better Leica Ms, they are even across the FF frame, so you don't 'not lose' as much.
p.5 #13 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
I'm amazed, both billsnature and JimBuchanan list the Zeiss Contax C/Y 28/2.8 amongst their disappointments!
It's my favourite lens with real "pop" from 2.8. I love it! (on 5DII)
p.5 #14 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
ucphotog wrote:
Not an "alt" lens, but I was also disappointed by the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR macro. To the best of my knowledge, they never tell you that the maximum aperture decreases as you get closer to an object. Given how I use the lens, that is irrelevant 90+% of the time, because usually I have too little DOF at MFD. So the disappointment was not the behavior nearly as much as the specs and the behavior don't agree. Why didn't they just spell it out?
And there *are* times when I am a foot or two from an object, and I want f/2.8, but it won't give me better than say f/3.2 or f/3.5. ...Show more →
Sorry but you cannot blame Nikon for following the laws of physics
p.5 #15 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Very interesting thread ideed. I can understand some disappointments but I am wondering : how many come from the lens variation, how many from the lens design and how many from the focal length that is or not convinient for one.
p.5 #16 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Makten wrote:
Nikkor 20/3.5 AI-S: Just unusable for anything but closeups. So unsharp at infinity that it wasn't good enough for 800x600 web images.
Edit: All of these were used on a D700.
Strange. My copy of this lens is good to excellent at distance and absolutely terrible close-up except in the very centre, irrespective of aperture (at any range I don't find the lens much good wider than 5.6).
Roy
p.5 #17 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
ucphotog wrote:
Not an "alt" lens, but I was also disappointed by the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR macro. To the best of my knowledge, they never tell you that the maximum aperture decreases as you get closer to an object. Given how I use the lens, that is irrelevant 90+% of the time, because usually I have too little DOF at MFD. So the disappointment was not the behavior nearly as much as the specs and the behavior don't agree. Why didn't they just spell it out?
The decrease of the aperture is due to the bellows factor: the closer you focus, the more light you lose. At 1:1 you lose 2 stops or so, I believe? Nikon cameras show this by decreasing the indicated aperture; Canon cameras only adjust the shutter speed and show the same aperture. Something could be said for both approaches (though the Nikon approach can be confusing if the user doesn't know that the equivalent aperture decreases when extending the lens).
@timballic: Same here. Of course it's possible to have higher standards, but not at the price of that Contax!
p.5 #18 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
This is the case with any macro lens -- it's not in any way specific to Nikon. Imagine looking through a toilet paper roll, then a paper towel roll -- the latter has the same physical aperture, but a whole lot less light. That's roughly analogous to what happens with a lens with long extension (ie, a macro).
If this is your biggest lens disappointment, you'd better not buy any other macro.
p.5 #19 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
very interesting discussion on this bellow factor of macro lenses. Learned something today!
My disappointment with lenses was mostly with consumer Nikon lenses:
18 mm - 35 mm - F/3.5-4.5 (images were all soft! how can this sell for $500!?)
18-55 DX VR II (very sharp lens but very dull and flat colors)
24 f/2.8 AF-D not sharp at all
p.5 #20 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Smiert Spionam wrote:
This is the case with any macro lens -- it's not in any way specific to Nikon. Imagine looking through a toilet paper roll, then a paper towel roll -- the latter has the same physical aperture, but a whole lot less light...
Yes. The longer tube has the same aperture size, but a higher f/stop number (i.e. the longer tube is dimmer), as f/stop = focal length divided by apparent diameter of the aperture, as seen through the front of the lens, or should I say through the front of the 'tube'. Of course, this begs the question, 'what are the effective focal lengths of toilet paper and paper towel tubes?'.
