p.6 #1 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
What I was getting at with the paper towel tube isn't that it's a longer focal length -- just longer extension. If you put the same one-element lens in each, it will have the same focal length and same aperture, but different extension (and thus different effective aperture).
p.6 #2 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Vivitar 90-180 macro for Nikon. It had a legendary reputation and was one of only two zooms truly designed for macro use (the other being the later 70-180 Nikkor). I got one about 20 years ago and it surely did not perform to expectations.
p.6 #4 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
carstenw wrote:
..., but one time I really failed, with the ZF.2 50/2 MP. Everything I read made me believe it was a mini-100MP but nothing could be further from the truth. Extremely weak far corners (just a few percent), nasty field curvature, too much DoF at f/2, and a total lack of the magic which makes me love the 100MP so much. It took me maybe 1 month to admit to myself that I really didn't like it...
It took me 5 minutes.
It was the biggest Zeiss disappointment for me, sent it back to B&H the very next day.
p.6 #5 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
jcolwell wrote:
Here's what I have so far...
GTG, it's time to watch some football. I'll be back in a few days...
Go Utes!
Go Pats!
Wow! Ya really know when sports has taken over the roll of God in your life when you leave your paper-towels on your camera and your reply in mid-sentence.
p.6 #6 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
jcolwell wrote:
I didn't intend to criticize your extension tube length analogy. It's a fine one. I just want to investigate effective focal lengths of roll tubes for various paper products. I'm easily distracted.
Here's what I have so far...
GTG, it's time to watch some football. I'll be back in a few days...
Go Utes!
Go Pats!
Sounds to me like you've been hitting the NYE punch a little early....
p.6 #7 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
I never expected my comments on the macro to get such an extensive response.
I don't remember the Tamron 90mm changing maximum effective aperture, but then again, I had never thought such might be occurring. After I bought the Nikon, I read about the effect and confirmed it.
And now that I think about it, I didn't list my greatest disappointment in lenses. I bought the Tamron 11-18mm lens thinking that I "needed" a wide lens to round out my set, though I didn't have a specific plan for it. It was (at the time) the most expensive lens I had ever purchased. I owned it for several years and probably used it only five times. Certainly less than a dozen. The lens worked just fine, but it was not a focal length range I enjoyed (at the time, I have been slowly learning how to make use of wide lenses). I thought I wasn't shooting wide because I didn't have the right lens. Turned out I hadn't previously bought such a lens because I didn't really have a use for it. Sort of an expensive lesson...
Turns out that it is a matter of what you are shooting. Last May, I took a workshop with Rodney Leigh in Yosemite. I rented an 11-16mm Tokina, as I wasn't going to buy another lens that I hardly ever used. I discovered that if you have the right subject, even 11mm is not wide enough. There are times when everything you can see is beautiful and you just want to pull it all in.
Would I ever *buy* another 11-16 or similar? Frankly, I doubt it. For those very rare times when I want it, I can usually stitch. That said, I *am* slowly developing the skill needed for shooting wide, so maybe someday I can buy such a lens without being disappointed. Right now, I find my 17-50 is plenty wide for virtually all of my shooting. (I still tend to shoot on the 50mm end of that lens.)
So, in my case, the disappointment was due to a lack of ... understanding and perhaps skill and/or training, not the actual lens itself.
(I should also note that I shoot on a D300s, a 1.5x crop, so when I am talking about an 11-18, to some of you I am talking 17-27mm.)
p.6 #8 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
I haven't really been badly disappointed with a lens in a long time. The Tokina 17/3.5 AT-X Pro disappointed me, in 2002 or 2003 or thereabouts. It was really pretty bad.
My most recent lens purchase, the ZA Planar 85/1.4 for Sony Alpha (A850) is a little disappointing in the loud screw drive AF. And the focus ring rotating during AF is extremely annoying since the lens tends to rest right there on my left hand. No issues with MF. It's not tack sharp on the A850 even stopped down, but I didn't expect that - but it does deliver in terms of a lovely rendition. The ZA 24-70 is much more technically adept at 70mm, as is the APO 70-200/2.8G at any focal length under 150mm. But the Planar has that certain loveliness I find hard to put a finger on. So I'll keep it. It pairs well with the Summicron 35 ASPH on my M9. For more technical uses, or as a backup to the M9 the 24-70/2.8 is a hard act to beat. Or the 70-200/2.8G for reach.
I think the only other lens I've ever really been disappointed with is the M42 CZJ Flektogon 20/2.8. Crap lens. (The 35/2.4 is so excellent I got the 20 thinking if it were even ballpark it would be great. But not even close.) I got that in 2002 though, so have long since repressed the memory of this particular fail.
p.6 #9 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
jcolwell wrote:
I didn't intend to criticize your extension tube length analogy. It's a fine one. I just want to investigate effective focal lengths of roll tubes for various paper products. I'm easily distracted.
Here's what I have so far...
GTG, it's time to watch some football. I'll be back in a few days...
p.6 #10 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
...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.
No, I was referring to the same camera (NEX 5N). I can clearly see the difference, and for the most part it is with Zeiss producing more "pop"/3D effect, so with it I am more "in" the picture whereas with Leica I am looking more "at" the picture, although to the lesser degree than from my experience with e.g. Canon lenses.
I guess my point was that, given the price tag, I've set the plank too high and expected Leica M's to excel in all aspects that were important to me, which is not exactly the case. It just makes choosing the ultimate gear set too painful - there is no clear winner so you just keep running in circles... I miss the old days when I had just one camera/one zoom lens and was happily unaware about the bokeh/color/corner sharpness/microcontrast, you name it
p.6 #11 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Ataboy wrote:
No, I was referring to the same camera (NEX 5N). I can clearly see the difference, and for the most part it is with Zeiss producing more "pop"/3D effect, so with it I am more "in" the picture whereas with Leica I am looking more "at" the picture, although to the lesser degree than from my experience with e.g. Canon lenses.
I guess my point was that, given the price tag, I've set the plank too high and expected Leica M's to excel in all aspects that were important to me, which is not exactly the case. It just makes choosing the ultimate gear set too painful - there is no clear winner so you just keep running in circles... I miss the old days when I had just one camera/one zoom lens and was happily unaware about the bokeh/color/corner sharpness/microcontrast, you name it ...Show more →
ah, you should probably stick to zeiss then. the leica look seems very different to me. zeiss is all about microcontrast and pop, leica seems more fluid to me. no good way to describe it and it's just the feel i get from looking at pictures, but zeiss always seems more 3D and more contrasty than real life while leica just looks smoother but somehow still very sharp with a more natural look to my eye. it's probably all just placebo effect though.
p.6 #12 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
sebboh wrote:
ah, you should probably stick to zeiss then. the leica look seems very different to me. zeiss is all about microcontrast and pop, leica seems more fluid to me. no good way to describe it and it's just the feel i get from looking at pictures, but zeiss always seems more 3D and more contrasty than real life while leica just looks smoother but somehow still very sharp with a more natural look to my eye. it's probably all just placebo effect though.
Agree. For me, the better Leica lenses offer an incredible yet subtle gradation and a sort of "liquid" quality...whatever that means, right? Zeiss is more "in your face" with it's massive contrast and color, almost as if a weak polarizer is being used.
p.6 #13 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Disappointment ...thy name is Nikkor 50/1.2.
The old fools on dpr kept calling in a gem ...its not, its a rock and as dull as any gravel used to surface a road. What you meant to say was its nice to hold, that its made of metal and it reminds you of when the poo man would come to your house and replace the can in the dunny.
Ant.
Jan 02, 2012 at 12:59 AM
Guest
Guest
p.6 #14 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
An interesting thread to read. I can't remember ever being really disappointed by a lens - most of the time (e.g. with kit lenses) I knew what to expect. A couple of lenses I couldn't get to grips with were the Sigma 15-30/3.5-4.5 (pretty quirky but yielded some great results nevertheless) and the Canon 70-200/4 L non-IS (too lightweight with no IS so it become a nightmare to use handheld; was promptly sold).
Makten wrote:
Sigma 14/2.8 HSM: A lens that flares when it's overcast.
Agreed, it can pick up flares even when you least expect it. I bought it on a whim and keep it probably against my better judgement. Just can't bring myself to selling it. But it does get me a keeper (and a seller) from time to time, so I'll probably keep it unless I'm in dire straits financially (I hope not...) Overall I can't say it's a disappointment per se, just a specialty lens that sits on the shelf much of the time - like a T&S or a fisheye would.
p.6 #15 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
JimBuchanan wrote:
C/Y 28/2.8 on 5D
This may surprise many, but I was major disappointed with this lens in its lack of sharpness at the edges and corners, close or far. Yes, the sharpness improved when stopped down, but at f/8 and smaller? The light bulb went on when I got the Leica R 28 Elmarit II. Sharp corner to corner wide open.
I think you had a bad copy.....I'm amazed at how sharp mine is on my 5d...sharpest wide angle I've used.
p.6 #16 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Back when I shot Canon, I only kept the 85/1.8 3 months before selling it. Big disappointment! Bought the EF 100/2 and was happy with it till I got out of Canon gear.
Yes, lots of people talk about all kinds of gear... doesn't mean it's as great as they say.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Same here with the Canon 85mm 1.8.
I think that's when I started realizing a lot of people on forums talk about gear more than they use gear.
p.6 #17 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Interesting about the above comments on the Nikkor 50/1.2 as Lloyd Chambers Blog features it today.
An except (not from his subscription only sites!)
"A Fast and Compact 50mm for Nikon (or Canon or Sony NEX)
Nikon’s only ƒ/1.2 lens is the venerable 50mm ƒ/1.2 AI-S. It is still being made, but who knows how long that will continue.
At about $700, it’s not inexpensive, but it bears a look—
After warning about CAs he says:
" In short, if you want a soft dreamy look for portraits, this is your lens. And it’s very sharp when stopped down (though watch out for focus shift)."
p.6 #18 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
OneAnt wrote:
Disappointment ...thy name is Nikkor 50/1.2.
The old fools on dpr kept calling in a gem ...its not, its a rock and as dull as any gravel used to surface a road.
That's a lens that I liked very much. Of course it was soft wide open, but the sharpest 50 mm lens I've tried in F mount at f/2.
I also loved the 55/1.2 which is even "worse" wide open, but with nicer bokeh and equally sharp stopped down to f/2.
p.6 #19 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Just a note, if you're buying a 30-40 year old lens there is a certain risk that it has taken some hit during the years and got some element misaligned or whatever. Also I wouldn't be surprised if sample variation were more noticeable in the past due to advances in production technology. Just sayin', since a lot of people have mentioned old lenses in this thread (and some people seem to have different opinions).
p.6 #20 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
A-Mount Disappointments:
Worst:
Samyang 85mm f/1.4 -- great optics (minus occasional purple fringing). But crap aperture/ROM linkage to camera (I.E, none) which I didn't know about before purchasing it. No AF confirmation , no image stabilization, no EXIF info, Long MFD. Very difficult to shoot near wide open and get in focus pictures. Least used lens.
So-So:
Sony 50mm f/1.4 (flare resistance, sharpness near wide open on APS-C, better on FF)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro (focusing and lacking sharpness on FF, seemed perfectly fine on APS-C , can't explain this)
Minolta 50mm f/2.8 RS Macro (thought it would be much sharper wide open. At f/2.8 @ 100% I see a lot of aberrations causing cloudy/glowing details)
Some disappointment:
Tamron SP 35-105mm f/2.8 (long MFD, frequent occurrence of purple sensor reflections/hotspot? in image, otherwise a great all rounder esp on FF)
On the other hand here are some lenses that exceeded my expectations:
Auto-Chinon 135mm f/2.8 (M42). $15 from pawn shop. Fun cheap lens with great color, easy manual focusing, reasonable sharpness and built-in hood.
Pentax Asahi S-M-C 50mm f/1.4 (M42) - cheap, well built. Easy to focus. Sharp. Great bokeh. Better images than the new auto-focus Sony 50mm f/1.4
Sigma 24mm f/1.8 & Sigma 28mm f/1.8 - so far so good. Sharp wide-open in center and in shorter focus distances. Haven't tried testing entire frame and longer distances or infinity.
