Worst and best lenses you have used ?

[etherial]

Hmm,
The best - the $2 magnifying glass I purchased at the cheap and nasty shop.

The worst - hang on a sec, probably the same lens on a different day or when I meant to create a different type of image.

Now that I think about it this whole thread is a shallow attempt at defining a complex issue.

Or maybe I should just keep my actual opinion to myself and throw in a cheap shot about how bad "kit" lenses are cause "everyone" knows thier suspect and that will show that I'm in the know, wink, wink.

I'm not sure about "shallow attempt at defining a complex issue", but yes the results here can be taken with a grain of salt because it simply comes down to personal experience which is exactly what the OP asked for.

Re the kit lenses, yes they will get a bad wrap when compared with the more expensive lenses, hence why in my comment, I said it was a bit unfair to name it because it was good value for money.

[Lance B]

Easily the worst is the Pentax F35-80 f4-5.6 and the best is alot more difficult to answer as there have been so many good ones. In Pentax, I would say the FA*80-200 f2.8, or the FA43 f1.9 Limited or the FA77 f1.8 limited. In Nikon it would be the 300 f2.8 VRII or the 70-200 f2.8 VRII.

[Xenedis]

Re the kit lenses, yes they will get a bad wrap when compared with the more expensive lenses

It's to be understood that kit lenses are designed with a low price point in mind, so there will be optical, feature and construction trade-offs.

In approachable conditions, kit lenses can produce decent results when stopped down, but they lack the light-gathering capability, optical strengths (esp. UD elements, aspherical elements and fluorite elements), build quality and other features (such as IS) that pro-grade lenses offer.

Kit lenses are also aimed at beginners, and they typically provide a useful range of focal lengths that allow newcomers to try a broad range of photographic subjects and situations.

It doesn't make sense for a person who is completely new to photography to drop four figures on a top-of-the-line lens.

[Old Skool]

Loved & hated the same lens - EF 100-300 USM, Loved the light weight & super fast USM focus, but hated the purple fringing. Ended up I couldn't live with it!

[dredi1975]

worst Canon 18-55 kit lens
best Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L

[peterb666]

Worst - that's easy, Vivitar 28mm f/2. Utter crap.

Best - Olympus M.Zuiko 9-18mm f/4-5.6 - a very useful little zoom.

[zollo]

Hmm,
The best - the $2 magnifying glass I purchased at the cheap and nasty shop.

The worst - hang on a sec, probably the same lens on a different day or when I meant to create a different type of image.

Now that I think about it this whole thread is a shallow attempt at defining a complex issue.

Or maybe I should just keep my actual opinion to myself and throw in a cheap shot about how bad "kit" lenses are cause "everyone" knows thier suspect and that will show that I'm in the know, wink, wink.

its actually not complex, most kit lenses suck, man.

so with that in mind 55-200 kit lens gets another vote for the bonfire
85afs f/1.4 gets my best vote, but I need help deciding what day to use it

[kiwi]

Zollo, how do yiu rate the 85 afs vs the old classic ?

Maybe I should've excluded kit lenses from the list

[41jas]

Worse:....I don't have many lenses but I bought a 75-300mm kit lens to give me some zoom when I very first bought my 40D just to get me out of trouble for a while. Very soft.

Best:.....Hands down the 70-200 f2.8 IS L

But then there's the 24-105 f4 IS L
Can't complain about the 50mm 1.8. It might be slow focus but very sharp.

[milesy]

best without doubt is the Pentax DA* 50-135 IF SDM a super sharp lens

[N*A*M]

worst: 70-210 f/4-5.6 AF-D push pull zoom
best: 85 f/1.4 AFD or 70-200 f/2.8 VR
most surprising performer: 35-80 f/4-5.6 AF-D - almost all plastic but sharp sharp sharp!

[zollo]

Zollo, how do yiu rate the 85 afs vs the old classic ?

Maybe I should've excluded kit lenses from the list

I didnt own the old one so I cant give an accurate comparison yet. I can say that i do like the new one very muchly for real world photos. I may try to borrow/hire the old one and do a comparison in the near future

[TOM]

depends how you define 'best'....are you talking sharpness, contrast, value for money, boke, or handling?

the lens on my Holga is not that great, but that's the whole idea of the Holga so I'll ignore that. I'd have to say the worst lens would be the Nikon AF-D 1.8/50mm, and the best lens would be the Leica 1.4/75mm Summilux-M.

Dishonourable mention to the Nikon 2.8/70-200 VR. Very expensive for what it is, ridiculously big, average build, average IQ especially on full frame. I've heard the 2nd version is an improvement.

[koputai]

Best - the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, a truly wonderful lens, sharp and easy to use.

Worst - the 18-55mm II kit lens, soft, slow, with bad colour.

Cheers,
Jason.

[Regnis]

i absolutely love the colours and bokeh that my sigma 50mm f1.4 produces, tis a great portrait lens! However focus can, at times, be off.

I found my sigma 105mm f2.8 macro amazingly sharp.

Can't really say I have had a "worst" lens... maybe my canon 28-105 (bit soft), learnt alot with it though

[ecopix]

To breath some new life in this discussion, best?

There are lots of fine lenses, so to modify slightly, the lens that has meant the most to me: 400mm f3.5 Nikkor IFED.

It's built my career (along with an also exquisite 250mm Sonnar). I bought the big 400 in the mid-eighties when I realized wildlife wasn’t just a passion, but a life. Second hand, but at the time Photocontinental in Brissie had a new one for over $9000, when a professional salary was about $35000. That’s like having to shell out over 30 grand for a 400mm f2.8 today.

I still have that lens (actually just converted it to AF), and it still produces the most beautiful images of any long lens I’ve used. They glow.

Worst? Being a cheapskate, I’ve had a few dogs. To modify again, the lens that has been the greatest disaster: an 18-70 DX Nikkor that was out of AF whack, on a D200 that was also out, and the two compounded.

I did a remote aerial shoot using 14 hours of helicopter hire at $750 an hour, and everything was slightly soft. Whoops! Luckily I had shot two halves of most scenes, and I could join the files together and then reduce them down to get them nice and sharp. But it took a lot of time and worry!

Wayne

[mikew09]

Ha, I am with Allenn. I had the 18-55 Canon kit lens - it was very ordinary, I don't think I have many shots with that lens. I also had the 55-250 IS kit lens at the time and to be honest it was not such a bad lens really - spent most its time on my camera.
Both lens went we I bought my 20-200 L f4, it is without the best lens I have owned. But if we are talking the best lens I have used it is the 70-200 L f2.8, borrowed one for a week and fell in luv with it, have lusted for one ever since. Don't get me wrong, the f4 70-200 is still a fanastic lens.

[kaiser]

Best - 135mm F/2 DC, when it works
Worst- 135mm F/2 DC, when it doesn't work
Most surprising lens -Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 Nokton
Best wide prime - 24/1.4

[StanW]

One of my best would be a 135mm Rodenstock Yronar which has now seen over forty years service on my Pentaxes.

[dkp]

Worst ....... Canon ef 70-300 4 -5.6
Bestest ...... Canon 100 mm macro 2.8 IS USM