Worst and best lenses you have used ?

[Othrelos]

I'll pick my best and worst lenses out of my 50mm lens collection...I own 178 50mm lenses for 35mm cameras...

Best 50mm : Leica Noctilux 50mm f0.95 ASPH - a step up in resolution from the classic noctilux 50mm f/1.0, coma and spherical aberrations have been substantially improved upon and the extra speed is welcome. The design of the lens hood could be improved a bit. Though from a bokeh point of view this lens can produce results that will bring a tear from your eye and on some occasions make you want to stick a fork in your eye.

this is actually really difficult for me to single out any particular 50mm lens that I consider worse than others, every lens manufacturer occasionally comes out with some really shocking 50mm lenses. They tend to be really old, non macro lenses and Feature apertures of f/2 or slower, to simplify things I think I'll use a current example.

Worst 50mm : Canon 50mm f/1.8 - I know, this lenses performance is almost indistinguishable from the f/1.2 and f/1.4 canon lenses at apertures of f/4 and smaller (bokeh tends to give it away though). However, the construction quality of this lens just screams out "bottom of the barrel" to me, and the plastic lens mount...nice touch canon.

[I @ M]

and the plastic lens mount...nice touch canon.

Why does a plastic mount suddenly consign a lens to the bottom of the pit, Nikon too have been making a practice of plastic mounts in a few of their lenses for a while now and having owned one for a while there seems to be no quality issues or image degradation due to the mount.
Indeed, one doesn't have to worry about "brassing" from a metal mount that is frequently used, the risk of damage to the camera body mount area "should" be significantly reduced in the event of an accident where the lens is struck hard enough to break at the mount and I would rather pay the cost of replacing a plastic mount and not having to (over) worry about the camera body.
Plastic doesn't seem to be affected by temperature changes as much as metal and swelling and contraction is limited and the plastic mounts actually seem to be a closer tolerance fit in the body than metal mounts can be.
In terms of technology I see plastic as the "new" aluminium and the advances that came with that material will probably flow in the future (and present) from polymers allowing light weight, strength and durability at a reasonable price point.

[ricktas]

I'll pick my best and worst lenses out of my 50mm lens collection...I own 178 50mm lenses for 35mm cameras...

Best 50mm : Leica Noctilux 50mm f0.95 ASPH - a step up in resolution from the classic noctilux 50mm f/1.0, coma and spherical aberrations have been substantially improved upon and the extra speed is welcome. The design of the lens hood could be improved a bit. Though from a bokeh point of view this lens can produce results that will bring a tear from your eye and on some occasions make you want to stick a fork in your eye.

this is actually really difficult for me to single out any particular 50mm lens that I consider worse than others, every lens manufacturer occasionally comes out with some really shocking 50mm lenses. They tend to be really old, non macro lenses and Feature apertures of f/2 or slower, to simplify things I think I'll use a current example.

Worst 50mm : Canon 50mm f/1.8 - I know, this lenses performance is almost indistinguishable from the f/1.2 and f/1.4 canon lenses at apertures of f/4 and smaller (bokeh tends to give it away though). However, the construction quality of this lens just screams out "bottom of the barrel" to me, and the plastic lens mount...nice touch canon.

With all those lenses it would be good to see some of the work you do with them. After all this is AusPhotography, not AusGearHead!

[Wayne]

With all those lenses it would be good to see some of the work you do with them. After all this is AusPhotography, not AusGearHead!

Also guilty your honour!

While I don't have 178x 50mm lenses, I do have a heap of gear that I never really get out to use, but I keep collecting it by the credit card full...

[FeedMeTrance]

worst: nikon 70-300 (non vr)
best: nikon 70-200 f/2.8

[LJG]

Worst = 18-55 kit lens
Best = 50mm F1.4

[Xenedis]

Whoops; I'd already posted about the worst and 'best' lenses I've used; removed duplicate post.

[Othrelos]

Why does a plastic mount suddenly consign a lens to the bottom of the pit, Nikon too have been making a practice of plastic mounts in a few of their lenses for a while now and having owned one for a while there seems to be no quality issues or image degradation due to the mount.
Indeed, one doesn't have to worry about "brassing" from a metal mount that is frequently used, the risk of damage to the camera body mount area "should" be significantly reduced in the event of an accident where the lens is struck hard enough to break at the mount and I would rather pay the cost of replacing a plastic mount and not having to (over) worry about the camera body.
Plastic doesn't seem to be affected by temperature changes as much as metal and swelling and contraction is limited and the plastic mounts actually seem to be a closer tolerance fit in the body than metal mounts can be.
In terms of technology I see plastic as the "new" aluminium and the advances that came with that material will probably flow in the future (and present) from polymers allowing light weight, strength and durability at a reasonable price point.

The reason for my "bottom of the barrel" perception of the canon 50mm f/1.8 comes from the fact that I own over a hundred solid metal 50mm lenses, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a bit of a throwback to a trend that started in the 80's - the use of plastic. I'll admit it isn't the first lens to be made of plastic, I have plastic fantastic Pentax F series 50mm f/1.7 lenses that have better construction quality than the canon 50mm f/1.8. 50mm lenses used to be the pride of a camera manufacturers lens line up. The fast 50 was the "standard" lens that came with the camera when you bought it, and that lens had to be the best the manufacturer could make. Because it set the standard and upheld the sense of quality that the manufacturer was willing to produce for all their lenses. Would you trust a camera manufacturer that provided optically compromised "standard" lenses with their DSLR's? wait a minute, they already do that, no wonder people think photography is dead.

And as for your comment about plastic lens mounts being better than metal ones...have you ever mounted a leica lens on a M3? My M3 is 50 years old and the lenses mount as snugly as physics will allow (even hexanon lenses fit beautifully). DSLR's are mass produced it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that that the lens mounts these days are a bit sloppy, camera manufacturers have to cheap out on something. I wonder if we are ever going to see lens mounts made from invar......

[I @ M]

Othrelos, read my post again, nowhere in it have I made a comment that plastic mounts are better than metal mounts. I merely presented a few scenarios where a plastic mount may have an advantage over a metal mount.
Yes, once upon a time the standard lens that came with an SLR camera was the fast 50mm that you speak of and there have been many versions of them supplied with bodies at differing price points and levels of quality. Not all of them were / are state of the art lenses and as with most things the price point matched the quality.
Into the modern age of the DSLR and until recently the apsc sensor was the norm and I can't think of many, if any, manufacturers that supplied a fast fifty as their kit / standard lens to go with the shiny new body. Sure, amongst the camera / lens manufacturers there are presently plenty of variations on the 50mm theme ranging from expensive to down right bargain basement and I guess the canon 50mm F/1.8 falls into the latter category but I would suggest that the lenses price point is commensurate with the build quality but to back up the reality that photography isn't dead as some people seem to believe there are people out there producing quality images with that "cheap, quality compromised images" lens.

[Kym]

The most common APS-C kit lens is around 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 - not very fast.
At around f/8 .. f/16 these type of lenses can do a good job, like any lens if you work to its sweet spot and limits.

[arthurking83]

I only have one plastic lens mount type lens, and that's the recently acquired 18-105VR kit lens.

Of all my lenses which are all metal mount(excluding the 18-105) the tightest fitting seems to be the Tamron 28-75/2.8, which feels more snug than the Nikon 105VR Micro, but the best fitting lens of all of them is the plastic mount kit lens.
No rotational play at all, where the 105VR has a mill or two, and the Tammy has 1/2 to 1 mill or so of rotational play in the mount.

It's not an uncommon occurrence for a metal mount to 'brass' with age, which indicates some wear in the metal(or chrome, nickel, or whatever other material plating is used in the manufacture of it).
It will of course depend highly on the number of mount/dismount procedures.
Plastic has a natural lubricating/frictionless property anyhow, and as long as the mount feels secure, I feel secure in it's ability.

I tend to view all gear on a value for money basis, that is, for the price paid for the lens, the 18-105 has been my best lens, even tho I barely use it myself(I got it for my son's use).
In that respect, the 105VR is therefore my worst lens, because for the price I paid, I'd expect it it have the best IQ at the least(which it doesn't produce). It;s good, but not excellent by any means.. I've seen better, and I know the Sigma 150 macro is better in just about all aspects.

....anyhow.. I'm off to finish my lunch... yummy salad!

[andylo]

Worst: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (before replacement)
Best: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (after replacement)

[Bally]

Canon 90-300 f4.5-5.6 was the worst


As a couple of people have said, I love any lens that gets me a good pic on the day, those ones are much rarer than I would like. Infact not sure I own one yet

Oh yeah the one in my hanimax 110 wasn't very sharp but I loved loved loved those pics and waiting for the film to come back

Cheers

[crum]

Worst - 18-55mm which came with my 400D

Best - 70-200mm f4 IS

The 75-300mm which came with the 400D was definately miles ahead of the 18-55mm in terms of sharpness

[enduro]

Sigma 2xTC

"not bad" at point blank range and full frame but forget it after that.

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day all

Ahhhhh reading all the above brings back many memories

My fav as far as a love affair was a Tammy from the 1960s ... their Big-Bertha of an 80-250mm f3.8, used 72mm filters and weighed in at 1.3kg matched to a [quite unexciting] Pentax
Took the damn thing everywhere - even to the top of Uluru

Traded it for a smaller [genuine 'telephoto' design] 90-230mm Vivitar and regretted it from the first roll of film processed

In the digital world, I am amazed by the 12x zoom on the Panasonic FZ30 - a Leica-branded lens, internal zoom & focus so it does not 'grow' during use, and sharp as a tack till about 300mm, then a bit soft (but still very usable) to 420mm.

Regards, Phil

[boggo]

For me, the Canon 135mm prime lens is my fav. I almost always use at f2 and the subjects really pop out of the pictures

[CAP]

Best.... Minolta 100mm f/2.8 macro & Minolta 28-135mm f/4-4.5
Both older lenses, industrial grade build and deliver whenever on the camera.
Worst... Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO
Slow, soft and even though it was relatively cheap for a lens of this size, simply not worth the money.

[fabian628]

canon 18-55mm (non IS). This lens is terrible.

best. canon 300 2.8 IS

[DAdeGroot]

Tokina 18-200 f/3.5-5.3 zoom (FD mount). Absolutely attrocious image quality.

Best, tough call, but my 85/1.2L would be the best guess.