ITT- the worst lenses ever made I'll start The Pentax

Canon 22-55
Nikon 43-86 1st gen

>>2957150
>implying the Pentacks M 50mm f/2 isn't severely worse

>>2957150
>f/1.4
> slow

File: 622903_525501107475739_878442214_o.jpg (170KB, 2048x1361px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 2048x1361px

>>2957150
The Petri 45mm f2.8.

File: Yall_niggas_legit_troll.jpg (60KB, 600x622px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x622px

>>2957150
>f 1.4 slow

>>2957156
>>2957158

maybe hes referring to the t stop? i dunno..

>ambient occlusion
Get out /3D/

>>2957264
we takin ova

first your product shoots then ya porn!

>>2957151
Lmao some camrea buyback place gave me 115 for my mint 43-86.

File: Nikon-AF-Nikkor-35-70mm-f-33-45-Zoom-Lens-_57.jpg (113KB, 1600x1142px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1600x1142px

So bad.

>>2957332
True!

File: domiplan-meyer-optik-50-2.8-opti-optical-scheme.jpg (228KB, 1567x830px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1567x830px

You spoilt fucks haven't a clue about truly bad lenses.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG DIGITAL IMA
Camera Model	SAMSUNG GX20
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:05:09 19:51:48
Exposure Time	1/45 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2957385
I mean, being shocked at a Slav lens being shit is like being surprised when your Zaporozhets shits the bed.

>>2957385
You can use any magnifying glass as a photography lens. No aperture, no shutter, no focus, no zoom, shit quality, distortion, CA, softness, flare, at all settings in all conditions.

(Wicked fast though, one of my magnifying glasses comes out like a 210mm f0.4

File: Screenshot_2016-10-24-15-16-06.png (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>2957389
>Meyer Optik
>Cooke triplet
>slav lens
>capitalising Slav in a post written to demean slavs
>using the same zaporozhets example for an Nth time

It's nice to have a dedicated shitposter though, really tickles my need for attention.

>>2957419
I suppose we're sticking to stuff optical enginners designed and purpose-built to be natively attached to cameras, yet which is so bad one wonders why they bothered.

>>2957150
>Pentax m 50mm f/1.4

isn't that like the best cheap 50mm prime you can get?

>>2957449
that would be the 50mm 1.7

It's not that much slower but it's sharper and has less CA and vignetting

>>2957385

Meyer-Gorlitz made decent LF optics.

>>2957514

Forgot to mention named for Hugo Meyer who was an apprentice for Carl Zeiss at the turn of the century.

>>2957507
af slow as fuck.
anyone bought this for their $3000 body is a cuck.

>>2957457
i have both.
1.4 is soft wide open. at f2 is good.
1.7 is ok wide open. at f2.8 is good.
1.7 is lighter, so i mainly use that.
minolta md ii 50 1.7 is better though.

File: 1467033792973.jpg (23KB, 344x382px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 344x382px

>>2957507
>People actually bought these for full MSRP
Can't wait for them to reach Canon 50mm 1.8 levels of cheap.

>>2957518
i have both 1.4 and 1.7 and was about to say i fucking love the pentax smc 50mm 1.7

>>2957518
Do you have the f1.7 A or M? Because my M is sharp as fuck wide open

File: Pentax_50mm_comparisons_3200x1800px.jpg (1MB, 3200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3200x1800px

>worst
lol
http://oh-hi.info/tech/50mm_compare/

>>2957633
no pentax-m 50 1.7? ;_;

the A 50 1.2 is great, dang

File: ScreenLickYesss.jpg (34KB, 257x370px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 257x370px

>>2957633
>That 1.7

File: Sharpness-and-flare-characteristics_SMC-Pentax-A-50mmf1.2.jpg (705KB, 2000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 2000x1200px

>>2957637
...yeah
but i find 50mm/2.8 with autofocus much more practical to use these days. I have the 1.2 front-shelved to prompt me to use it every time i go to select gear, but I always decide against it. I guess it just doesnt fit what I'm shooting lately.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:02 16:48:11
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/1.2
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	250
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

File: zeiss55_1.jpg (36KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 620x413px

Flat soulless image with no character
clinical colour rendition
weird bokeh

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	620
Image Height	413

>>2957151
Nikon 43-86 ai version (first gen) isn't so bad. I used it on a full frame and got good pictures with it. Stop it down and it sharpens up a bit.

Granted it won't outperform a macro lens or modern pro lens on things like sharpness and flare, but the hype on its badness is really just that - hype.

File: images.jpg (28KB, 466x315px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 466x315px

>>2957332
This thing was sharp as sin tho.

>>2957150
you are kind of an idiot aren't you

>>2957682
Lol no
Some dude was selling one on a local fb group and the sample images he posted were laughable.

>>2957685
>trusting fb plebs to show accurate lens performance
lol no

>>2957519

I picked mine up for $150 new.

>>2957516

With latest firmware update it is actually usable on pdaf cameras now. Still wont win any speed awards, and it is still loud as fuck, but it isn't the absolute trash it used to be.

File: 3580scftclos3.jpg (91KB, 700x291px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 700x291px

A lot of Minol5a lenses are great even on a modern camera. Be it their old manual focus MD lenses, or their autofocusing A-mount.

But a few are absolute trash.

These two are probably the worst. They sell for around $20 and aren't even worth that much. Terrible in every way optically and extremely low build quality.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSLR-A700
Camera Software	ACD Systems Digital Imaging
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	150 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:06:16 15:04:48
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	5.1 EV
Exposure Bias	3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	291
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard

>>2957698
I may be looking over some good lenses, but it seems that every lens with that style of rubber focus ring is total shit.

>>2957700

You are pretty much right.

If i recall correctly, these were budget lenses for entry level stuff.

A few are okay. The 35-70mm is surprisingly sharp and dirt cheap. Though the older one is better.

>>2957655
1.7 50's are always strangely good. The C/Y CZ 50mm 1.7 is godlike and quite cheap.

>>2957698
MD 2.8/35 is pretty shit, soft as fuck and distorts around the edges like it was a 28mm.

>>2957549
It's basically the same lens, same optical formula. The A is made of plastic instead of metal.

>>2957150
>lots of abient occlusion
either you have no idea what ambient occlusion is or you had something else in mind. Or just stupid.

>>2957549
a.
it's ok.
f5.6 is sharp as fuck imo.
it's not new smegma art line sharp wide open.

>>2957633
he might have bought a hazy with fungus lens.

File: memes.jpg (404KB, 668x1024px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 668x1024px

Easy mode: Any Vivitar pump zoom ever.

And then there's this Owen Automatic 3.5/200 M42, which is just utter garbage. Soft, awful color rendition, stopping down does nothing.

File: 16018844649_d8696c9491_k.jpg (1MB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1367px

>>2957685
I really hope you aren't passing judgement on a lens via photos compressed to hell and back on Facebook.

For a <$200 constant 2.8 zoom it's pretty damn good.

>>2957801
No,
The series 1 were bangin'

Shit lenses
anything russian
anything 80's cheap 3rd party
soligor, mitakon, phoenix, etc

>>2957836
>shit lenses
>anything russian
>calling the Tair 3s 300mm f4.5 shit
Fuck off

>>2957168
Jesus you are not a clever man

File: 17930970-md.jpg (64KB, 680x545px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 680x545px

>>2957682
that was a great lens and probably still is. I had one for years.

>>2957685
who knows the history on that particular lens, it could have been beat to hell. sometimes even a small impact can do a lens in.

Anything with "swirly bokeh". It's such a Russian thing to have.

>>2957878
How new are you?

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM

>>2957881
I'm old enough to be done with memes. Any time I see swirly bokeh on Instagram, I see a sucker that paid a 600% markup on a Russian lens that costs less than their iPhone case.

>>2957886
I see, so you are not older than 15.

File: IMG_1552.jpg (2MB, 1000x1334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x1334px

>>2957886
>projecting this hard
You really don't have to be so bitter anon, we all experiment and make mistakes.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1334

>>2957891
I'm a 27 year old man, not everyone you disagree with is a child. All you've said is "you're new" and "you're 15", nothing about how swirly bokeh is good, only that you're supposed to like it.

I've grown out of that phase, have you?

>>2957893
>we all experiment and make mistakes.
>fuji memecam and russian memelens

mistakes were made.

>>2957893
Did you at least get your money back?

File: stop_liking_file.jpg (125KB, 321x360px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 321x360px

>>2957894
If you are 27 years old adult, why do you behave like a child? Dissing things because of certain properties you don't like.
Pic related, you show every sign of a self centered manchild.

>>2957903
You're describing the theme of the thread, dissing lenses because of defects we don't like. One man's defect is another's gimmick, of course, but it's still a defect just like vignetting and "ambient occlusion".

If you can't handle that then maybe you'll prefer Reddit.

File: IMG_1551.jpg (2MB, 1334x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1334x1000px

>>2957896
Seeing isi's body of work and her argumentation convinced me to buy this wonderfully versatile camera and I don't regret even forma second.
>>2957898
im sorry your poor, anon :^)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	1334
Image Height	1000

https://shop.lomography.com/en/lenses/

all the haze and blur of beach glass now for upwards of 500 dollars

>>2957908
Me? You're the one complaining about perfectly good lenses having swirly bokeh!

>>2957909
>buy $3000 camera
>use shitty lens made by drunk slavs

>>2957988
>xpro2
>$3000

>>2957992
Yeah I have no idea where he got those numbers. Maybe he lives in a country with a weak currency or something.

>>2957894
pls post what you think is bad swirly

>>2957988
The highest price for a brand new xpro2 here is $1500, but unless you're a preorder fag most will pay much less than that.

>>2957150
Yea but you see your ambient occlusion is what causes it to be slow. Try turning it off or to a lower setting like sbao or something.

>>2957168
lol
fuck off

>>2957863
>>2958232
????

>>2957894
>27
grow up kid.

>>2957385
i have this on a zenith somewhere.

it hurts me to use it.

havent shot anything with it as i just dont want to use it actually.

>>2957909

the cancer is real! Are you and Isi together or something? Real laughable

File: 20160922_103625_Richtone(HDR).jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>2958465
hurts you to use the zenit (understandable) or the 44-2 helios?
>>2958478
maybe one day you'll feel stupid for falling for such lowlevel trolling

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SM-P605
Camera Software	P605XXUCNF2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:22 10:36:25
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	3.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Unknown

>>2958484
Helios is not that bad, and even some hipsters have found its bokeh very nice.

>>2957869
That's a sad picture bro.

>>2957886
>costs less than their iPhone case
You're wrong.