your worst lens purchase?

[l'homme]

While I'll agree with the two previous posters that the 18-55 kit lens doesn't exactly have a good track record, it makes a great reverse macro lens (see some of my macro work on iStockphoto!)!

I'm going to have to say that my worst lens choice so far has been the 50mm 1.8. My god. Great optical quality, but what's that worth when the thing falls apart in your hands after six months of use? I'm sticking to ultrasonic lenses from now on!

What's that amazing insect?

 

[flinch13]

What's that amazing insect?

Wow, thanks for your interest, guys!

The insect I posted before is an acorn weevil. They use that proboscis thing to drill into the shell of an acorn and eat the flesh inside. They're pretty common, so finding one isn't a problem, but considering they're the size of a couple of lentils, they're very difficult to photograph!

how do I use the 18-55 as a reverse macro???? curious on that one

Since you asked, I'd be delighted to tell you!

First, you're going to want to get a reverse macro ring. These things run about $12 on ebay, and are available for nearly every lens thread size. Just get one that is the size of your lens threat on one side (male), and your camera's mount type on the other side. If you don't want to do this, you can literally just hold your lens on your camera backwards, but that won't be very effective for the super close up shots.

Next, you're going to want to stop down your lens. When you reverse a lens, the depth of field decreases dramatically; I'd try f/16 or f/22. Set your lens's aperture to one of these values and then press the depth of field preview button. Then dismount your lens, and it's ready to use.

If it's a zoom lens, you're probably going to want to zoom in to see the object up close, right? WRONG! The lens is reversed, so it's backwards! Now, the smallest focal length (18mm in my case) is actually the CLOSEST, and zooming "in" will get your farther away from your subject! Confused? It takes a bit of practice, and generally this is easier with a fixed focal length lens that's been flipped. You need a very wide angle lens for extreme closeups though, so that's why I use the very economical kit lens.

For focusing, adjust your lens to infinity, and then literally move your camera back and forth to get the right focal plane. This also takes practice. You're going to need a tripod for this, as, especially if you're using natural light, the exposures are usually a couple of seconds.

If anyone wants any tips on reverse lens macro photography, please pm me. If anyone wants me to post a more complete guide in the forum, I'd be very happy to!

 

[seenew]

Anyone having trouble with their EF 50 1.8 should have gotten the older Mark I version. Solid build.

When I got my first dSLR (350D), I got it in a grey market kit from eBay and was totally ripped off (didn't realize it at the time, because I had no experience). I got the crappy kit lens (EF-S 18-55), an EF 28-90 and an EF 75-300. None of them opened up wider than f/3.5. This made indoor shots completely impossible, and when there WAS enough light to shoot with any of them, all the images were soft, especially on the 75-300.
Oh well, live and learn, right? I was eventually able to sell all three (!) to two different people, being completely honest with them and showing them sample photos taken with the lenses (I didn't rip them off). I ended up losing a ton of money on that, but I learned!

I am now really happy with my kit. I have since upgraded everything, and gone full frame.

Canon 5D
Canon 350D (keep as a backup)

EF 17-40 f/4L USM (replaced my brief ownership of the EF-S 10-22)
EF 50mm f/1.8 (Mk1)
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM

Canon Speedlite 580EXII
(2) Vivitar 285HV's

I love my glass now!

 

[Rotary8]

Regret getting the sigma 50-150 hsm2 for my d300... soft at 2.8 at every zoom length. I should've saved up for the 70-200 VR instead, I went for the poor mans nikkor pro.

 

[Kebabselector]

Mmmm, worst lens was the EF80-200mm f/4.5~5.6 Mk II

It was a kit lens with an Eos 500 (along with a 35-80mm) and it seriously put me off long zooms for a while. Once I got the EF70-200mm f/4 L I realised how bad the 80-200 was.

Still managed to sell it on Ebay for £60, and the recipient was really happy with it.

 

[ChrisA]

The Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5 turned out to be not as sharp as I'd have liked. I bought it to use with an early Nikromat, sold that and now it fits my F2. Until I finally bought an auto focus Nikon (the N2020) the 43-86 was the only zoom lens I owned.

 

[Abstract]

Well, I think it's not due to its own flaws so much as it is due to people recycling/parroting old advice from the film days without actually thinking much about it. The 50mm field of view on a 1.5x/1.6x crop camera just isn't as broadly useful as it is on a film (or full frame digital) camera.

I always quoted those people and said that the habit of recommending the 50 mm lens for walkaround, everyday shooting was obsolete, but it fell (rather hard) on deaf ears. I guess if you have a full frame camera, the 50 mm f/1.4 starts to look attractive again, but that f/1.8 version was a dud, despite being slightly sharper than the f/1.4 version at the same aperture.

 

[CMD is me]

A really nice Sigma AF 28-105 f/3.8-5.6 UCIII lens from my Canon. I took it on ONE shoot and sold the camera. Ended up buying a superzoom -- so I spent $200 for about 200 shots! Got to post the lens on the marketplace one of these days.

 

[jeff127]

Like many here, the 50 1.8 (Canon) has been my worst lens purchase. I love the aperture for low light and its cool for playing with DOF but the build quality is rather lacking but then again Im not going to complain for £60!

Not a bad purchase per se, just not as fantastic as the 100 2.8 macro.


Jeff.

 

[osin]

after having canon and sigma lenses I must say that the worst lens I ever bought was a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Don't take me wrong, optically lens was great, but the AF sound and speed comparing to Canon lenses was horrible. And I've never could adjust to opposite zooming in and out... I always turned it the wrong way

other than that I do not regret any purchase of any lenses...

 

[scotthayes]

Worst one I bought was a Canon 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 USM.

I was horrible at anything over 150mm and the barrel had a nasty wobble to it. part exchanged it for a Lowepro toploader 75AW.

 

[osin]

after having canon and sigma lenses I must say that the worst lens I ever bought was a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Don't take me wrong, optically lens was great, but the AF sound and speed comparing to Canon lenses was horrible. And I've never could adjust to opposite zooming in and out... I always turned it the wrong way

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I will agree with those of you who have said that the Canon 18-55mm kit lens is crap, but in reality it is not bad at all for what it costs. We are not talking about quality glass and lens here, but about a $70.00 (or so) lens that you can buy new at E-bay for around $45.00. I no longer use that lens, but some of my best photos four years ago were taken taken with a Rebel XT and this lens

 

[jeff127]

I will agree with those of you who have said that the Canon 18-55mm kit lens is crap, but in reality it is not bad at all for what it costs. We are not talking about quality glass and lens here, but about a $70.00 (or so) lens that you can buy new at E-bay for around $45.00. I no longer use that lens, but some of my best photos four years ago were taken taken with a Rebel XT and this lens

Totally agree, I havnt got round to replacing the wide end that is covered by this lens so still use it quite a bit. Its not the sharpest tool in the shed but still has its uses and for the price I'm pleased with it.


Jeff.

 

[robbieduncan]

Probably my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4. It's a great lens, well made and the image quality is right up there but since I got the EF 35mm f/1.4 L I just don't find myself using the 50mm at all!

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Probably my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4. It's a great lens, well made and the image quality is right up there but since I got the EF 35mm f/1.4 L I just don't find myself using the 50mm at all!

LOL Would you just give your 50mm f/1.4 to a poor man? ME
OK, OK...I know that's impossible, but if you don't use it much, you could always sell it.

 

[timnosenzo]

mine would have to be the canon ef 28mm f1.8 lens. i thought it would be ideal for a crop body and the couple of reviews online seemed positive, but when i special ordered it, it was just awful. it had every problem in the book, all my photos were low-contrast and seemed to "bloom" just a little to make everything look soft-focus (but if i wanted that effect, i'd do it myself in photoshop, thanks). by FAR its worst flaw was fringing. if i took a shot of my blinds, there'd be about five pixels of purple fringing at every high-contrast edge.

maybe i got a bad copy, but i wouldn't expect canon to drop the ball in every possible way?

i hate when people suggest i stop down to alleviate these problems because, frankly, for a nearly $700 lens (in canada..) i expect it to perform decently wide-open. as a point of comparison, my $100 50mm f1.8 lens has virtually NO fringing and is sharp enough wide open.

i would definitely not recommend this lens- stay away.

Ha! Funny, I had a 28 f/1.8 for a while and loved it! In contrast, I've had a couple 50 f/1.8 MKII's and just couldn't get excited about them. IQ is iffy under f/2.8, AF is terrible and the build quality sucks, makes the 18-55 kit lens look good.

Different strokes, I guess.

 

[osin]

Probably my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4. It's a great lens, well made and the image quality is right up there but since I got the EF 35mm f/1.4 L I just don't find myself using the 50mm at all!

are you using it on cropped body?

 

[robbieduncan]

are you using it on cropped body?

Yes. In a lot of the situations where I use the speed I find it's difficult to get far enough away from the subject to get it all in with the 50mm x 1.6 effective field of view.

 

[Alex72]

Not really a purchase, but my EF 35-70/3.5-4.5 (the kit lens from an EOS 650) is absolute and utter crapola. Seriously, I've been looking for creative ways of destroying it. Suggestions?

As for lenses I've paid for, the EF 50/1.8, while great 'for the money', isn't really all that great. Horrendous low light focusing speed, flimsy construction, and so-so IQ (yes, it's better than average, and excellent for the price, but it's just ok in absolute terms). I always advise people to skip this lens and go straight for the 50/1.4, if they're looking for a 50 (which, frankly, isn't the best length anyway on a crop sensor body).

I would actually take that 35-70, if offered. I have one I got with a mildewy old EOS 620 that has a piece of plastic loose in the barrel, often can't go completely wide, has a filter stuck on it which makes it so I have to pull the front out fully, and YET STILL is really sharp and punchy.

Maybe you got a bad one or maybe I got a "good" one. Rgeardless, I'm on a mild quest for another, but they often are completely trashed or are being sold for way more than they're worth...

As far as my worst lens purchase to date: Probably a Promaster "Spectrum 7" 70-210mm f/4-5.6, which appeared to be a re-badge of a Sigma design. I often find myself pleasantly surprised by even entry-level Sigmas, but not this time. Dead, flat images that just had nothing I liked in them.

Thank goodness I only paid about twelve dollars for it, if I recall.

Second worst would probably be an old Soviet Industar 50mm f/3.5 in M39 mount that I got with an old Zorki or Zenit SLR from the 1950s. Some folks like it, but I found it very lacking.

Alex

 

[Kebabselector]

Not really a purchase, but my EF 35-70/3.5-4.5 (the kit lens from an EOS 650) is absolute and utter crapola. Seriously, I've been looking for creative ways of destroying it. Suggestions?

Fire!

like this....
Take one cheap DVD Writer

Add isopropyl alcohol

Spray liberally

Take one match

Apply match to mixture

If the flame dies down add more alcohol

Laugh at limp melting structure in an evil way, quoting 'you'll never fail me again'

Own3d

Seek therapy

 

[Edge100]

Yes. In a lot of the situations where I use the speed I find it's difficult to get far enough away from the subject to get it all in with the 50mm x 1.6 effective field of view.

Which is exactly the problem that was pointed out earlier in this thread. The 50m focal length is equivalent to 80mm on a FF camera, which means you've got a lens that is too long to be an effective walkaround.

The 50/1.4 is a great lens, but only on a FF or 1.3x copy body (where it is eff. 65mm).

 

[Mousse]

The discontinued Sigma 28-70 f2.8EX. For the most part, it worked great on my 300D--sharper than an Oscar Wild witticism. But once I moved to the 20D, every shot was back focused, except indoors with a flash (probably needed to be rechipped). It's spot on when manually focused though.

In high contrast shots, I'd get chromatic aberrations out the whazoo. But the worst problem, although intermittent, is the terrible halo effect (almost like shooting with a haze filter). It seems to happen only on the money shots (curse you Murphy and your Law)

 

[rhett7660]

What I usaully do to avoid this type of topic. I go to my local camera store and rent the lens in question. I haven't purchased a lens I don't like "yet". I tend to stay away from kit lenses too. They are "usually" not that good.

 

[pinktank]

sigma sa-5 kit lenses