Mine is the nikkor MF 35-70mm.
It came with a working nikon F3 that I got for free.
I mounted it on a D7000 and the image sucks.
My 35mm 1.8g rapes it in IQ.
>>2727944
That's cause it's actually a lens made by Cosina
i haven't used many, none of them are that bad
the least good one is the nikkor 50mm 1.8G which has some distortion, is cheaply built and overpriced. should've gotten a 50 1.8D
fast CCTV lens via c mount adapter.
>>2727944
>fucking pixel peepers thread
I have one of those plastic holga lenses... That looks like trash, but intentionally. I have a 28-50 f3.5 manual nikkor that looks pretty bad.
>>2727973
This post is stupid. You don't need to peep hard to tell how bad the worst lenses are.
>>2727944
Funny that the Nikkor 35-70 2.8 was quite a good lens.
I hated almost every Zuiko lens I have used. Sharp to a flaw and totally lacking in any character what so ever.
My favorite go to lens is a radioactive 1954 Collapsible Summicron
>>2728034
Yeah, but OP is complaining about the shitty 3.5-4.5. I don't know why he's complaining about it, since most standard zooms of the time sucked big dicks (almost as much as OP) until the 35-70/2.8 came around.
>>2728036
optically it is shit by todays standards, even as kit lenses go. Build quality the 3.5-4.5 was really good for wat it was and if you were shooting drugstore 400 it did the trick. I don't think it is half as bad as uncle Ken makes it out to be, it cant be half as bad as the Nikon/Tamron 70-300 ED
>>2727944
All my DSLR lenses are sharp and generally have great IQ.
The worst lens I used on my DSLR though is an old film lens, Pentacon 29mm. Don't ever buy one, you will regret it even if you spent 5 cents on it.
The best lens I used on my DSLR is an even older film lens, a Helios 44M from '79. I swear it has better IQ than the newest Zeiss lenses with the comparable focal lengths. I have never seen any other film or digital lens that has zero CA and zero color fringing on digital and the image is tack sharp.
A well maintained russian lens can worth it's weight in gold and it only cost me €35.
>>2728043
>an old film lens, Pentacon
of corse it is shit it is soviet! that is why kids buy these lenses, because they are shit!
It's like a friend of mine who drives a Lada Cossack, the appeal is that the dor handels could break at the very moment the car bursts into flames, trapping you inside for a fiery death. But that would be OK because it's winter and the heater doesn't work.
The point of your Helios is not good optics, it is that the front element will fall off and lodge its broken shards in your big toe giving you tetanus
>>2728048
Soviet is not necessarily shit. Pentacon was GDR, and the lenses manufactured at CZJ and Meyer Goerlitz were awesome, still amongst the best. The other three manufacturers in Pentacon were worthless shits.
Read again, my best lens is Helios which is also soviet. Jupiter are still great lenses for video and Tair lenses are also of the best wildlife lenses.
I bet you are a clueless american or just a newfag.
>>2728048
>this user has never heard of the Helios 44 series, Jupiter 9, Jupiter 3, Tair-11, Mir-1, Russar 20mm / Orion 6, or the Photosniper
>>2728043
>The best lens I used on my DSLR is an even older film lens, a Helios 44M from '79. I swear it has better IQ than the newest Zeiss lenses with the comparable focal lengths. I have never seen any other film or digital lens that has zero CA and zero color fringing on digital and the image is tack sharp.
You do not know what any of the terms you used mean.
The Helios is not a particularly sharp lens until you stop it down. It has very prominent longitudinal CA.
It does not have better IQ than ANY current Zeiss lense between 35 and 85mm.
>daily reminder that these are the people giving advice on /p/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2014:11:13 12:08:05 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/inf Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2400 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2728329
Learn from your mistakes and next time buy from respectable retailers offering well maintained lens.
Your Helios looks like it's slightly out of alignment.
Oh, and yes, I know these big scary words you so afraid of, I have a degree in physics and have been working with high precision optics for 10 years. Not your average photography stuff, think of detecting light from ten phosphorus atoms amongst a million of aluminium and silicon atoms.
i got an industar 69 because it was cute and small. i still like it even though IQ is shit.
>>2728483
How about showing a (unedited) sample of your incredible, unbeatably sharp apochromatic Helios 44 wide open? I'm genuinely interested.
I had a 0-series Helios 44-2 before and it wasn't all that great. The 44-2 is supposed to be the best of the Helios 44 line, and 0-series got by far the most quality control (because they were made for specific people), so I don't think I had a bad sample.
Yet chromatic aberrations were very obvious, and it wasn't that sharp wide-open. Pretty much the only thing it had going for it was the swirly bokeh, and that gimmick quickly wore off, so I sold it again.
The only lens with the same focal length I have right now is a RE.Auto Topcor 58mm f/1.8 and it's better in just about every aspect. I even got it for half the price of the Helios (it was a lucky buy though).
I'm not saying the Helios 44 is a bad lens, certainly not for the price, but it's no miracle lens either in my experience.
>>2728483
I bought it with a perfectly functional zenit attached from a local Salvation Army op-shop for 25AUD.
There is nothing wrong with the lense, I have tack sharp negs on tech film made with it.
I just think it's deeply retarded to say that it's worse than the current Zeiss line.
The pics in my sample image, which I made and edited to show up some noob that said the helios was unnacceptably soft, pretty clearly show longitudinal CA. It's most obvious in the fact that the colour balance between two shots taken seconds apart is so wildly dfferent.
I think I actually tried to even that out in the shown image.
I'm not saying it's bad, just that it's no APO macro, and no zeiss, even stopped down.
This slow plastic hulk o' shit. Came with my Super A. Distorts like a motherfucker, cannot into sharpness, and lol f/4 at 35mm.
>>2727944
Nikon 35-70 3.5-5.6 macro and Sigma 18-50 2.8 on apsc
>>2728053
neither American or clueless
I shoot CZ with my Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, I couldn't be bothered going through 100 CZJ lenses to find the 1 good one.
At best soviet lenses are good copies of pre-war German lenses at best they are shit copies of pre-war German lenses. CZJ being an exception. Before the war the Jena factory produced great lenses, with no distinction between the Oberkochen factory, when the soviets started production back up, the quality control had a typical soviet lack of attention. It is posable to get a good one but rare.
>>2728163
>Sugar an authority on quality, kek
>>2727944
I have one of these, someone give it to me with a broken FA.
I mounted it to my Df and shot 3 jobs with it a few months ago for fun, no one noticed and the images actually have a nice aesthetic.
Tokina 70-210 4-5.6. Absolutely useless. Plus random clicking noises.
>>2727944
>nikon mid range zoom
not even once
>>2727944
The Canikon 5D800.
TOU/Five Star lenses on my Canon FD stuff. Soft focus, dull contrast, muted colors on all of them. 28/2.8, 75-210/4, and something else.
>>2728163
>Forgetting the Jupiter 8 exists
>>2728163
Those russian lenses have a very shitty bokeh.
The perfect bokeh must be very creamy. And those russian lenses don't deliver it.
>>2730389
It's not a competitive scale, faggot. Different bokeh has different aesthetics.
Soap bubble bokeh lenses go for a lot, and its the polar opposite of creamy. Swirly bokeh is desired by many hipsters and faggots of similar caliber to yourself.
>>2727944
I wouldn't call it *the* worst lens i've ever used, but the most disappointing has to be any incarnation (VC or non VC) of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for canon. I tried multiple samples, both used and new, of both versions, and I hated every single one of them. The colors had a weird overly-contrasty feel to them even when shooting in flat profiles, the autofocus was unusably slow even on a 70D, and the focus ring and zoom ring were so unbearably loud that you could hear it even with an external shotgun mic mounted on a camera cage.
Unless you're new and can get it for dirt cheap, dont bother.
>>2730389
>be very creamy
Zenitar 50/1,7 motherfucka, do you use it?
>>2730523
We've all seen the snapshits you posted with that crappy 50 you keep jizzing over. It's pretty obvious that it's your first fast lens because the bokeh on that lens isn't impressive, it feels slightly busy and doesn't handle patterns well.
Canon 18-200mm f/? crop sensor
The chromatic abrasion was ridiculous. Every shoot at less than 70mm, couldn't have sharp contrast with rainbows bleeding off every angle.
>>2730523
nikkor 85mm/1.8g user here.
>>2730530
American retardiano is judging whole lens by shots taken in fisrt 10 minutes with it by random person.
Much logic
the distortion is fucking horrendous.
>>2728043
>Helios, tack sharp
You have got to be joking mate
Nikon
Auto revuenon
Helios
>>2731260
did you try turning the ring that focuses the lens?
Seriously though, the Helios 44 is awesome as fuck
>>2731301
>did you try turning the ring that focuses the lens?
baaahahahaha
>>2731301
>The Helios 44 is pretty ok
FTFY
Try any standard "kit" prime from Minolta, Pentax, Nikon, Ricoh, Rollei, etc. from the same time period and you'll have similar performance as or better than a Helios 44. Standard lenses around f/2 are relatively easy to get right, the H44 is nothing spectacular. And because it's become so popular recently it's not even that cheap anymore. Additionally, given the super sloppy Russian quality control, getting a good sample is much more of a gamble than with any other decent manufacturer, and you'll probably have to replace the now dried up "bear snot" helicoid grease anyway.
Protip: get a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55/2 or 1.8 instead. They have better build quality, focusing, sharpness and infinitely better coating. And unlike the H44, you're pretty unlikely to get a lemon.
Canon 55-200mm. Came with my camera when I got it used a couple of years ago. Used it maybe 2-3 times, should probably sell it sometimes soon
>>2727953
What's the difference besides that the 1.8d doesn't have an automotor? I have a Nikon d3200 with only the kit lens and my friend lent me his 50 1.8d and I was blown away at how everything looked and how I didn't need flash at all
>>2731429
1.8G is heavier, and like I said there's a surprisingly high amount of distortion for a 50/1.8. Granted this is an easy fix in Lightroom. If you own a DSLR that can autofocus with both the D and the G I don't understand why you'd use the G, especially since it's about $100 more expensive.
>>2731506
1) No external moving parts.
2) Insta grab manual focus, the D version you have to change it to manual.
3) Silent Focus Motor.
>>2731515
I actually didn't realize the D3200 does not have an autofocus motor (just looked it up) so if I was that guy I'd go with the 50/1.8G. Unless I didn't care about AF.
Just annoyed that for $100 more the G is a bit optically worse than the D.
>>2731332
But SMC 55 f1.8 is shit, undesirable bokeh, and has cromabs
>>2731101
The performance of the lens will not change magically if you stop taking snapshits with it. Stop defending the lens, it's mediocre and nothing to brag about. You haven't show anything impressive with it and what you have posted was underwhelming. If you're mad because I called your cheap lens out then I'm sorry buddy but it's just not that great. You'll get over the excitement eventually and realize how mediocre it is.
EF-S lenses and the lens I got ripped off on on Ebay. Seriously, this guy offered a BNCR lens that could do T/1.6 at 10.5mm and it actually was a CCTV lens that was huge as fuck disguised as a cinema lens. At first I thought it was a Canon Cinema BNCR lens like the one used on Aliens. But fuck that shit. What's worse was that I couldn't even fucking dare return it and it cost like $2,000. Note to self, do research and confirm with others and if it's too good to believe don't get it. However if it's possible and nobody has taken the risk go for it and you know it's worth good in your judgement go for it.
>>2731332
Fun fact:
My helios 77m-4 was sharper open wide then SMC takumar 55mm/1.8
Where is you QUALITY nao?
>>2731873
I still got it as a reminder of to be careful when taking risks.
>>2731677
>shit
Better build quality, focus ring, quality control, sharpness, flare resistance. If this is "shit" then what is a Helios-44?
>undesirable bokeh
Depends on who you ask. For a general purpose lens I'd rather have the unremarkable, not too distracting bokeh of the Takumar than the swirl of a Helios 44, which gets old very quickly. (That's why I sold my Helios)
>has chromabs
No shit.
Show me a cheap old prime that doesn't.
Are you seriously implying the H44 is CA-free? I still haven't seen any sample of the previous anon who claimed that.
>>2731875
Good for you.
If you hadn't noticed already, we were talking about the Helios 44 series.
Good luck finding one of those as cheap as a Takumar 55/1.8 btw.
>>2731891
If you haven't notices you say all russian lens are bad and takumars are better.
>>2731893
Where did I say that?
I literally said the H44 is pretty good, just like most standard primes from that time.
I have nothing against russian lenses, in fact I really like my Industar-61 L/D and Industar-69.
That russian quality control was universally sloppy is a fact, and that buying a russian made lens is taking part in a QC lottery in which you could very well end up with a lemon is a fact too.
>>2731927
>QC lottery
Only if you are outside of MotherRussia. I'm cheching every lens from local sellers and can find good sample from several without post-problems.
How good are those helios compared to a nikkor 50mm 1.8d?
Nikkor 50mm 1.4 user here
Canon 35-80 until you pop the front element off.
Original 18-55
this peice of shit.
>>2732403
wait,
pop the front element off? please explain, someone's listing a 35-80 on CL in my town for like 25 bucks, would it be fun to mess around with if i did this?
>>2732624
nvm google solved this but thank you for the tip on this, gonna snatch that for some macro fun
>>2732403
Definitely the 18-55. Sold that thing immediately
>>2729761
>At best soviet lenses are good copies of pre-war German lenses at best they are shit copies of pre-war German lenses.
From what I heard early post-war Soviet lenses are supposedly as good as they were using German glass taken for post war reparations. Once the stock piles were used up it became hit and miss. The first two numbers of the serial number usually indicate the year of manufacture. So if you got a serial number of 48xxxx it may have german glass.
>>2731301
Yes. Also, that vomit bokeh is horrendous, i have about twelve Heliosses and this was the sharpest.
>>2732570
These comparisons are shot with an A7 and simple novoflex adaptors.
>>2732695
Why do you keep posting that shitty pictures? I can make a test from mine 77m-4 and 44-2 that show they are okay with it. Try to rotate focus ring next time.
>>2732695
Your lens must have some kind of defect, that lack of contrast isn't normal even from an uncoated lens from pre-war
>>2732695
Maybe you have the MC Helios M44-x? These suck. The Helios 44-2 is the one people praise.
>>2727961
Why would you ever do this?
>>2732725
44Ms have the exact same optics, just usually with better coating. Any real difference in IQ basically boils down to sample variation, which is notoriously huge on these.
>>2732689
Even H-44s with German glass aren't generally good compared to later nifty-fifties. Hell, I even had an original Biotar 58/2 and it wasn't impressive - Zeiss dropped this optical design in favor of Planar for a reason. People who shoot H-44 (or H-40 for that matter) for sharpness and not for swirly borkeh are doing it wrong.
