Worst and best lenses you have used ?

[kiwi]

If you're like me you've had a few lenses in your lifetime, owned or used

So, what is the worse lens, and which is the best

No hearsay please, only your experience


My worse lens without doubt was the first, a nikon 55-200 kit. slow and soft

The best is a nikon 600 f/4 I used for one game

Your turn

[xjjohnno]

Worst were some of the old Soligor zooms I bought in a batch buy on Ebay, their CD series from memory. I've yet to decide on the best.

[Wayne]

I would say;

Worst = Nikon 18-55 kit lens
Best = AFS 400mm f/2.8VR I rented for an airshow

[Allann]

Canon 18-55 kit lens
Canon 600/4

[I @ M]

In terms of sales ---
the (apparently crap) Sigma 10-20 is a consistent money payer, the mighty 55-200 VR sells a few ,
Mustn't forget that other heap of garbage (according to multi forum denigrates) in the Sigma 70-200 that has consistently performed well and probably paid for it's self a few times over.
Gees, we could cover a few focal lengths here but sticking to the topic ---

Money making best probably is the Sigma 24-70 and worst lens in the bundle would be the Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G

In terms of satisfaction with shots the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 100-300 would rate very highly, then of course the trustworthy 50mm F/1.8 and the newly acquired dx 35mm F/1.8 are becoming stars.

Ah hell, I love em all despite what a few pre pubescent internet warriors post on DPreview. :p

[RaoulIsidro]

Worst lens: Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 on a Nikon mount. Bad copy maybe, but the replacement was the same.
Best lens: EOS 85mm f1.8 on a 5D

[Rod038]

So far the best lens I have used is the Canon 18-55mm kit lens I got with my 500D. It hasnt let me down yet.

[Edgar]

Worst lens used and owned - Canon EF-S 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens, a dust vacuum and not sharp at all.
Best lens used and own - Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II, the new Mark II version is terrific.

[Captured frame]

The worst lens Canon 18-55 kit lens.
The best lens Canon EF 135 f2 L sharp as a tack wide open.

[Xenedis]

Back in 2005 I bought a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I shot with a Canon EOS 20D at the time.

It was an absolute lemon of a lens.

It was incredibly soft, and suffered very pronounced chromatic aberration in the form of purple fringing. It also suffered distortion.

I shot a number of tripod-mounted images at the same apertures with both that lens and the 18-55 I had at the time, and found that the 18-55 out-resolved it, even at f/8!

I got rid of it, replaced it with an L, and never looked back.

My impression was that my particular lens itself, as opposed to that product, was defective, as I had seen images captured by other owners of that lens which were sharp.

I cannot comment on the 'best' lens, as all of my lenses are the 'best' at what they do. They are all sharp and none leaves me wanting. I'll spare you the details; my gear is linked from my sig if anyone wants to know what I use. Happy to discuss finer points if anyone is interested in a particular lens.

[Jules]

Worst lens: A Tamron 70-300 f4.5-6.3. Ridiculously stiff zooming mechanism and AF slower than a turtle.

Best lens: My little Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro. Sharp, sharp, sharp from 2.8 with beautiful bokeh and just perfect on a crop cam. If I wasn't on FF now, I would never have parted with it.

[jjphoto]

Worst, I had an Olympus 65-200 (or thereabouts, it was a couple of decades ago) that was just terrible. It was pretty much always soft. It might have been a dud but I didn't know any better at the time.

Best, where do I start?

Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N 80/4 enlarging lens (for Macro and product with Sinar view camera)
Leica APO-Summicron-R 180/2.0 (perfect for portrait, useless for travel)
Leica APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4 (perfect for travel, useless for portrait)
Leica Elmarit-R 28/2.8 E55 (perfect, except for price)
Kiron 28/2 (in it's own very funky way)
Contax 135/2.0 (bokeh, bokeh, bokeh, bokeh, did I mention the bokeh, and razor sharp wide open)
Leica Summilux-R 80/1.4 and 35/1.4 (2 peas in a pod in terms of performance)

They are all different and excellent in their own way. There's no such thing as a best lens, just the best lens for a particular application.

I think the Canon 24-70 L deserves a special mention as it's often overlooked, being such a common lens. It does have some shortcomings, especially corner performance at wider focal lengths but overall this is a stunning bit of lens and it is really the only lens I ever 'need' when I go on a job because it can do almost everything.

JJ

[wolffman]

Worst lens is a dead heat between
- a 500mm mirror lens from a brand I can't recall. I think I shot with it a couple of times and gave it away, I didn't even want to try and get money for it. Soft as butter and dreadfully stiff to focus
- a nikkor 35mm f2 ais I got for an fm I picked up cheap. The lens was even cheaper. I think it cost me something like 15£ which I figured I would get more satisfaction from the lens than 3 pints of beer. I should have gone to the pub. Scratched and knackered focusing I don't think I took a single good picture with it.

Best lens
- 50 f1.4 afd, so very sharp and the widest lens I have used
- 28-105 afd and 24mm f2.8 afd have been with me all round the world and has taken some great photos and memories
- 10-24mm nikkor is my first wide zoom and is letting me take photos I haven't taken before.
-105 f2.5 ais doesn't get used much but is mechanically and optically beautiful

[etherial]

Best: 70-200/2.8L IS only narrowly beating the 24-105/4L IS - I love them both for different reasons.

Worst: It is a bit unfair because it was great value for money, but it would be the 55-250/4-5.6 kit lens.

[para]

worst was a kit lens 18-55
favorite was 400 2.8 (had a loan of one last weekend) favorite owned would be the 300 2.8

[landteacher]

Worst would have to be, by far, Nikon 55-200 kit.

Best, now that is a hard one.
Nikon 50/1.8 totally reliable.
Nikon 35-70/2.8D. This is one of the best kept secrets out there. Can,t fault it, attached to the camera about 90% 0f the time.
Tokina 12-24/F4 Mk11. Beautifully rendered super sharp shots.

Mick.G.

[ameerat42]

Well, Kiwi, I'll just dig into the past here for this, as all the lenses I have now are rather somewhere in between.
Worst: Soligor f=500mm, f/8 mirror lens. It suffered from dispersion and circular aberration AFAI could tell. When it got drowned in a flood, and the coating came off the mirrors (good weathersealing, eh?) I recycled the aluminuim housing and threw the glass away. (In contrast, the Tamron equivalent is tops!)

Best: Minolta f=50mm, f/1.7 MC Rokkor. Couldn't find anything wrong with it, whereas the f/1.2 had very bad coma at wide apertures of all places. (I only borrowed that one.)
Am.

[James Axford]

I haven't had too many bad lenses....
worst: canon 50mm f/1.8 slow focus, poor build, ugly bokeh. but what do you expect for $150
best: canon 17mm tse f/4 I just love using this lens. it really pushes your creative side.

[Ray Heath]

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.

[ronaldhw]

worst: Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens non VR version on D40
best: Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 on D700

[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:rolleyes:

[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 :)

[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! :D

[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! :D

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! :D

[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 :rolleyes:

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.

[Big Pix]

...... too many good lens, 2 or 3 average but usable image...... anything bad sent back to maker with a note and sample images.....

[Pine]

Worst lens by far is the Sigma 120-400.

Best lens Canon 100mm Macro which is simply brilliant.;)
My favourite lens however is the Canon 15-85 lens.

Regards

[AdamR]

180L is brilliant. Absolutely fantastic.

Worst Ill put as the 70-300 DO. Whilst its not any worse than the numerous kit lenses I have used they dont cost over $1000. That lens is an ugly, expensive and barely adequate waste of time.

[Sobriquet]

So far the worst lens I have used is the Canon 18-55mm kit lens, it is soft, just pretty crappy all round.

Best Canon 70-200mm f2.8 (not IS so can't talk about that mine is older) worth every penny.

Worthy of a mention is my 135mm Canon portrait lens, also f2.8 and gives amazing bokeh!

[8perpetual]

85LII is the most amazing portrait lens i have ever used. the bokeh is magically amazing, if you can bear with a slower AF

[KeeFy]

People complain about the 18-55 kit, but is it the IS version? The IS version when stopped down is sharp as mad. Great landscape lens!

Anyway...

WORST: Canon 35-70mm (built in 1980s)

BEST: Can't decide between the 70-200 f2.8 IS MK2 or the 17-55 IS. I think the 70-200 takes the cake.

[Tannin]

Best: Canon 100/2.8L macro: just an astonishingly good lens in every respect. Cannot fault it.

Worst: Canon 50/1.8 For: cheap. Against: almost everything else. People rave about this lens, say how sharp it is. Well, anything is sharp at f/8. It is also plasticky, unpleasant to use, struggles to focus, loud, crude, and generally as bad as a lens gets. Sharp isn't everything. the only reason people rave about it is because (a) it is very cheap, and (b) they don't own a decent lens of similar to compare it with. Oh, and (c) because the Canon 50/1.4 is ancient and doesn't have a proper focus motor either. (That's three "onlys", but who is counting?) I have tried to love my 50/1.8, but there is NOTHING it can do that isn't done better in every way by the 60 macro - and probably by a dozen other lenses too,

(I'm not counting the 500/4 'cause that's not a lens, it's a bleenin' miracle.)

[jim]

I don't think I've ever used a bad lens, if you except the one on the Instamatic I had when I was small. Otherwise they've all been capable of producing good images when used appropriately.

Conversely nothing stands out as a really great lens either. Useful tools for their respective jobs, but nothing miraculous. And of course they're all capable of producing very bad images when used carelessly.

[Tannin]

^ as witness the 10-400 thread. Lots of soft images there! :eek:

[Pine]

My worst lens was the Sigma 120-400 soft and out of focus.
My best lens is a tie between the Canon 100 mm macro 2.8 and the Canon 70-200 L F4 lenses.:)
The last two lenses are also relatively cheap.

Regards

[Keith Young]

Nikkor 80-400mm F4.5-5.6D AF VR - the auto focus is very slow and next to useless, however optics are ok if you can get it to focus.

[ricstew]

The worst is the one on the camera right now but the best is also the one on the camera right now :) Its the dang driver that causes the problems!

[Arg]

Worst was a Tamron SP 70-200 lens from about 1980, not because of the image but the Adaptall twist-on camera adaptors were too unreliable.

Best is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS, it covers all the tickboxes for a great general purpose lens and is always my default lens for walkaround.

[Forevernowphotography]

The best lenses i have ever owned is my CAnon 70 - 200mm 2.8 is L. It Is so sharp.

[darkc]

Worst- nikon 28-80 kit lens
Best- nikon 14-24 f2.8

[Bax]

Worst: Canon 50/1.8

I just sold mine, I loved the shallow depth of field that it provided. But it definitely isn't suited to a crop sensor, and that's why it was going - I'll replace it with a zoom that's a little more practical.

My worst lens would have to be the Canon 90-300 f/4.5-5.6 I think it is. Just wrong on so many levels, the 75-300 is years ahead of it in every way.

Best, well - I really love the 10-20 because it's so practical for lots of different styles of photography. But I think I'll take the 70-200 f/4, or maybe even a 24-70 f/2.8. Both are great lenses.

[PH005]

Worst, mainly because of what it cost and the dissapointment it was. Sigma 120-400.

Best, and I have only had it for a week but when I touch it I feel an Aura. :D. Canon EF300 f4L IS USM. It is sooooo nice. ;)

[camerasnoop]

Always joining the game late, but here we go anyway.

Best EF100 F2.8 USM Macro.
Worst EF17-35 F2.8L USM

Of course I still use both :rolleyes:

[andylo]

Update my list:

Best - Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II
Worst - Canon 50mm f/1.8 II

[ving]

i find the nikon 18-55 kit lens is actually not a bad lens. it is slow but well... mine is sharp and stuff. the lens i have that gets the least amount of use is a nikkor 50 f1.8 ai-s.

[Ben Jones AU]

Worst lens would have to be the EF 90-300. Utter peice of crap, I only used it for some sport shots when the trusty 70-200mm f2.8 was in for repairs.

Best lens would have to be the Minolta 58mm f1.2 used it on a film slr body when I was learning but never really appreciated it until i got an adapter for my 5dmkII. the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) are also awesome lenses which have served me incredibly well.