What is your most useless lens?
Mar 1, 2021 08:30:51 #
With Covid this past year, none of my lenses have had much of a workout. Now, with two vaccinations under my belt (actually in my left arm) I plan to venture out and put a little mileage on my equipment. I would be embarrassed to admit how few shutter actuations the Nikon D850 has experienced since buying it for Christmas in 2019. I plan to rectify that going forward. Hope all is well with all my UHH friends.
Mar 1, 2021 08:37:24 #
Well, since I bought my Z7 it’s the Tokina 11-16 because I no longer use my D500 for wide-angle work. I think for the past year my 200-500 has pretty much lived on the D500.
Mar 1, 2021 09:38:28 #
The one lens I almost never use anymore is also the most expensive lens in my collection; the Nikon 80x400 VR lens. Since I purchased the Tamron 150x600 G2 lens the Nikon has not really seen the light of day. I honestly wasn't all that happy with it before I bought the Tamron.
Mar 1, 2021 09:55:32 #
My least used lens is my Lensbaby Velvet 56mm f/1.6.
Mar 1, 2021 11:12:41 #
Strodav
Loc: Houston, Tx
For a FF body, the lens I use the least is a 35mm prime. For anything other than wildlife / birding, I usually take one or two of the trinity lenses with me and a nifty fifty for low light situations if needed.
Mar 1, 2021 11:21:18 #
Wallen wrote:
Last year i bought a Mitakon Zhongyi 20mm f/2 4.5x Super Macro lens.
It was a curiosity purchase as it was on sale and therefore relatively cheap.
Played with it a bit and it was so purpose specific that it was pretty much useless for anything else.
Add to that the triangular iris and its parameters become even less as any points of light becomes an ugly triangular bokeh orb.
Here is a review of the same lens in youtube;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eQZ4DEcwM8
.
It was a curiosity purchase as it was on sale and therefore relatively cheap.
Played with it a bit and it was so purpose specific that it was pretty much useless for anything else.
Add to that the triangular iris and its parameters become even less as any points of light becomes an ugly triangular bokeh orb.
Here is a review of the same lens in youtube;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eQZ4DEcwM8
.
My most useless lens has always been the 50mm.
Mar 1, 2021 11:34:40 #
rondmallett
Loc: Colorado, near Wyoming
JRiepe wrote:
The lens I never ever use is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and another one I seldom use is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I've used the Tamron at a couple children's birthday parties and it is a sharp lens. I have nothing against either one of these lenses. It's just that I don't need them for the type of shooting I do. Oh yes, I forgot that I also no longer use my Tamron 70-300mm lens since I bought the Tamron 150-600mm G2.
Would that 'useless' 70-300 work on my Sony mirrorless 6300? Could be interested
if the price is right. (83-yr-old living on SS).
Mar 1, 2021 12:29:15 #
Wallen wrote:
Tilt & shift? Another specialized lens. 
I understand that softwares can supplement other lenses to reach(almost) the same capability but if you need to play with the focal planes angles, the perspective correction lens should still provide a better image over other lenses.
I understand that softwares can supplement other lenses to reach(almost) the same capability but if you need to play with the focal planes angles, the perspective correction lens should still provide a better image over other lenses.
“Most useless” is an tricky question. If it means the “least used” or “least useful”, then I’m with you. Got 24 and 90 T/S. But I can NOT go with any tag that has that word “useless” cuz when you need tilt, nothing else will do. When you really NEED tilt, it’s all your other lenses that begin to look useless !
Focus stacking comes close in certain situations but actually angling the focus plane is limited to T/S lenses.
Any highly specialized item is likely to see minimal frequency of use, but is never useless, quite the opposite when its specialty is called for.
Mar 1, 2021 12:29:30 #
My most nearly useless lenses would be my longest and shortest. That hits me as toadally NOT sooprizing, cuz the extreme ends of my lens range are quite extreme, about 100X from shortest to longest. The longest is definitely “most useless”.
I have 5 full format fisheyes so I’m NOT in the “fisheyes are useless” school.
To choose ONE single most useless lens I’d go for my 85 “Portrait” lens. Does a great job at something I don’t care to do, so its specialty is useless to me.
I have 5 full format fisheyes so I’m NOT in the “fisheyes are useless” school.
To choose ONE single most useless lens I’d go for my 85 “Portrait” lens. Does a great job at something I don’t care to do, so its specialty is useless to me.
Mar 1, 2021 12:49:24 #
Mar 1, 2021 13:05:35 #
BooIsMyCat wrote:
Why not sell your "least-used" lens?
You don’t see the answer glaring back at you ?!?!?!? If you sell your “least used” then one of your somewhat more useful lenses inherits that title of “least used”. And thaz just sooooo freakin icky.
Mar 1, 2021 13:07:46 #
I’m sorry, Wallen, but based on the manner in which you answered, it’s not clear (at least to me,) whether you actually own a T-S lens, let alone what focal length yours is. (I did not see a list of your equipment in your profile.)
I own a Rokinon 24 mm T-S full-frame lens. Discounting its comparatively increased weight and size, it is unquestionably MORE USEFUL than its "regular" 24 mm lens counterpart. It can do everything the plain one can do, and more!!
So do you actually own or have practiced with one?
I own a Rokinon 24 mm T-S full-frame lens. Discounting its comparatively increased weight and size, it is unquestionably MORE USEFUL than its "regular" 24 mm lens counterpart. It can do everything the plain one can do, and more!!
So do you actually own or have practiced with one?
Mar 1, 2021 13:15:31 #
jeweler53 wrote:
My first camera was a Nikkormat FTn. It came with a 43-86 f 3.5 lens. I am reasonably sure that I haven't used it in at least a couple of decades. I have a handful of other "legacy" lenses, some of which I have added a CPU chip to. I do use these lenses frome time to time, but the 43-86, never.
If it is a late model of the 43-86 you might be surprised. I have both early and late - the late one is quite satisfactory on my digital Nikons.
Mar 1, 2021 13:26:13 #
Wallen wrote:
I realize your thoughtful question was initially delivered without consideration given to the precise meaning of "most useless," so the following is just a musing on the topic, by no means intended as any sort of attack (though, unfortunately, I’m certain there still exist UHH members who will interpret anything I post that way.)Hmm, useless may be a pretty harsh word to use "Used less" then it is! ...
Perhaps it just boils down to one's preferred workflow. Sometime we just base our personal choices on what makes our shooting easier & more pleasurable.
"Used less" then it is! ... Perhaps it just boils down to one's preferred workflow. Sometime we just base our personal choices on what makes our shooting easier & more pleasurable.
MOST useless? You meant that there are actually degrees of uselessness?
I think not. But if you mean [just plain] USELESS, at this time it’d be the 12mm Lensbaby Fisheye optic, because I can’t find the doo-hickey that connects it to my Lensbaby Composer I & II mounts.
But perhaps instead you mean used the least [frequently]?
In that case, then my answer would be my most of my Sony A-mount lenses, as I seldom use my dSLT and IR-converted dSLR cameras these days.
Mar 1, 2021 20:05:50 #
Phil Singer
Loc: Beautiful Downtown Brighton Michigan
The 70-300mm f4-5.6 lens that came as a second lens from Costco with my T5. No IS or any other extra feature (I think Canon made it in 1999). Very soft at 300mm, not that I can hand-hold it at 200+mm. Having bought th 55-250 f4-5.6 STM lens, I now have zero use for this guy.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.