What is your most useless lens? (Page 5): I do not buy useless lenses.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

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
.

I do not buy useless lenses.

RightOnPhotography Loc: Quebec,QC

I have no such lenses. All are useful.

lbarnett25 Loc: Baldwinsville, NY

I bought a Sigma 10-20mm, f3.5 lens for a trip to the Grand Canyon a few years ago. Haven't used it since but wouldn't get enough out of it if I sold it.

User ID

Architect1776 wrote:

I do not buy useless lenses.

Nobody else does that either.
And then .........

User ID

My Nikkor 28-300 is not unused but it’s not my go-to. It was bundled for one dollar with my D610, brand new, all USA. I coulda saved the dollar, given all the endless badmouthing from the parrots, but I went for it.

I mainly come here for entertainment, and there’s no zoo nearby. So now, let’s hear some loud snarky parrot squawking about how I’d wasted half the price of a slice on a “worse than useless lens”.

SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

Right now my most useless lens is my Tamron 90mm macro lens since Tamron hasn't yet seen fit to offer a firmware update to make it compatible with my Z6 (it works with manual focus but not AF). It's a shame as I love its color rendition but it is currently sitting on the shelf while I wait for the 105mm Z lens to become available at which time the Tamron will be used as a trade-in.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

SueScott wrote:

Right now my most useless lens is my Tamron 90mm macro lens since Tamron hasn't yet seen fit to offer a firmware update to make it compatible with my Z6 (it works with manual focus but not AF). It's a shame as I love its color rendition but it is currently sitting on the shelf while I wait for the 105mm Z lens to become available at which time the Tamron will be used as a trade-in.

Which model do you have? I have the last external focusing model, the 272E, which was released in 2004 and it works flawlessly on my Z7 with the FTZ adapter. Since then they’ve released two internal focusing models, the F004 and F017, all three are listed as compatible by Tamron. I’m guessing anything older I doubt it’ll ever be updated.

torchman310 Loc: Santa Clarita, Ca.

I bought a used 500 MM F8 Nikkor Reflex mirror lens, (the smaller of the bunch). It is built strong, but, alas, the images are soft. But that's what you get for buying sight unseen.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Gene51 wrote:

Not sure who you are directing the question to, (u... (show quote)

It was a general commentary of what has been discussed as of the moment of writing so it was for everyone.

On the other hand, as you mentioned, I guess there really "is" a lens so bad that they are useless. Maybe even more.
I have not tried this one but it seems to be a probable candidate; 420-800mm F/8.3-16 Super Telephoto.
It's around $100 in Amazon and offered in different name brands like KKmoon, Lightdow & Uonlytech.

User ID

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Which model do you have? I have the last external focusing model, the 272E, which was released in 2004 and it works flawlessly on my Z7 with the FTZ adapter. Since then they’ve released two internal focusing models, the F004 and F017, all three are listed as compatible by Tamron. I’m guessing anything older I doubt it’ll ever be updated.

Much like very many really nice Sigmas in EOS mount that only work on film era bodies. Not updatable and they are all 100% nonfunctional in digital bodies.

In Nikon mount, those same Sigma models smoothly transitioned to digital, remaining 100% functional. My EOS mount Sigma 90 macro or 28/1.8 can’t rank as “most useless” cuz I already shidtcanned them :-( Meanwhile their Nikon AF mount siblings both remain fully useful at 25 years and counting.

jburlinson Loc: Austin, TX

ronpier wrote:

My least used lenses are two 18-55 kit lenses that came with my D3400 and D50.Nothing wrong with them.Just have others that are more useful especially my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and my Nikkor 18-70 f3.5-4.5.

I'm surprised that you are the only person, as far as I can tell, to mention the humble kit lens. Of course, when starting up photography, it's not only the most useful but it's downright necessary since it's probably the only one. But once the bug has bitten, it quickly loses its status having been obsoleted by faster lenses or specialty lenses. Despite that, many photographers decide not to get rid of it, maybe because one never wants to forget one's first, in either romance or cameras.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

jeweler53 wrote:

I have a handful of other "legacy" lenses, some of which I have added a CPU chip to.

Having already ruined 2 binoculars and a riflescope, I am adamant of messing with camera lenses.
And here you are upgrading them. Thats cool!

What's with the 43-86mm? why not that one?

hrblaine

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.
.

Mine is also a 20mm but a Canon. I thought that I needed something wider than 35mm but I was wrong. I never use it, probably should give it to someone in the neighborhood who needs it. Harry

jeweler53

Wallen wrote:

Having already ruined 2 binoculars and a riflescope, I am adamant of messing with camera lenses.
And here you are upgrading them. Thats cool!

What's with the 43-86mm? why not that one?

I have a background in jewelry making and repair, which enables me do attempt lens modifications that aren't probably practical for many people. Both the skills and the tools help. If you add a CPU chip to a lens it allows that lens to function as a "G" lens. It "talks" to the camera, and you get EXIF data for the shot. You just have to focus. I have "chipped" a 16, 23, 50, 85, 100, 135 and 200.

The chip can only communicate one focal length, so it doesn't give you accurate data on a zoom lens. That, plus the fact the the 43-86 is really soft at all apertures and focal lengths has led me to simply not bother to install a chip. Hopefully that answers your question.

Interestingly, I don't use either a 28 or 35 very often. I own a couple of 28s, but haven't bothered to install a chip since they are rarely, if ever, used.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

jburlinson wrote:

I'm surprised that you are the only person, as far as I can tell, to mention the humble kit lens. Of course, when starting up photography, it's not only the most useful but it's downright necessary since it's probably the only one. But once the bug has bitten, it quickly loses its status having been obsoleted by faster lenses or specialty lenses. Despite that, many photographers decide not to get rid of it, maybe because one never wants to forget one's first, in either romance or cameras.

You are so right about never forgetting one’s first but that one left the party a long time ago. Been replaced many times but still remembered.