Useless lenses you fell in love with

[axtstern]

You are right, even a rarely used lens is not useless as Long as it takes beautyful Pictures.
But especialy with expensive lenses it is tough if the lens has somehow all that you want to love in a tool and somehow still falls short of what you hoped for.

 

[Ozarker]

200mm f/2 ... I wouldn't call it useless but in reality there are far more useful lenses to use and carry. Wife bought it for me so will never be sold... I use it at least a couple times a year out of guilt.

Hahaha!

 

[arthurbikemad]

I love the 200/2 but it's a ball ache of a lens at times, saying that don't think I've ever taken a shot with it I don't like, even crap shots look GREAT! 11-24/4 had to have it, looks great, takes great shots, just never get to use it, sold my 14/2.8 for it, kind of miss the 14mm, mainly coz the 11-24 is just SOOOO BiG!

 

[Eldar]

I don´t have any useless lenses, but I have some wonderful lenses I don´t use enough.

The 17mm f4L TS-E rarely gets a place in my bag. So every time I would have liked to have it, it's on a shelf back home. So eventually I sold it to a friend.

The 11-24mm f4L is also a wonderful lens, but it is big and heavy and I don´t have any filters for it. Very often I tend to bring the 16-35mm f2.8L III instead. I will not sell it though.

The 300mm f2.8L IS II er a fantastic lens. However, I do not use it much. The 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II and the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x provides so much flexibility and they complement the 600mm f4L IS II, with extenders very well. But I will not sell it.

 

[Mr Bean]

The Zeiss 15mm I have, for the amount I paid, is lucky to be used once a month. But, when you need that UWA lens effect, it makes up for lack of use

 

[leadin2]

I'm a zoom lens guy. Any fixed focal lens that I buy (50s, 135) will usually sit on the bench, eventually sold, except for 100mm L which I always use for product shots.

These days, I am trying to use only fixed focal lens for a change. My legs will be the zoom.

 

[jolyonralph]

Well, I have always wanted a tilt-shift lens but couldn't justify the price.

So I sort of made my own (well, a tilt-lens to be accurate)

An example of a photo taken with it:

Full details of how I built it here:

http://www.everyothershot.com/home-made-tilt-shift-lens-put-test/

 

[Zeidora]

The Zeiss 15mm I have, for the amount I paid, is lucky to be used once a month. But, when you need that UWA lens effect, it makes up for lack of use

Marvelous lens, indeed! The only way I would get rid of mine if I'd upgrade to the version with removable hood. Such a hard thing to justify, though. But then again, this is not about rational decision making ;-)

 

[alvarow]

I love my vintage Super Multi Coated Takumar 50mm 1.4. Once in a while I take it out and produce some magical images, and I love it, but for the most part it sits unused for periods of time.

But I do love it

 

[aceflibble]

First for me is definitely the Fujifilm 18mm. It's the weakest, optically, of all of Fuji's 'XF' prime lenses. Even the kit zoom at 18mm is sharper and less distorted. It has the joint-worst AF along with the other two launch primes. It's not even the smallest and lightest; the 27mm is a proper pancake and manages to be sharper to boot. But an 18mm on an APS-C (1.52x) is my perfect wide field of view for casual shooting and the size is small enough to be easily portable without also feeling too flimsy.
Most Fuji users ditched the 18mm prime a few years ago, but for me it lives on an older Fuji body and that's my go-to point-and-shoot. I could put on any other lens and get sharper pictures, less fringing, less distortion, faster and smoother AF. You name it. But the 18mm lives on the old body because it feels right.

Second, Canon's 100mm f/2. It doesn't give you the compression of the 135mm or any of the 70-200s. It's more limited in framing than any of the 85mms. (Or, again, a 70-200.) It's an older design with a bit too much plastic. But, like the Fuji 18mm, the Canon 100mm f/2 just fits my eye perfectly. Stick it on a 35mm 1D body and the image in the viewfinder is exactly what my eye sees, to the point where I can keep both eyes open and I don't experience any double-vision at all. The AF is that hair faster than the 100mm f/2.8L Macro. It's sharp where it counts. It has no distortion or aberration on a 35mm body and only minor fringing on an APS-C body.
Every time I pick it up, I know there's a better lens to use. I could pick up the 135 and get better compression and a sharper image. I could pick up the 85mm and capture a wider variety of shots without needing to change lenses again. I could use a 70-200 and blow everything out of the water. I could use the 100mm L macro and have less flaring.
But that basic, cheap, 100mm f/2 is just too lovely. It's pointless, but lovely.

Third, the Mitakon 35mm and 50mm f/0.95s. Totally pointless lenses. Optically a bit weak. Awkward aperture ring placement. Heavy, dense lenses for their size. There are better 50mms (the 35mm is for Fuji, where it's a 53mm equivalent) for every system. The f/0.95 isn't even really that fast because it's actually t/1.3-1.4. But the focus rings are beautiful and using them makes me feel like I'm back using my dad's Canon A-1 and 50mm. (Which I did dust off and retry a few years ago and found that is nowhere near as nice as I remember it being; the Mitakons are as nice as I remember the A-1/FD being.)
Totally, totally useless lens. A Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM or Fuji 35mm f/1.4 would beat them if you want objective quality. If I really need a great 50mm for a job, I use the Sigma 50mm Art, or for a couple of specialist roles, a modified Samyang 50mm. I've had the 50mm f/1.2L and f/1.4 a few times each and those are (kind of, bar a few flaws) better lenses than the Mitakons, too. But the Mitakons are the ones I like using most so they stay in the bag.

Fourth and last, Mamiya 110mm f/2 for the 6x7 system. In fact that whole system is useless since a 6x7 digital sensor doesn't exist and 6x7 film is unwanted. I've adapted it with a 6x4.5 digital back but that too still leaves it useless as I have a much more capable Phase system anyway. But, I keep the Mamiya maintained in good condition just so I have a way to use the 110mm lens, which equates to roughly 60mm f/1.1 in 35mm sensor terms with the 6x4.5 back. (It's 55mm f/1 with the original 6x7 format.) Optically the best lens I've used since I first learnt the basics of photography with my father's large format rig ~25 years ago. No distortion, no fringing, and the best resolving power edge-to-edge of anything I've ever been able to test under reasonably comparable conditions. I get more detail out of the Mamiya 110mm and a 50mp Phase back (at reasonable ISOs, of course) than out of the Sigma 50mm Art and 5DS R.
The whole system is redundant, slow and out dated, a pain to set up and use, and irrelevant. But that one lens keeps it alive for me and if there's a fire here and I have time to pick up one camera and one camera only, it's going to be the Mamiya with the 110mm attached.

 

[privatebydesign]

Lenses don't 'give you compression'.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Lenses don't 'give you compression'.

But we all know what he means don't we? It is academic whether it is the lens that is creating the compression effect or the distance you are from the subject when you take the picture. The point is that the image will look more compressed if a long telephoto lens is used rather than a lens with a shorter focal length.

 

[bereninga]

It's hard to call a lens useless, but I love my barely used 40mm f/2.8 STM. It's so compact and delivers great image quality. I also purchased it for < $100 refurbished, so the value was really amazing. But having a 35mm f/2 IS USM keeps the 40 at home.

 

[privatebydesign]

Lenses don't 'give you compression'.

But we all know what he means don't we? It is academic whether it is the lens that is creating the compression effect or the distance you are from the subject when you take the picture. The point is that the image will look more compressed if a long telephoto lens is used rather than a lens with a shorter focal length.

No I don't think we do know what he means. How does a 100 not "give you the compression of the... ...70-200s"?

Second, Canon's 100mm f/2. It doesn't give you the compression of the 135mm or any of the 70-200s.

That makes even less sense! Any 100mm lens, or zoom spanning 100mm will give you exact;y the same perspective. It won't 'compress' anything, but it will give you a perspective.

The problem with these oft repeated inaccuracies is they confuse people with less understanding or education. My calling for accuracy in terminology is not me being pedantic, it is an effort to prevent confusion in others.

Lenses do not create 'compression', use an 18-200mm zoom and stand in the same place and take a shot at both ends of the zoom range then crop the 18mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the 'compression' is the same. Because I was taught perspective rather than compression that is an obvious fact to me, people taught about lens compression often struggle to get their heads around the concept of perspective because of that falsehood.

Am I wrong to point that out?

 

[aceflibble]

Yes, because you assumed I meant to say perspective and erroneously said compression, when I meant to say compression; assumption is the mother of all ****-ups. The two do mean different things, and I meant what I said.

First off, the part about the 100 not giving the same compression as the 70-200 is simply a failing in reading comprehension on your part; the—I assumed obvious—implication being that the zoom can be used at 200mm, creating a very different look in both compression and perspective than the 100mm is stuck at. Hence, the 100 can't give you the compression of the 70-200. The 70-200 can give you the compression of the 100, but not vice-versa.

Second, perspective and compression may sometimes be erroneously used to mean the same thing, but they are not, and I use each with purpose. Perspective is fully-ranging, while compression is only used to describe a difference in information density. I generally won't mention perspective because I—again, perhaps too-optimistically—assume people are familiar with the perspective of any given focal length at any given distance and it varies too much from use to use to be worth talking about. Compression, however, is the same for any given focal length no matter where you're shooting from and can not be replicated by cropping other focal lengths. (Well, except for mirror lenses and microscopes, but that should be a given.) The density of information—the compression— passed to the sensor is different, even if the view of the subjects—the perspective—is the same. Just as the contrast and colour can be different. (Though of course that's more subject to a specific model basis.)

You're talking about and to someone who got Fuji's UK marketing to delay advertising by a week to fix their misuse of "strobe" and who has ranted in the face of Scott Gilbertson (then CEO) about Fender's horrific confusion of 'tremolo' and 'vibrato', so no, I'm well acquainted with and against the folly of abusing terminology, but I'm also equally against presumptive accusations.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes, because you assumed I meant to say perspective and erroneously said compression, when I meant to say compression; assumption is the mother of all ****-ups. The two do mean different things, and I meant what I said.

First off, the part about the 100 not giving the same compression as the 70-200 is simply a failing in reading comprehension on your part; the—I assumed obvious—implication being that the zoom can be used at 200mm, creating a very different look in both compression and perspective than the 100mm is stuck at. Hence, the 100 can't give you the compression of the 70-200. The 70-200 can give you the compression of the 100, but not vice-versa.

Second, perspective and compression may sometimes be erroneously used to mean the same thing, but they are not, and I use each with purpose. Perspective is fully-ranging, while compression is only used to describe a difference in information density. I generally won't mention perspective because I—again, perhaps too-optimistically—assume people are familiar with the perspective of any given focal length at any given distance and it varies too much from use to use to be worth talking about. Compression, however, is the same for any given focal length no matter where you're shooting from and can not be replicated by cropping other focal lengths. (Well, except for mirror lenses and microscopes, but that should be a given.) The density of information—the compression— passed to the sensor is different, even if the view of the subjects—the perspective—is the same. Just as the contrast and colour can be different. (Though of course that's more subject to a specific model basis.)

You're talking about and to someone who got Fuji's UK marketing to delay advertising by a week to fix their misuse of "strobe" and who has ranted in the face of Scott Gilbertson (then CEO) about Fender's horrific confusion of 'tremolo' and 'vibrato', so no, I'm well acquainted with and against the folly of abusing terminology, but I'm also equally against presumptive accusations.

No, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Also, what in the hell does "density of information" mean?

 

[dak723]

Lenses don't 'give you compression'.

But we all know what he means don't we? It is academic whether it is the lens that is creating the compression effect or the distance you are from the subject when you take the picture. The point is that the image will look more compressed if a long telephoto lens is used rather than a lens with a shorter focal length.

No I don't think we do know what he means. How does a 100 not "give you the compression of the... ...70-200s"?

Second, Canon's 100mm f/2. It doesn't give you the compression of the 135mm or any of the 70-200s.

That makes even less sense! Any 100mm lens, or zoom spanning 100mm will give you exact;y the same perspective. It won't 'compress' anything, but it will give you a perspective.

The problem with these oft repeated inaccuracies is they confuse people with less understanding or education. My calling for accuracy in terminology is not me being pedantic, it is an effort to prevent confusion in others.

Lenses do not create 'compression', use an 18-200mm zoom and stand in the same place and take a shot at both ends of the zoom range then crop the 18mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the 'compression' is the same. Because I was taught perspective rather than compression that is an obvious fact to me, people taught about lens compression often struggle to get their heads around the concept of perspective because of that falsehood.

Am I wrong to point that out?

Yes, because the terminology you were taught is far more confusing and probably incorrect. The perspective changes between the viewer and the subject when the viewer moves left, right, up or down. Compression implies that the viewer seems closer to the subject, which is what zooming - or cropping - does.

Pretty simple to understand. You seem to be confusing the terms perspective and field of view. Narrowing the field of view does nothing to change the perspective, it changes the apparent distance between camera and subject, in other words, the compression.

 

[privatebydesign]

Lenses don't 'give you compression'.

But we all know what he means don't we? It is academic whether it is the lens that is creating the compression effect or the distance you are from the subject when you take the picture. The point is that the image will look more compressed if a long telephoto lens is used rather than a lens with a shorter focal length.

No I don't think we do know what he means. How does a 100 not "give you the compression of the... ...70-200s"?

Second, Canon's 100mm f/2. It doesn't give you the compression of the 135mm or any of the 70-200s.

That makes even less sense! Any 100mm lens, or zoom spanning 100mm will give you exact;y the same perspective. It won't 'compress' anything, but it will give you a perspective.

The problem with these oft repeated inaccuracies is they confuse people with less understanding or education. My calling for accuracy in terminology is not me being pedantic, it is an effort to prevent confusion in others.

Lenses do not create 'compression', use an 18-200mm zoom and stand in the same place and take a shot at both ends of the zoom range then crop the 18mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the 'compression' is the same. Because I was taught perspective rather than compression that is an obvious fact to me, people taught about lens compression often struggle to get their heads around the concept of perspective because of that falsehood.

Am I wrong to point that out?

Yes, because the terminology you were taught is far more confusing and probably incorrect. The perspective changes between the viewer and the subject when the viewer moves left, right, up or down. Compression implies that the viewer seems closer to the subject, which is what zooming - or cropping - does.

Pretty simple to understand. You seem to be confusing the terms perspective and field of view. Narrowing the field of view does nothing to change the perspective, it changes the apparent distance between camera and subject, in other words, the compression.

No.

Perspective is the spatial relationship between you and all the things in the image. Compression is a bullsh!t term that implies a longer lens will give you a different perspective from the same place than a shorter one, which is not true.

See the red highlighted line above, acefibble is not using the term as you understand it, he is directly stating compression is a function of focal length and can not be replicated, that is not what you or I am saying, we are saying 'compression' is perspective and is the same regardless of focal length, it changes when you move, not when you change lens.

For illustrative examples look at this post, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19483.msg366490#msg366490