In article
>I wrote:
>>> > Ignoring test reports, which great lenses have you used?
>>> > Not the really exotic stuff, just ones that seem to produce pictures
>>> > with that bit more impact. Better yet if it's unexpected.
>Trends noticed so far :
>Vivitar Series 1 lenses seem to be almost universally acclaimed.
>All Nikon users keep their lenses in a shrine. Is there a Nikon user out
>there with a bad lens?
>Slightly smaller aperture (ie f1.8 rather than f1.4) standard lenses,
>seem to stand out.
>Now for my nominations for truly disappointing lenses :
>Canon FD 50mm f1.2 (not even a pleasing soft focus effect)
>Canon FD 50-135mm f3.5 L (dull, dull, dull)
>Sigma AF Macro 90mm f2.8 (grind..grind..grind..click..grind..etc..)
>Colin Edwards
I have not jumped into this before, since from the beginning people have
been listing a lot of what I would consider pretty mediocre lenses, so
the context was not right. What.., have people just not used some great
lenses, or, if they have, did they just not realize it, or what, already??? ;-), ;-), :-) And, of course Nikon users don't use bad lenses, since
all Nikkors are truly wonderful....! --> *;-), ;-), :-)* <-- (Actually,
there are some notable klunkers in the line, but percentage-wise, their
numbers are relatively few - and there ARE a lot of great Nikkors....:-)
BTW, I have tried many Vivitar Series I's, and my opinion of them is not
high - except for the 90mm macro which is excellent in the macro range,
with unacceptable flare for normal use, and some samples of the 70-210
which were good, but not great.
Oh, what the heck, here's my list of great (and slightly lesser) lenses
(with some exotics ;-), keeping in mind that I use Nikon, so... (all are
Nikkors, unless otherwise noted, and I have not yet used ALL Nikkors,
so the list is incomplete):
16mm f3.5, 15mm f5.6, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 AIS, 28mm f3.5 AI/AIS, 28mm f4PC, 35mm f2.8PC (latest), 35mm f2 (selected sample), 35mm f1.4, all
50mm f1.8 versions, 55mm f2.8 M, 55mm f3.5 M, 60mm f2.8 M, 85mm f1.8 AF
and non-AI, 85mm f2, 85mm f1.4, 100mm E, 105mm f2.5 AI/AIS, 105mm f2.8
M's, 135mm f2.8 E, 135mm f2.8, 135mm f2, all 180mm f2.8's, 300mm f4 AF, 300mm f2.8 (heck, just throw in all the big EDIF Nikkors ;-), 500mm f8 mirror (older version), 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 MF (selected sample), 50-135mm f3.5, 75-150mm f3.5 E, 70-210mm f4 E, 80-200mm f4, 80-200mm f2.8 AF, 100-300mm f5.6.
Non-Nikkors that I tried and liked (there were MANY that I didn't like!):
8mm f4 Sigma, 35mm f1.4 double-aspheric Leitz, 90mm f2.5 Vivitar Series I
M (for macro only), 90mm f4 Leitz CL (selected sample), 90mm f2.8 Sigma
MF M, 250mm f5.6 Minolta mirror, 28-135mm f4-4.5 Tamron SP, 50-200mm f3.5-4.5 Sigma APO, 100-500mm f5.6-8 Cosina, and many 28 to 135mm primes
of moderate aperture offered by the major camera manufacturers. (Though
not all! The two 40mm f2 Leitz CL lenses that I tried, for instance, were klunkers [as were some other lenses that should have been good].)
I guess I will not list the non-Nikkor klunkers (there isn't enough space!;-).
Here are the Nikkors I did not like (the rest are in the very large middle group of "very-good-to-excellent-but-not-great-or-poor", or are untried):
18mm f4, 20mm f4, 20mm f3.5 (compact), 28mm f3.5 non-AI, 28mm f2.8 E and non-D AF, 55mm f1.2, poor samples of the 35-105 f3.5-4.5 MF, 35-200mm f3.5-4.5 (maybe there is a good sample out there, but the two I tried
were terrible), 43-86mm f3.5 (all versions - YUCK!!! The pits!! BLEAH!!).
(Only the last two lenses would I consider just plain not worth using.)
Hope This Helps