...and the 5 Softest Lenses I've Ever Tested

[@Penguinsrock124]

I laughed my ass off at "It's about as useful as an ejector seat on a helicopter"

[@marv42dp]

+Draunamou Me too, but only because it fails to make the point. There actually are helicopters with ejector seats in existence. They eject the rotors before the seat is launched.

[@Penguinsrock124]

Hilmar Steinhauer Oh, I didn't know that! Sounds like there's no drills for those because if you did do a drill on a real helicopter then it would be a total loss!

[@xmeda]

+Draunamou Actually KAMOV KA-52 helicopter does have ejection system. But it blows out the rotor first.

[@DjMahiester]

My personal favorite quote of this video! lol.... Man is a Joker! hahahahhahahahh

[@jaybugo]

Draunamou scrolled down to see if anyone else thought it was as funny as I did lol

[@BruceLeroyUK]

As useful as an ejector seat on a helicopter. 😂😂😂😂

[@PosranaRegistrace]

**Laughing in KA-52's rotor sounds**

[@spenjak18]

KA-50 and KA-52: "Allow us to introduce ourselves."

[@moroit1]

Except those are real, in use and actually able to save pilots lives.

[@markharris5771]

Some fantastic metaphors there, but I think "...as fuzzy as Emperor Caligula's grasp on reality." wins the top prize.

[@nikmihprorock]

Blackadder style :-) ( Rowan Atkinson )

[@keithspillett7312]

...as sharp as a velvet lined swimming pool full of marshmallows... I MUST remember that one! Great video as usual.

[@Ujaididida]

+Keith Spillett haha christopher is being funyy

[@SamiiYou]

They have ejector seats on helicopters, they use explosive bolts to clear the propellers just before the pilot bails. Although this is in no way a common feature, admittedly.

[@christopherfrost]

+SamiiYou Yeah, I know, actually - that is the flaw in my joke. You see it in 'Goldeneye' hehe

[@videotosse]

+Christopher Frost Photography To my taste it makes very little difference if the ejector seat actually does work :-D The description is still great. Keep up the good work (and the creative language, too).

[@HeathcliffBlair]

+Christopher Frost Photography I LOL'd at the ejector seat gag - doesn't matter if it's not entirely based on fact. Still funny! The Caligula gag had me chuckling too. Nice review. Thanks. :)

[@TheDyingFox]

+SamiiYou All those comparement comments made me laugh hard xD Then after the video, I started to think a bit about them laughed some more, then... "aren't there one or more helicopter(s) that shoot away their blades then ejects the seat?", then used ctrl-f here and found this, funny idea nontheless hahaha :D (Here... have some ejector seats in your helicopter, explosive bolts not included, that's like not including Air in an Airbag... as people tend to say on the Internet... must be one of those "made in china").

[@ioncladstudio2688]

@@christopherfrost nawww.. your joke is just fine.. it does it's job.. :P ie: I laughed. I had a Canon zoom lens that was so soft... when it was in my bag I knew I had something heavy to chuck at muggers. So they do have value.. in the peace of mind department.

[@ej_tech]

0:18 "Get it away from me" Then sells it for $84

[@kaanaksoy2599]

Dear Christopher, I have never ever seen such review before! The descriptions and adjectives are... simply marvelous! :D "I'm ejecting!" :D Very nice and hilarious review! Thanks a lot.

[@FloatingOrbProductions]

A velvet lined swimming pool full of marshmallows. That sounds like fun

[@xmeda]

That Tamron 28-105/2.8 could be better with film, as film does not need right angled light, like shiny sensor. Also it seems, that the F2.8 setting is there just to help camera AF to catch, while you should use F5.6+ for taking photos. I tested some simillar lenses and they also behave like this on digital, while on film they do work qute well. Just for example.. pentax FA28-70/4 proved to be quite a good lens on film, but with digital sensor its sharpness is lost, contras is weak and corners are bad even on APS-C and stopping down does not help much. When switched to film body, it does nice sharp and contrasty pics even at F4.. Film was much less demanding, it could capture light coming even from wider angles. And standard zooms (28-70, 28-105, 24-70 etc) from film era often struggle with digital and especially with hi-res body. Sometimes older 5Dmk1 works better with these lenses than 5Dmk3 or 18+mpix APS-C.

[@conspiracytocommit]

OMG, I had the 70-300 DO, the most expensive Elephant Feces made!!! There are other lenses I have had, for example the Sigma 50/1.4, the one I had for my Canon 7D was a Marshmallowmaker at all apertures and no amount of back or front focus corrections would improve anything, in fact, either direction made it even worse. I however also had the same Sigma 50/1.4 for my Nikon D7000 was one of the sharpest lenses I had. I also recently purchased 3 YongNuo 50/1.8's for a EOS M2 & M5, to compare with my old Canon 50/1.8. One YN was a horribly loud marshmallow-maker, another was super quiet because it was dead, however the 3rd was substantially sharper than my old Canon... but there is a caveat with this lens. It Arrived with its whole outer shell from where the red alignment dot starts to all the way around and almost completely broken off. I completely disassembled the lens and inside found everything loose and too much play everywhere. So, I superglued anything that was plastic connecting to plastic. So, the caveat is that I have no idea whether this lens was already sharp or whether the damage and my subsequent repair did something to correct missed focus due to too much play with the imprecise plastic on plastic joints and attachments inside the lens.

[@77appyi]

softest lens i ever had was a vivitar 28-105 F2.8-3.8 AF.. it was so soft that you could see it was soft on the of the camera LCD with out zooming in ..the camera was a 20D with a 1.8 inch LCD!!!!!!!!!!!

[@christopherfrost]

+david appleton Haha, that sounds horrific :-)

[@ioncladstudio2688]

how do lenses like that make it to manufacturing... like "well.. I tested the prototype.. it's pretty awesome.. it shows the world the way I want to see it.. dreamy.. fuzzy.. creamy.. none of those harsh angles and reality shit"... done! send to the floor.. make a million more! I was involved in a tv studio for a while.. you'd be surprised how many commercials make it to air because nobody has the guts to tell the director the commercial is liquid poop.. so.. it goes to air.. and then they found it is horrible... :/

24-105 2.8 would be the best lens ever!

[@christopherfrost]

+Fabrizio Cimò Yeah, just imagine - that would be pretty cool

[@MetalSlugzMaster]

+Fabrizio Cimò It would be a really large and heavy lens! It's hard to engineer decent wideangle-to-telephoto zooms at f2.8 without making them the size of a Quaker oatmeal cylinders.

+MetalSlugzMaster tamron did, maybe now canon could design it better with lot more quality

[@WeirdFishStick]

+Fabrizio Cimò Why do you think they would kill their 24-70 zoom line? Btw in order to make it higher quality you need more glass and more complex design which would make size bigger than tamron.

[@WeirdFishStick]

+Alan Scerbakov Not even talking about the ridiculous price.

[@tylermai1436]

I was quite excited when I found out about the tamron 24-105 f/2.8 lens sense I've always wanted the zoom range of a 24-105 with the speed of a 24-70, I knew the sharpness wouldn't be great, but it's so bad that it's not even worth the 2x stop in light compared to the f/4 versions

[@robinhodgkinson]

Third party lens have gradually improved it seems - at least some of them. Back in the dark ages when I started my photography career ( late 80's) no one would consider buying a Tamron or Sigma. They were definitely in the cheap amateur department. Much like a few of these choice pieces of glass.

[@spencergeorge4941]

It's fantastic to see the progress. I have a few old Sigma lenses that are all.. *okay* at best. Now, they produce some really nice pieces of glass that blow first-party options out of the water.

[@MezaBlitz]

My copy of the Yongnuo 35mm f2 is pretty sharp even wide open.

[@ArthurBrownPHOTOGRAPHY]

I don't know about the 70-300 "DO" but the non-"DO" Canon 70-300s are pretty poor too. I found one at my local tip. Even for free, I didn't want to keep it.

[@TheMetalButcher]

That must say something about the 75-300 then, as the 70-300 is significantly sharper.

[@pizzablender]

Shound have called it the 70-300 "DON'T" then...

[@konaguzzi1]

I have only just recently started watching your channel Christopher and while I have really enjoyed most of your highly useful videos and learnt a bit from you it is also good to see that you don't take every thing to seriously at all by giving us a gift like this one . Keep up all the good work and we will keep watching your we'll presented channel.

[@AbuKhadijah]

hi Christopher, I need advice, now I using 60d, for video, I want to upgrade, but still confused 70d or 6d !

[@alexandrebrsilva]

6d is better for photos but 70d is better for videos due to dual pixel CMOS af it focus so fast and you can also flip its lcd touch screen which you can also use to focus where you want. You can also keep using your EF-S lenses

[@AbuKhadijah]

+Alexandre Brum ohhh tq

[@Andy-gi1lw]

+Abu Khadijah The 70d is basically just a newer version of the 60d. I'd go with the 6d.

[@AbuKhadijah]

ohhh tq

[@aznpwr9900]

+Abu Khadijah 6d not really for videos. id go for 5d mk2 for video work. 6d is great for low light

[@FeroVlkolinsky]

ejector seat on a helicopter - you made my day :)

[@mml3140]

"As soft as a velvet lined swimming pool full of marshmallows" lolol hysterical. Great contrast to your technically superb usual videos. I was half expecting you to say "this lens is a piece of crap..indeed"

[@JdarceyMCR]

For some reason KZbin said... hey you.. watch this video from 5 years ago... and I just found out why 'A velvet lined swimming pool full of marshmallows' is never leaving my long term memory. love it. Well done youtube

[@JdarceyMCR]

Sorry "... this lens is about as soft as the muddy bog where they dug up Lindow Man.... " is amazing 🤣🤣🤣

[@josephyap698]

I love your colourful descriptions of these useless lenses.

[@philtaylor194]

Wasn't the Praktica 50mm f2.8 Domniplan once rated as the worst lens ever tested by a camera magazine in the 80s. Cheap enough on the BHF eBay shop.

[@DynamixWarePro]

Awesome, and quite funny reviews. I have been on many a bog and in bog mud, so I can agree with you on the last one! Haha. I know Canons "DO" lenses were designed to try and stop chromatic aberrations, but they could have tries better than making diffraction optics that will make the images soft because of the diffraction, especially when charging such a high price for the lenses. I haven't used many lenses, but one I found to be a poor lens was the Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF Macro lens. I got it as a kit lens on my old Canon 500D and could never get good sharpness out of the image. It was always soft. For macro work the images were average and noticed some light ghosting on brighter areas especially at 200mm end and chromatic aberrations with the lens hood on and the auto focus tended to hunt at the longer zoom range. Compared to other macro lenses, I found it wasn't a great macro. Maybe my copy of the lens wasn't great, I don't know.

[@dzsemx]

I have bought the yongnuo 35mm lens twice, the second one turned out to be pretty sharp even on APSC. So i kept it and it's just working fine

[@SgtPnkks]

I've only done a couple test shots with my ef yongnuo and it seems to be fine, my f mount 35 f2 from yongnuo is quite sharp That said I paid nowhere near the new price for either (hell, both combined I'm still well under the new price for just one)

[@GarnettLeary]

Thanks. I value your opinion because of your consistency.

[@Larslovesjhoney]

You made my day with your funny lines in between!

[@Webpromotions]

I'm guessing there must have been some updates on the yongnuo 35mm. Mine is brilliant (which I bought on the recommendation of other KZbinrs). Love your channel btw.

[@hauke3644]

I did my first bird photography with my Olympus OM-D and an adapted 300 mm Nikkor lens from the 1970s. A Tokina 300 mm mirror lens, designed for Micro Four Thirds, was meant as an upgrade, but was even worse!

[@misaalanshori]

The Yongnuo 50mm f1.8 is pretty sharp at f2.8, and for the price it's pretty good.

[@rf7182]

But canon 50mm f1.8 stm is waaay better, still cheap

[@misaalanshori]

@@rf7182 yeah, I wanted to buy the canon version, but It was twice the price of the yongnuo lens and my budget is way too low to buy any good lens.

[@Tw1x5000]

as Rifqi Fauzi wrote: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is way better...and this @f/1.8, so pay these 50 bucks or whatever it costs more :D better you save some money for 1 lens that is good than buying 500 crap lenses :D cause which lens can you then use to get 1 great quality image?

[@misaalanshori]

@@Tw1x5000 well its pretty obvious that the canon lens is better, but i couldn't afford the canon version because I'm still a student

[@Fallout4Executions1]

@@misaalanshori I got mine For 45€

[@b991228]

What about those lenses that have uneven sharpness. There might be a spot in the upper right corner of the lens that is nearly acceptably soft while the rest of the lens is dismal. That pretty much describes Holga lenses or using a gob of vasolene on your lens for weird focus effects.

[@ReelCinnemonProducts]

"As useful as an ejector seat in a helicopter" Can I use that one? It's absolute gold!

[@frtzkng]

Kinda want that 70-300 DO lens, simply because it looks so odd with its green ring. They're floating around eBay for €250 sometimes

[@N0rdman]

I have a Ricoh made 55mm f/2.2 and you need to stop it down to f/5.6 or f/8 to focus it because even the focusing aid in your camera doesn't help as there is no contrast to detect. But used right the spherical aberration can make really nice and dreamy pictures in certain situations. They say Leica lenses have a low contrast too, but maybe that's different... ;)

[@jonno52]

Thanks Chris, highly entertaining!

[@raygoodwin2303]

You must of got a crap copy of the Yongnuo. Mine's really good.

[@LuisJayanata]

Ray Goodwin can you send me a few raw file, I'm already thinking of buying it but kind of not sure now haha Thank you

[@parranoic]

Same here, most websites say it is shaper than the canon but misses focus sometimes. I bought one from ebay it had horrible autofocus and used to get stuck, the one I bought from China brand new is excellent, I didnt have any trouble shooting even in the dark. Images are sharp and the bokeh is great

[@bryanescalante2871]

Really late ... But the early models of yongnou lenses were pretty bad but after a year or so they became really good .. Like the 1.8 50mm at first they were bad but after a year of production or months they begam to ship really sharp lenses

[@geoffreypiltz271]

The biggest difference between big name expensive lenses and cheapo's is quality control. The big names bin the badly performing ones which is why the remaining ones are expensive. The cheapo's don't test them, they just sell every one that comes off the production line, good and bad alike, which is why they are cheaper.

[@Nahan_Boker94]

Agreed. Yes its not that sharp at f2. But the lens is decent enough for its price...

[@michaelbell75]

I have 2 lenses on this list haha. The Holga and the Yongnuo 35. The Yongnuo is alright for its dirt cheap price. The Holga pinhole lens for Canon EF is my new favorite lens! Its supposed to be soft and I love its dreamy, lo-fi vibe and so do my clients! $20 is a great price and its easier than using my Holga 120. I just wish I could find the wide angle adapter for it because its 96mm on my crop sensor camera. However, I have one of your other favorite lenses coming which will provide a wider angle, the Thingyfy Pro S!

[@RossFinnie]

I'd like to put in an honourable mention for the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-3.6 that came as a kit lens with my D700. It was my first full-frame camera, so I needed an all-rounder zoom to replace my trusty old 18-70mm, but jeez, even on a 12mp body and stopped down to f/8 or f/11 the images were total garbage. Was pretty excited when some daft shop let me trade it in against the then brand new 50mm f/1.4 AF-S.

[@shinya1215]

I had the Nikon version of yongnuo 35mm f/2.0 and it works fine from wild-open on my Fuji S5 pro, it is way way better than the yongnuo 40mm f/2.8 which I also have (so sad, shot it at f4 just can keep up with 35/2 wild-open in terms of sharpness). I think you might have a bad copy, from my experience they seems can't keep it and they can't figure it out neither. I sent my 40/2.8 back, attached prove photo (cross compare with their 35/2 on same camera), complaining about the not-sharpness issue and they said after testing it's working fine then sent it back to me..... I was once tempted to get a 85/1.8 or 100/2 from them, I cut it out after what happened to my 40/2.8.

[@thompsonevergreen8006]

Last one definately has a film-camera look, they'll all be good for more arty photography than accurate and sharp photography

[@KieranWrightPhoto]

thia video actually made me laugh real hard and smile! excellent work indeed!

[@Magnetron692]

Hi Chris, thank you for this video! Canon should replace the EF 70-300mm DO lens with a newer one. It needs to be replaced. Best, Ralf

[@deanwalliss8739]

"...soft as a velvet-lined swimming pool full of marshmallows..." Guffaw. :)

[@sammyfromsydney]

My copy of the Nikon 70-300G was awful @300mm. I hoard my lenses but I sold that one. You got a thumbs up for the quirky humour.

[@Quetzalcoatl0]

Hey Christopher, can you make an review of the tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro?

[@albertomorales746]

thanks, we learn a lot with these reviews. QUESTION: Is there a filter that can correct the lack of contrast of old canon or nikon lenses ... to improve the focus problem, I am talking about 60-70-80s manual lenses...Thank you...

[@Tw1x5000]

no, you can't filter contrast back in... just think of a sheet of paper: hold it against the sun, you will see a bright spot (the sun). but now, you can't do anything to get back all the other things behind the paper, there is no anti-paper-glasses (like sunglasses) or something like that. what's lost, is lost.

[@jukeboxjohnnie]

I had that tamron 28-105mm 2.8 it didnt seem too bad on film cameras

[@MrPutrifyingEagor]

Your a legend,this was a very useful video - especially as a couple of friends have talked of buying the DO lens (for Travelling). Your descriptions were hilarious! Thank You for another great video!

[@turbosinnermusic]

I'm the proud owner of an Aus Jena DDR 50mm f/2.8 zebra. Really soft with bloomy highlights. Has something special to it tho. Also an Industar 50-2, has a somewhat polaroid-ish look

[@briandipierro8865]

I have a lens that fits into this criteria! It's an older Sigma zoom lens. I could have fungus in mine, but the elements look crystal clear and clean to me. It's a Sigma Zoom Master 35-70mm f2.8-4, I only paid $10 so I don't exactly feel ripped off, but it's soft. It'd work very well if I was to record something with a lot of light, it has this haze look to it, but I can't get a sharp image out of it at any aperture.

[@buddah610]

I actually use the Yongnuo 50mm1.8 as well as the "nifty fifty" and I get better image quality and bokeh for that than my Canon. I bought it when it first came out to see the difference and was extremely surprised. I mainly use it with my macro reversal ring now but it's not bad. I think, like anything you purchase on Amazon, you take your chances. Thank you for the review!

[@madeiraislander]

Have you checked Lensbaby Spark lens? it's crazy soft and wacky, but for portraits it's pretty good xD

[@ZadieBear]

I have some old Canon FD lenses that aren't great, but my worst lens ever was a Vivitar Series 1 19-35 f3.5-4.5. I bought the lens when I had an older Canon A2 camera; it wasn't great on the A2, but it was usable. Moving to my first digital camera in 2007, the Canon Rebel XTi (400D), the photos were horrible at best. So bad were they that I threw away the lens rather than carry it through my 2+ month trip through Europe.

[@scrptwic]

Chris I have the Tamron 75-300mm 4.0- 5.6 the lens does not get sharp until F-11 you recommend not buying it unfortunately I bought it in 2005 the only reason it is useable to me is I have Pentax cameras with IBIS

[@shivamnegi7149]

What would you comment on the picture quality of the Yongnuo 85mm f1.8? is it any better than the Yongnuo 50mm lens?

[@christopherfrost]

Take a look at my review :-)

[@axelfiraxa]

I just wanted to complain about the Canon 17_85. APS-C. Wow what a river off. I was a broke student when I bought that to replace my kit 18-55 IS which was great for the money. Wow was that a terrible disappointment. The 85mm focal length was the only saving grace but you still needed f8 to get it sharp at which point your portraits were ok at best.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

The Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.7 IS USM DO isn't so bad. It is made for film cameras and it is endocentric which creates problems with the micro-lenses of the the photodiodes. Also the DO (diffractive optics) lens elements enable telephoto lenses to be lighter and more compact but with softer results and inferior bokeh quality.

[@cicerocanecorsoitalianmast7695]

Christopher Frost!!! You are truly hilarious with that "all business" voice. I"ll be laughing for hours!!!!!!

[@yttean98]

Hi, I enjoy most of your video on reviews of Canon compatible lenses. Most of them very accurate, I bought a numbe rof lenses based on your reviews and I wasn't diasppointed. The one I was a little disappointed is the Canon 15-85mm EF-S lens, It is a very sharp lens but according to DXOmark the transmission level is too high, I believe it means it absorbs more light than normal. Otherwise it is a very good lens. You may like to review Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art and compare it against Tamron 35 f1.8.

[@gblatt8472]

Finally, lenses that will make your video look like the Zapruder film

[@davidellinsworth22]

I have a very a small sample size when it comes to testing lenses (and a non existent budget to match) but I was bought a gift from my partner... A Neewer 8mm fisheye (designed to look like the Samyang equivalent but in fact a rebadged Kelda).... I could not believe how bad this lens was. Very soft, very bad ghosting and littered with grain (tested at ISO100 at it's alleged sweet spot of f/9). My partner prefers that I'm honest about surprise camera gear she buys me, so I respectfully said the lens had to go back and it would probably be best if I chose the lens in future

[@coooooooooool1000]

velvet lined swimming pool with marshmallows, ejecting seat in a helicopter OMFG

[@AkitaSyn]

The Holga ones do look fun for aesthetic photography

[@Tw1x5000]

i actually had the yongnuo 35mm f/2.0... i always wondered why the stars - i shot with it mainly - are just so nonpunctual.... a few weeks ago i sold it on ebay :D (i used it about 9 months for costs round about 20-30 €, so it was cheap to make this mistake and learn from it)

[@FrostMonolith]

I'm absolutely astonished that the 70-300 DO is inadequate for a serious travel lens. It's probably great for dreamy effects and the compact size, but the price, even secondhand, is still unbelievably expensive you're probably buying it just because you specifically want that DO. Even up to today's standards, the older 55-250 STM has a better price to performance ratio. If anyone argues that "the price is from the compact size", the two canon pancake lens (namely EF-S 24mm and EF 40mm) are still on par AND cheaper compared to their similar focal range brothers, while this 70-300 DO is almost twice more expensive than even the discontinued 70-300 L, which has superior image and build quality.

[@EcoHabitat00]

Another great and useful review video. Thanks :-)

[@Boz1211111]

well those on the beggining of the list, to say, real lenses, are in fact very soft, but that is acceptable in some situations. i have one of them, yn50mm 1.8, which i took over 35mmf2 for bokeh. still want to try 35mm tho

[@RobertLeBlancPhoto]

Just to be clear... Did you perform the Micro Focus Calibration for any of these lenses, particularly the Canon 75-300 DO?

[@christopherfrost]

Trust me - the issue with these lenses is not focus calibration! All my tests are done very carefully.

[@RobertLeBlancPhoto]

Christopher Frost Photography That doesn't answer my question, which required a simple yes or no. :/

[@kiwipics]

The 70 - 300 DO lens is actually pretty sharp, and you must of had a dud copy.

[@cwwong4938]

Chris, I'm looking for a flash, do u have any recommendations? For 6D. Within budget 150 USD i think. Thanks a lot

[@christopherfrost]

+chui wa Wong Surprisingly, the Yongnuo flashes are very good, and I generally recommend them for their price, if you can get a good one.

[@ioncladstudio2688]

thank you... I was wondering if that Chinese lens was a repackaged Canon glass (the price was confusing).. now I know. I just bought a C mount Newyi 25mm 1.8 for $25CAN and it's so awesome.. I guess you roll the dice with cheap lenses. :P thanks again. Love your channel.

[@alexbusca]

At the end when you said "It's about as useful as an ejector seat on a helicopter", good one ;)

[@MannyOrtizphoto]

Velvet lined swimming pool and ejector seat on a helicopter was hilarious

[@JeremyGalloway]

OMG... that Caligula reference, hahaha!! You should include more dark humor like that in your reviews ;) (and dear God, that Tamron lens is the most aesthetically hideous lens I have ever seen)

[@anthonyaustincaw8827]

hello chris, what are your thoughts on the sigma 12-24 v2 ? is it a good ultra wide for full frame ?

[@christopherfrost]

+Tony Caw A review of that lens is coming in a few weeks' time. It is very good actually but the optical quality in the corners of its images isn't too great

[@richardpcrowe]

Certainly not a recent design and certainly not a failure (especially when shooting film for which it was designed) but the Canon EF 135mm SF (SF for Soft Focus) is a fun lens with which to shoot. The sharpness without SF being dialed in is really not too bad - in fact many photographers in the 1990's purchased this lens as a lightweight, non-soft focus, 135mm f/2.8, addition to their lens arsenal. Even though you can duplicate most of the effects in Photoshop, it is still a fun lens to play with...

[@leefoxall6469]

Hi Chris. How about the Canon 35-80 Powerzoom? Sorry if I've brought back any bad memories! lol

[@christopherfrost]

Hehe ;-) I was thinking of mentioning that but it's actually not so atrocious when used on a full frame camera!

[@yoyodude7624]

Is 18-280 pzd best for image quality and af speed

[@richardpcrowe]

Ever try the Canon EF 135mm SF (soft focus)?

[@christopherfrost]

Not yet. I wanted to but I could never find a cheap one on eBay to buy and test.

[@JesseKoukku]

that lens-in-a-cap thing actually looked fun, even for a horrible picture quality lens.

[@GavinSher]

Are you planning on reviewing the canon 24-70 f4L IS USM? Great video, keep it up!

[@christopherfrost]

+Gavin Sher One day :-)

[@timsonxx]

We need an update on this

[@Primeros1000]

Hey!!! I was working on an ejection seat for a helicopter. Lol 😂

[@pepperbean243]

You need to make another one of these

[@smaakjeks]

The horror... the horror... the horror...

[@DoctorF1984]

My first tamron 17-50 Sp F2.8 was like the loreo.

[@peterkin1010]

The biggest stinker on that list was tne Canon 70-300 DO ! A rare boo-boo from Canon , I can't recall seeing it ever getting a good write up anywhere. It's also a shocker about tne asking price . Perhaps too much optical technology all thrown in at once in the interests of lightness and compactness.

[@sheldonspock5566]

Taking a swing at the Holga lenses was a very unsportsmanlike foul indeed. Cheap shot, dude.

[@christopherfrost]

It's a video about the softest lenses I've tested - and they are. End of story.

[@sheldonspock5566]

They're meant to be that way. They don't pretend to be what they aren't.

[@christopherfrost]

It's a video about the softest lenses I've tested - and they are. End of story.

[@mst7806]

"As soft as a velvet lined swimming pool filled with marshmallows..." That's funny. Good video btw.

[@v1ncn7]

I expected a Zeiss lens in this video

[@R3tr0v1ru5]

Lol, Zeiss lenses are built like tanks but still overpriced IMO.

[@Konamerp]

Hey hey now, the KA-50 helicopter DOES have an ejector seat!

[@niezaleznitworcy]

So, when we don't count lens for fun from places 1-2 it means that Tamron 28-105 is the softest "real" lens you've ever used. Unfortunately I must kind of agree with that. Also have this lens and it's incredibly soft. I bought Tamron 28-75 and now I feel like I have Carl Zeiss lens or smthin' like that. It's really incredible how soft Tamron 28-105 is comparing ot it's size. Yet I feel someone should continue this model, put some better glass inside it and make it work, cuz 28-105 with 2.8 light that's damn useful range.

[@christopherfrost]

+Niezależni Twórcy It would be nice if Tamron could have another stab at that particular design one day

[@NishitDave]

Ejector seat on a helicopter! My old Sigma 150-500mm lens suddenly seems to have decided to enter this competition.

[@taquocviet]

I didn't expect a comedy video 🤣!

[@christopherfrost]

Well, what do you expect with the video's title :-)

[@lifesbeautiful3024]

Great video!

[@zwete]

I got my canon 35mm f2 used for the same price as a yongnuo, and I love that lens.

[@bobfromhull]

I look at as many accurate reviews as I can before I part with the cash. It's fair to say if it gets past you, Dustin A and Tony N it must be OK. You must agree though sticking the 12 quid Holga on to a £1200 6D is a fun day out.

[@TheMetalButcher]

I tried a Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 today, it was pretty bad.

[@warpspeed9877]

One of my "vintage" lenses is the Tamron 28-105/2.8 but not in AF form! It is part of the adaptall-2 series and can be converted to any mount in use! While not the sharpest zoom lens it's far from the horrible comment of your description...Maybe you got a bad copy? And the choice of focal range and wide aperture is the BEST of all "standard" zooms. I wish someone (Tamron? Sigma?) could make a modern example of it. It would have been my lens of choice.

[@sethmoyer]

I have heard others praising the 70-300 "DO" lens, but from what I can tell they were very inconsistent. Maybe if you hunt for a better copy you'd get better results.

[@christopherfrost]

I don't really have time to trawl the markets for multiple test copies of lenses I'm afraid