 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / February 2009Vivitar is back
http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's: • Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9), including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR cameras. http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's: • Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9), including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR cameras. I've owned two vivitar lenses in my life. Both fell apart. I'll never buy another. Take Care, Dudley > http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Take Care, > Dudley Vivitar never had a big name for being at the high end of the market, but they made some quite nifty little underwater cameras (disappointingly the two new ones have no optical zoom, however).. And a new range of cheap lenses, even if they aren't all that great, will add competition and put a little additional pressure on the other manufacturers. I for one would be most interested in taking a look at the 85/1.4... > .. http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Take Care, > Dudley I've owned a slew of lenses of various makes, and sometimes, you come across good ones from the oddest places. Soligor's 28mm f2.8 is decent, and Vivitar Series 1 (70-210mm f3.5) aren't bad at all and at the time they were made cost almost as much as Canon and Nikon. But you are right, their construction while in some cases seeming to be robust was not all that great. >I've owned a slew of lenses of various makes, and sometimes, you come >across good ones from the oddest places. Soligor's 28mm f2.8 is decent, >and Vivitar Series 1 (70-210mm f3.5) aren't bad at all and at the time they >were made cost almost as much as Canon and Nikon. But you are right, their >construction while in some cases seeming to be robust was not all that >great. It is impossible to generalise about Vivitar. While some of their early lenses, including the Kiron-made 70-210mm f3.5 Series 1 and its subsequent Komine-made f/2.8-4/0 version, were quite good, the brand later became just a name applied to some appalling Cosina-made junk. Of the later lenses, only the Cosina-made 100mm f/3.5 Macro deserves any credit. It even appeared branded as a Canon lens in order to offer a low-cost alternative to Canon's own 100mm offering. The latest "Vivitar" range once again appears to be just a badge, this time applied to some appalling cheap junk from Sakar. The Samyang (Korea) made 85mm f/1.4 Aspherical (also available as a "Polar") is laughable; the image quality is atrocious unless stopped down to f/8. Wide open, the bokeh is appalling. Who on earth buys an f/1.4 lens that needs to be stopped down to f/8 to get barely acceptable results? A cheapskate, presumably. > >I've owned a slew of lenses of various makes, and sometimes, you come > >across good ones from the oddest places. Soligor's 28mm f2.8 is decent, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > laughable; the image quality is atrocious unless stopped down to f/8. > Wide open, the bokeh is appalling. Sounds exactly like the Jupiter 85mm f2.0 I had which I picked up for pocket change at a camera show.. > Who on earth buys an f/1.4 lens that needs to be stopped down to f/8 to > get barely acceptable results? A cheapskate, presumably. If they are aware, pretty much. The thing costs $400 or so and Nikon's 85mm f1.8 is AF and superb for about the same price. >> I've owned a slew of lenses of various makes, and sometimes, you come >> across good ones from the oddest places. Soligor's 28mm f2.8 is decent, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Who on earth buys an f/1.4 lens that needs to be stopped down to f/8 to > get barely acceptable results? A cheapskate, presumably. I'm intrigued. You've tested every single Vivitar lens? If not, from what sources are you supplying these rather definitive statements? I couldn't find much in the way of serious reviews, but these two links seem to offer a different opinion to yours: http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/discuss/72157612596059618/ http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/46479-review-samya ng-85mm-f1-4-aspherical-if.html > Of the later lenses, only the Cosina-made 100mm f/3.5 Macro deserves any > credit. It even appeared branded as a Canon lens in order to offer a > low-cost alternative to Canon's own 100mm offering. The same as for Pentax? http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA100f3.5-Macro.html - Martin >> Of the later lenses, only the Cosina-made 100mm f/3.5 Macro deserves any >> credit. It even appeared branded as a Canon lens in order to offer a >> low-cost alternative to Canon's own 100mm offering. > >The same as for Pentax? >http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA100f3.5-Macro.html Yes, it was basically the same lens. Decently sharp, and very cheap, but it had horrible background bokeh. I think the Canon and Pentax versions are no longer manufactured. > >The same as for Pentax? > >http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA100f3.5-Macro.html > > Yes, it was basically the same lens. Decently sharp, and very cheap, > but it had horrible background bokeh. You think so? http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/cosina_100_35_macro/cosina_100_35_m acro_review.asp does look sufficient to me I remember that the manufacturer itself again was someone different to Cosina, but I do no longer find this info. - Martin >> >The same as for Pentax? >> >http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA100f3.5-Macro.html >> Yes, it was basically the same lens. Decently sharp, and very cheap, >> but it had horrible background bokeh. > You think so? > http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/cosina_100_35_macro/cosina_100_35_m acro_review.asp [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Martin Kiron? BTW, no one has mentioned the rather good Vivitar Series I 90mm f2.5 that could get to 1:1 sharply with its close-up rear converter... --DR >>> >The same as for Pentax? >>> >http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA100f3.5-Macro.html [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >90mm f2.5 that could get to 1:1 sharply with its close-up >rear converter... Somebody did mention that lens earlier in the thread, pointing out its amazing bokeh. To be fair, its excellent performance was equalled by several other macro lenses of that era in the 90mm to 105mm focal length range. Vivitar, Kiron, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all made superbly sharp macro lenses that also produced beautiful portraits, thanks to their super-smooth background bokeh. Only the Tamron survives; the current Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di can trace its lineage back to the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 of the 1970s. It is still a superb macro lens and it still offers excellent bokeh. >> .. http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > construction while in some cases seeming to be robust was not all that > great. In my younger days, I was more likely to gamble if I thought I could save a few bucks. After being bitten by vivitar (and a few other low-buck brands, I've settled on name brand lenses where quality costs a bit more, but is more certain. Having said that, I still kind of like Tamron; a 2X TC from that company is always close by when I'm shooting. Take Care, Dudley > http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR > cameras. Vivitar is really not back. Some new business just got the rights to the Vivitar name but the company is long gone. measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:Q0zol.17567$yr3.8213 @nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com: >> http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Vivitar is really not back. Some new business just got the rights to the > Vivitar name but the company is long gone. But considering Vivitar lenses even in their heyday were made by up to 10 different companies, they are back for all intents and purposes. > http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR > cameras. I had a Sakar >> http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I had a Sakar (and I pressed wrong button). What I intended to add > was it seemed to work well, couldn't see any difference between that and my fixed canon lenses. Only problem was when camera hung on my neck, zoom would creep. This was on a canon slr film camera quite a long time ago now. Dave Cohen >> I had a Sakar (and I pressed wrong button). What I intended to add >> was it seemed to work well, couldn't see any difference between that and my > fixed canon lenses. Only problem was when camera hung on my neck, zoom >would creep. This was on a canon slr film camera quite a long time ago >now. I have a few Canon lenses that do that, including the 24-105L. This isn't unique to 3rd party cheap glass.  SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >> http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I had a Sakar I understand you can get medication for that. ;-) SignatureRegards, Savageduck We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> saying something like: >Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's: > Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs The original Series 1s and a few others with the Vivitar badge on were worth buying way back when (and now), but most other Vivitar-badged stuff was so-so at best. When it comes to third-party lenses I stick to Tamron SP. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.