Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Vivitar Series 1 90-180mm f/4.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix wrote:
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
I have to agree; I had it in early '80s, and found it very soft and not really satisfying in any way.


I don't agree, I have this lens and my copy is excellent. It's a large and heavy lens and to perform at it's best needs to be mounted on a sturdy tripod.

Here are two recent photos from mine:-





Almost any lens could deliver a pleasant photo of a flower, indeed. My opinion was based on several comparison with other lenses of its time, where the Vivitar turned up to be by far the weakest, at least at larger apertures. The Nikon SE 75-150 by instance showed sharpness and contrast way higher, and it only was a consumer lens, at a fraction of weight. Of course I can only relate about my copy, yours is possibly better, who knows Smile


I find the your statement misleading. You do realize the flower picture is a portrait correct? It has depth and contrast as any other portrait. Not every lens produce a great portrait, and not every lens will produce a great flower portrait. I find the assumption ridiculous.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Had the lens too, and really loved the optical quality.
Not the sharpest, but really good, great colour and way better bokeh and less CA than
for example the Nikkor 200mm 4.0 AIS Micro.

Pics here: http://www.nikonpoint.de/viewtopic.php?t=82400


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiralcity wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
I have to agree; I had it in early '80s, and found it very soft and not really satisfying in any way.


I don't agree, I have this lens and my copy is excellent. It's a large and heavy lens and to perform at it's best needs to be mounted on a sturdy tripod.

Here are two recent photos from mine:-





Almost any lens could deliver a pleasant photo of a flower, indeed. My opinion was based on several comparison with other lenses of its time, where the Vivitar turned up to be by far the weakest, at least at larger apertures. The Nikon SE 75-150 by instance showed sharpness and contrast way higher, and it only was a consumer lens, at a fraction of weight. Of course I can only relate about my copy, yours is possibly better, who knows Smile


I find the your statement misleading. You do realize the flower picture is a portrait correct? It has depth and contrast as any other portrait. Not every lens produce a great portrait, and not every lens will produce a great flower portrait. I find the assumption ridiculous.


I'd never say that whoever's statement is "ridicolous", but maybe that's me in the wrong.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The flower pics/portraits exemplify the special characteristics and rendering I mentioned earlier in the thread. The 90-180 is one of the lenses that imparts a different color balance to the image. I think of it as a "Technicolor" lens. Makes for a great flower lens.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konicamera wrote:
PBFACTS wrote:
It is very heavy for limited aperture and the flat field allegation is NOT true (not bad but not true)

It is indeed a relatively heavy lens, but such was optical technology 40 years ago
absolutely true
konicamera wrote:
I am puzzled by you calling its flat-field properties an allegation? What is your claim based on?
Modern Photography test ..I enclose it

Pls look too
a- Resolution/contrast figures on center or corners .. They are not (on a large extent) same = the field is NOT flat
b- The contrast figures for 90 and 180mm : low to very low up to (at least) f:8

To resume : Small aperture / Very Big & heavy / Low Contrast

Never forget
1-That that lens was NOT primary designed for general use but ONLY for DENTAL market (with a ring flash supposed to be sold with)
2- that that lens was a real failure on the market .. perhaps the quality price/size/ratio was so low that could be easely explained !

To conclude
on a pratical point of view it has NO real interest
on a historical point of view it is a MAJOR lens



PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PBFACTS wrote:
konicamera wrote:
PBFACTS wrote:
It is very heavy for limited aperture and the flat field allegation is NOT true (not bad but not true)

It is indeed a relatively heavy lens, but such was optical technology 40 years ago
absolutely true
konicamera wrote:
I am puzzled by you calling its flat-field properties an allegation? What is your claim based on?
Modern Photography test ..I enclose it

Pls look too
a- Resolution/contrast figures on center or corners .. They are not (on a large extent) same = the field is NOT flat
b- The contrast figures for 90 and 180mm : low to very low up to (at least) f:8

To resume : Small aperture / Very Big & heavy / Low Contrast

Never forget
1-That that lens was NOT primary designed for general use but ONLY for DENTAL market (with a ring flash supposed to be sold with)
2- that that lens was a real failure on the market .. perhaps the quality price/size/ratio was so low that could be easely explained !

To conclude
on a pratical point of view it has NO real interest
on a historical point of view it is a MAJOR lens



Like 1


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PBFACTS wrote:
a- Resolution/contrast figures on center or corners .. They are not (on a large extent) same = the field is NOT flat


That does not indicate that it is not a flat field lens -- it only says that the lens is not as sharp in the corners as it is in the center (which is generally the case, right?).

A flat field lens (such as macro lenses tend to be) have a flat plane of focus. Many other lenses have a "plane" of focus that is curved, such that the corners are actually out of focus when the center is in focus (and that the center is out of focus when the corners are in focus).

[At least, the above represents my understanding -- I might, of course, be wrong.]



Last edited by fwcetus on Thu Oct 22, 2015 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PBFACTS wrote:
Never forget
1-That that lens was NOT primary designed for general use but ONLY for DENTAL market (with a ring flash supposed to be sold with)

Well, actually its original design specs were for a medical documentation lens, with a design target of 1:10 magnification, focusing from several feet away (which doesn't really suggest dental work much, does it?).


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the few test shots I've done with this lens, it is indeed pretty flat.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well I thought I would go back through some of my reading from other forums. I would like to share with you member's. first those photos are totally excellent. your lens camera and yourself are definitely in tune. now heres some comment from another forum. myself I don't have any opinion because. I have never used this lens yet. I will be thou in the further here is some writing from DP reviews on the vivitar series 1 90- 180 lens.


Re: Vivitar Series 1 90-180mm Flat Field Zoom


Wow $250 I put one in the paper for $100. I have had it for 25 years or so. It is a true macro zoom focusing to 1:2 at 180mm. The design was by Perkins-Elmar, the guys who built the Hubble telescope, but this lens was bulit by Vivitar. Big and heavy, optically no match for the Nikon 200 micro. It was made to be an operating room lens at a time that there were medical photographers, just a few of us around now. It was a rare lens, $250 is pushing it though, it was actually fairly poor at infinity. The Nikon 70-180 would be a better buy. Don't complain about camera weight I used to use this lens with a Canon F1, 12 battery motor, and a Metz flash. Anything seems light compared to that outfit.

PS Flat field just means that it is a true macro lens, regular lenses have a curved field, macros a flat field.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PBFACTS wrote:
The contrast figures for 90 and 180mm : low to very low up to (at least) f:8

rockycarter wrote:
I will be thou in the further here is some writing from DP reviews on the vivitar series 1 90- 180 lens.
[...]
It was made to be an operating room lens at a time that there were medical photographers, just a few of us around now.

I am curious just how often a medical photographer would be likely to photograph the "contents" of a surgical operation, say, with the DOF that using a 90-180 lens wide open or close to it would provide. [I know that when I am doing macro work, I am often working at f/11, plus or minus -- about the only time I might be working at or near wide open would be if I were trying to produce some sort of a very specialized "effects" image.] The Modern Photo review showed that the sharpness especially but also the contrast were (not surprisingly) often better at f/8 and f/11, and those results were obtained at about 1:50 and 1:4 magnifications, and not at the design target of 1:10.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix wrote:
spiralcity wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
I have to agree; I had it in early '80s, and found it very soft and not really satisfying in any way.


I don't agree, I have this lens and my copy is excellent. It's a large and heavy lens and to perform at it's best needs to be mounted on a sturdy tripod.

Here are two recent photos from mine:-





Almost any lens could deliver a pleasant photo of a flower, indeed. My opinion was based on several comparison with other lenses of its time, where the Vivitar turned up to be by far the weakest, at least at larger apertures. The Nikon SE 75-150 by instance showed sharpness and contrast way higher, and it only was a consumer lens, at a fraction of weight. Of course I can only relate about my copy, yours is possibly better, who knows Smile


I find the your statement misleading. You do realize the flower picture is a portrait correct? It has depth and contrast as any other portrait. Not every lens produce a great portrait, and not every lens will produce a great flower portrait. I find the assumption ridiculous.


I'd never say that whoever's statement is "ridicolous", but maybe that's me in the wrong.


Sorry, I am not stating that you are ridiculous, just the assumption that was made.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 10, 2016 4:59 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now I get what does "FLAT" in the name mean Laugh 1

Of course, if you use a large amount of PS, wich did not exist at the time of this lens, you can get much better looking pictures, but this would be like to cheat at solitaire.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think mine is sharp enough, and macro zoom in the field is very convenient and practical.
Weak at infinity, but it's not what it is designed for.

Here's an album of 2014 spring wildflowers in California.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bzhou/albums/72157642774595084/with/13345706955/


Blue_Eyed_Grass_4196 by Brian Zhou, on Flickr

I like the bokeh it produces. I also have the Canon FD 200mm f/4 macro that got even better bokeh, but this one is convenient.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eno789 wrote:
Weak at infinity, but it's not what it is designed for.

Yes, distances are not its strong suit (but were not intended to be, as you have noted).

eno789 wrote:
I like the bokeh it produces.

And yes, bokeh is definitely one of its strengths.

BTW, I really like that "blue eyed grass" image, Brian. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Searching one in Nikon mount.. Someone wants to sell or knows where to find one?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:27 pm    Post subject: mounted the 90 to 180 on my sony A7RII Reply with quote

here is a couple coin photo s taken with this lens. first one at set at f4.5 the set photo set at f11. the lens is preforming very well. it is along distance to the coin making it easy to light. I just did this fast. I will move the lights around for some nickel coins. really like this lens. can only imagine what this lens will do outside. I will wait for spring I know this lens is a keeper.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got this lens on eBay, took few shots with my Sony A7R. All apertures were at f4.5.
There is a switcher under the aperture ring, close to lens mount has "A-M" switch. Anybody knows what is it for? Thanks!







PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cellotone wrote:
Got this lens on eBay, took few shots with my Sony A7R. All apertures were at f4.5.

LOVELY images !!!

Like 1 small Like 1 small Like 1 small


PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There is a switcher under the aperture ring, close to lens mount has "A-M" switch.


This may help:

http://www.instructables.com/id/M42-Lens-Aperture-Control-on-Modern-DSLRs/?ALLSTEPS


PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ fwcetus So glad you like it! Thank you!

@marcusBMG It absolutely answered my question. Thank you for your help!

Thank You Dog Thank you! Laugh 1


PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WOW! Those are fabulous photos Pan! I have no favorite, every single one is great!!


PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
WOW! Those are fabulous photos Pan! I have no favorite, every single one is great!!


@ visualopsins Thank you! Thank You Dog