View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
spiralcity
Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 1207 Location: Chicago, U.S.A
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
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. _________________ Nikons : F4-EM-FG-FE2-FA-EL-FTN-N2020-N70-F Nikkorex
Fujica: ST605N-ST701-ST705-ST705W-ST801-ST901-AZ1-AX-3
Chinon: CE4s-CM4s-CM5
Pentax: ME-Soptmatic
Ricoh:XR6
Pentax- K10D
Lenses- M42's-Nikon F mount, Pentax PK
FREE PHOTOGRAPHY COURSE |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dane03
Joined: 22 Dec 2014 Posts: 44
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dane03 wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst
Joined: 04 Jul 2011 Posts: 497 Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PBFACTS
Joined: 24 Dec 2008 Posts: 564
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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
_________________ OM USER .. I KEEP/USE:
Om2 sp + T32 (grip/filter/zoom) + T8
+ Zuiko 16mm 3.5 / 55mm 1.2 / 65-200 4/ x1.4
+ Sigma 8mm 4.0 / 14mm 3.5 / 18-35 3.5-4.5
+ Tamron 35/105 2.8
+Tokina 150/500 5.6
+ Kiron 105/2.8 macro 1:1
+ Vivitar S1 90/180 falst field macro
+ 2x Doubler HR7
>>I SELL: OM10 + OM4ti
+ i sell: OM Md1 + Md 2 + Grip PowerPack + charger
+ i sell: OM Zuiko 24mm 2.8 / 28mm 3.5 / 50mm 1.8 / 50mm 1.4 / 50mm 3.5 macro / 35-70 3.6 / 35-105 3.5-4.5 / 75-150 4 / 500mm / 2xA
+ i sell: OM Kiron 28/105 3.2-4.5 / 1.5 converter
+ i sell: OM Makinon reflex 5.6/300 + Spector reflex (makinon) 500mm
+ i sell: OM Macro panagor extender 1:1
+ i sell: OM Sigma 16mm 2.8 fisheye (last version) / 21-35 3.5-4.2 ot/ 28-70 2.8 /1000mm mirror
+ i sell: Tamron 28-70 3.5-4.5 / 28-80 sp 3.5-4.2 / 28-135 sp 4-4.5 / /28-200 3.5 / 35-135 3..5-4.5 / 90mm sp macro 1:1 2.8
+ i sell: OM Soligor 2x doubler / x3 converte
+ i sell: Soligor FisheEye x0.15
+ i sell: OM Tokina 28/135 4-4.6 / 70/210 3.5 (= vivitar S1 v2)
+ i sell: OM Vivitar 28-70 3.5-4.8 / 28-90 s1 2.8-3.5 / 35-70 2.8-3.8 / 55/2.8 Macro 1:1 (komine) / 70-150 3.8 ot (kiron) / 75-150 ot 3.8 (tokina + 2x matched)
+ i sell : OM cosina 100-500 5.6/8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
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
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
fwcetus
Joined: 12 Jun 2015 Posts: 303 Location: New England
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fwcetus wrote:
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.]
_________________ Fred
If you saw a fellow drowning, and you could either save him or photograph the event . . . What lens would you use ?
Last edited by fwcetus on Thu Oct 22, 2015 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fwcetus
Joined: 12 Jun 2015 Posts: 303 Location: New England
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fwcetus wrote:
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?). _________________ Fred
If you saw a fellow drowning, and you could either save him or photograph the event . . . What lens would you use ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst
Joined: 04 Jul 2011 Posts: 497 Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
From the few test shots I've done with this lens, it is indeed pretty flat. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rockycarter
Joined: 04 Aug 2015 Posts: 158
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rockycarter wrote:
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. _________________ Rockycarter |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fwcetus
Joined: 12 Jun 2015 Posts: 303 Location: New England
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
fwcetus wrote:
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. _________________ Fred
If you saw a fellow drowning, and you could either save him or photograph the event . . . What lens would you use ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spiralcity
Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 1207 Location: Chicago, U.S.A
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
spiralcity wrote:
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 |
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. _________________ Nikons : F4-EM-FG-FE2-FA-EL-FTN-N2020-N70-F Nikkorex
Fujica: ST605N-ST701-ST705-ST705W-ST801-ST901-AZ1-AX-3
Chinon: CE4s-CM4s-CM5
Pentax: ME-Soptmatic
Ricoh:XR6
Pentax- K10D
Lenses- M42's-Nikon F mount, Pentax PK
FREE PHOTOGRAPHY COURSE |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013 Posts: 1437
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bernhardas wrote:
Edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 10, 2016 4:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
Now I get what does "FLAT" in the name mean
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eno789
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 159 Location: California
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eno789 wrote:
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. _________________ Sharpness from lenses; Softness from me.
Nikon DSLR, Sony Mirrorless, Panasonic mu-4/3 - Having fun with MF lenses
https://www.flickr.com/groups/painterly_bokeh |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fwcetus
Joined: 12 Jun 2015 Posts: 303 Location: New England
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fwcetus wrote:
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. _________________ Fred
If you saw a fellow drowning, and you could either save him or photograph the event . . . What lens would you use ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dane03
Joined: 22 Dec 2014 Posts: 44
|
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dane03 wrote:
Searching one in Nikon mount.. Someone wants to sell or knows where to find one? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rockycarter
Joined: 04 Aug 2015 Posts: 158
|
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:27 pm Post subject: mounted the 90 to 180 on my sony A7RII |
|
|
rockycarter wrote:
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.
_________________ Rockycarter |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cellotone
Joined: 13 Apr 2014 Posts: 317 Location: US
Expire: 2020-09-24
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
cellotone wrote:
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!
_________________ Nikon D600, Fujifilm X-E1, Sony A7R,
Leica R lenses, C/Y Zeiss lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fwcetus
Joined: 12 Jun 2015 Posts: 303 Location: New England
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
fwcetus wrote:
cellotone wrote: |
Got this lens on eBay, took few shots with my Sony A7R. All apertures were at f4.5. |
LOVELY images !!!
_________________ Fred
If you saw a fellow drowning, and you could either save him or photograph the event . . . What lens would you use ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcusBMG
Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1299 Location: Conwy N Wales
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marcusBMG wrote:
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 _________________ pentax ME super (retired)
Pentax K3-ii; pentax K-S2; Samsung NX 20; Lumix G1 + adapters;
Adaptall collection (proliferating!) inc 200-500mm 31A, 300mm f2.8, 400mm f4.
Primes: takumar 55mm; smc 28mm, 50mm; kino/komine 28mm f2's, helios 58mm, Tamron Nestar 400mm, novoflex 400mm, Vivitar 135mm close focus, 105mm macro; Jupiter 11A; CZJ 135mm.
A classic zoom or two: VS1 (komine), Kiron Zoomlock... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cellotone
Joined: 13 Apr 2014 Posts: 317 Location: US
Expire: 2020-09-24
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cellotone wrote:
@ fwcetus So glad you like it! Thank you!
@marcusBMG It absolutely answered my question. Thank you for your help!
_________________ Nikon D600, Fujifilm X-E1, Sony A7R,
Leica R lenses, C/Y Zeiss lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10427 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
WOW! Those are fabulous photos Pan! I have no favorite, every single one is great!! _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cellotone
Joined: 13 Apr 2014 Posts: 317 Location: US
Expire: 2020-09-24
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
cellotone wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
WOW! Those are fabulous photos Pan! I have no favorite, every single one is great!! |
@ visualopsins _________________ Nikon D600, Fujifilm X-E1, Sony A7R,
Leica R lenses, C/Y Zeiss lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|