MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 does seagulls (and does them well)
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:22 pm
Post subject: Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 does seagulls (and does them well)
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:22 pm
Post subject: Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 does seagulls (and does them well)
Reply
** Can you guys see the embedded images? They're not showing up for me, except in preview. **

This lens doesn't get particularly favourable reviews, with lots of CA and complaints about softness, but I found one for $25 and couldn't pass up the opportunity to have a 400mm lens, if even a crappy one. Got a PK-EOS adapter on ebay and took it out for a test yesterday.

Well, with a bit of care, it's not so crappy!


















I think I got my $25 worth.

As I had hopes, a lot of the really soft stuff I've seen with it (e.g. on flickr), is apparently a matter of poor long-lens technique (though CA is pretty bad if you have anything blown out - easy solution though: don't blow out your whites!).


Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 does seagulls (and does them well)
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 does seagulls (and does them well)
Reply
walter23 wrote:
** Can you guys see the embedded images? They're not showing up for me, except in preview. **

This lens doesn't get particularly favourable reviews, with lots of CA and complaints about softness, but I found one for $25 and couldn't pass up the opportunity to have a 400mm lens, if even a crappy one. Got a PK-EOS adapter on ebay and took it out for a test yesterday.

Well, with a bit of care, it's not so crappy!


















I think I got my $25 worth.

As I had hopes, a lot of the really soft stuff I've seen with it (e.g. on flickr), is apparently a matter of poor long-lens technique (though CA is pretty bad if you have anything blown out - easy solution though: don't blow out your whites!).
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1