Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2025 12:43 pm    Post subject: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
A comparison of the Close Focusing Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 against 3 other lenses. Note: there's a possibility that the Hexanon didn't quite reached infinity; I couldn't turn the focusing ring further than I did in this test. Earlier test I did show that the Hexanon becomes very sharp over the whole frame, but only when stopped down a few clicks. Note: the Zeiss and Nikkor are my best performing 135mm lenses. I initially included the Hexanon 135mm f/3.2, but took it out because I couldn't quite reach infinity with it.

First. the infinity tests:

infcompA by devoscasper, on Flickr

infcompb by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Vivitar's corners are not quite up to the standards of the Nikkor and the Zeiss, but not too bad either considering the sensor resolution. Centrally, the Vivitar holds up well with the other 2 lenses, and is also pretty sharp wide open.

Bokeh comparison:
bokehcomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Vivitar has the best ability to blow out the backgrounds, being the fastest lens. On top of that, it can focus to 1:2, much further than the other lenses. The Nikkor has very nice bokeh wide open, like the other lenses, but bokeh balls are harsh when stopped down (a typical Nikon thing).

Conclusion: the Vivitar is quite a specialty lens, with its close focusing ability. Perfect corners will not be the issue in most real life circumstances. It is (very) sharp where it has to be.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2025 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is still a lens I'd like to find again.

I had a late version that was actually pretty good at infinity and f 5.6 on film.
It was a fine portrait lens too, especially at wide open.
Pretty nice to work with it's images under the enlarger- one of the better lenses I had for comparing B&W film grain.
My copy vignetted a bit at full macro extension and wide open- not glaring, but there.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2025 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice comparison, thanks a lot. Is there a reason the corners appear brighter than the image center in all of the example pictures ? Did you correct the vignetting ?

I've got the Vivitar Close Focusing 135 mm in M42 screw mount and even though i haven't had the time to test it thouroughly, i've come to the conclusion that my copy has rather weak corners at infinity as well.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2025 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
Very nice comparison, thanks a lot. Is there a reason the corners appear brighter than the image center in all of the example pictures ? Did you correct the vignetting ?

I've got the Vivitar Close Focusing 135 mm in M42 screw mount and even though i haven't had the time to test it thouroughly, i've come to the conclusion that my copy has rather weak corners at infinity as well.


The exposure is different because I placed the subject in the upper corner.

By the way: I noticed the Hexanon and the Zeiss have a similar relatively short MFD of 100cm. I’m planning to do a close focus test between these two and the Vivitar.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a copy of this Vivitar and used it a lot before i got to the 180mm macro lenses.

This Viv can do nice bugs

Elasmostethus interstinctus by Ouwesok, on Flickr

Lestes barbarus by Ouwesok, on Flickr

Libellula depressa by Ouwesok, on Flickr


PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2025 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice results indeed!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2025 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's another bokeh test @ 100cm. I didn't include the Nikkor, because it has an MFD of 130cm.

bokehcomparison2 by devoscasper, on Flickr

The three lenses all have pretty nice bokeh, but the Hexanon has the harshest bokeh balls, and the Vivitar the best. Furthermore, it seems that the aperture settings of the lenses don't exactly match: the Vivitar has the smallest bokeh balls when stopped down, and the Zeiss the biggest. So, more a setting thing than the quality of the optics, so it's better to compare the lenses at different apertures.

I made a 100% crops comparison, but I'm not going to publish it, because of small focusing differences, and because what seems to be focus shift of the Vivitar (the focus shifts backwards when stopping down). A few conclusions I could draw however: the Vivitar is a bit sharper @ f/2.8 than the Hexanon @ f/3.2. Once stopped down to f/4 the differences between the 3 lenses is minimal: they are all very sharp.

Here are the links to the full size images @ f/11:
Vivitar:
Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 @ f/11. Focusing distance: 100cm. by devoscasper, on Flickr
Hexanon:
Hex@11 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Zeiss:
Zeiss@11 by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Vivitar obviously has the advantage of close focus ability to 1:2, which looks like this:
Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 @ f/11. 1:2 magn. by devoscasper, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Your tests confirm my thoughts about the Nikkor -- I love that lens.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
gaeger wrote:
Your tests confirm my thoughts about the Nikkor -- I love that lens.


Yeah, it truly is excellent, probably my favourite allround 135mm.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:17 pm    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
"caspert79"]A comparison of the Close Focusing Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 against 3 other lenses. Note: there's a possibility that the Hexanon didn't quite reached infinity; I couldn't turn the focusing ring further than I did in this test. Earlier test I did show that the Hexanon becomes very sharp over the whole frame, but only when stopped down a few clicks. Note: the Zeiss and Nikkor are my best performing 135mm lenses. I initially included the Hexanon 135mm f/3.2, but took it out because I couldn't quite reach infinity with it.



Nice tests. Can you tell us which Viv 135mm Close Focus 2.8 you are testing?

JT


PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2025 5:45 am    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
Focusthrow wrote:
"caspert79"]A comparison of the Close Focusing Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 against 3 other lenses. Note: there's a possibility that the Hexanon didn't quite reached infinity; I couldn't turn the focusing ring further than I did in this test. Earlier test I did show that the Hexanon becomes very sharp over the whole frame, but only when stopped down a few clicks. Note: the Zeiss and Nikkor are my best performing 135mm lenses. I initially included the Hexanon 135mm f/3.2, but took it out because I couldn't quite reach infinity with it.



Nice tests. Can you tell us which Viv 135mm Close Focus 2.8 you are testing?

JT


I’m not aware of others existing? It’s the one with serial 28……..and similar to the 55/2.8 and 90/2.8 macro in appearance.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2025 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I know only one version of the 135 CF. It is available in different mounts though.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 31, 2025 6:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
Focusthrow wrote:
"caspert79"]A comparison of the Close Focusing Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 against 3 other lenses. Note: there's a possibility that the Hexanon didn't quite reached infinity; I couldn't turn the focusing ring further than I did in this test. Earlier test I did show that the Hexanon becomes very sharp over the whole frame, but only when stopped down a few clicks. Note: the Zeiss and Nikkor are my best performing 135mm lenses. I initially included the Hexanon 135mm f/3.2, but took it out because I couldn't quite reach infinity with it.



Nice tests. Can you tell us which Viv 135mm Close Focus 2.8 you are testing?

JT


it is mentioned on the front ring of the lens Close Focusing
I have used this lens for portraits and really liked the results , soft skin good enough resolution wide open, nice saturated colors. For portraits i would get less complaints from this lens than c/y zeiss lol (except using a soft filter on this one)


PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2025 9:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Focusthrow wrote:
"caspert79"]A comparison of the Close Focusing Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 against 3 other lenses. Note: there's a possibility that the Hexanon didn't quite reached infinity; I couldn't turn the focusing ring further than I did in this test. Earlier test I did show that the Hexanon becomes very sharp over the whole frame, but only when stopped down a few clicks. Note: the Zeiss and Nikkor are my best performing 135mm lenses. I initially included the Hexanon 135mm f/3.2, but took it out because I couldn't quite reach infinity with it.



Nice tests. Can you tell us which Viv 135mm Close Focus 2.8 you are testing?

JT


I’m not aware of others existing? It’s the one with serial 28……..and similar to the 55/2.8 and 90/2.8 macro in appearance.


Yes, the serial# starting w 28, translating into a Komine made lens, is one I own too. I'm no expert with old lenses, but believe there are other so-called "close focus" versions out there.
I've not done tests on the lens, probably because it exceeds expectations. I do, sometimes, look @ %100 crops of images done with it on my D700. I agree with your assessment of the lens, but I've never seen the kind of fringing that I see in your samples (stopped down), above. Wide open, particularly in over-exposed images, I see fringing, but nothing that is a problem.

Here is a link https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-1-2-close-focusing.html


PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
Focusthrow wrote:
I'm no expert with old lenses, but believe there are other so-called "close focus" versions out there.


You keep expressing this opinion, but it's simply not correct. The Komine is the only 135 marketed by Vivitar as a close focus model. Perhaps you are thinking of the 100-105mm Viv macros of the same era, which had Komine, Kino, and Tokina versions?


PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2025 8:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
BrianSVP wrote:
Focusthrow wrote:
I'm no expert with old lenses, but believe there are other so-called "close focus" versions out there.


You keep expressing this opinion, but it's simply not correct. The Komine is the only 135 marketed by Vivitar as a close focus model. Perhaps you are thinking of the 100-105mm Viv macros of the same era, which had Komine, Kino, and Tokina versions?


Misunderstanding exists--read, carefully. My 1st post was for the OP as was my 2nd, in response to his description of the Vivitar lens being tested as: "the Close Focusing Vivitar 135mm f/ 2.8." No pictures of the lens were included in the OP's post. The OP provides the following answer to my original question: "I'm not aware of others existing. It's the one with the serial 28........and similar to the 55/2.8 and 90/ 2.8." Since the OP was not aware others exist, I felt it warranted explaining others do exist, at least in the minds of some people. This did not mean, whether as an opinion or as a fact, from my perception, that I consider the 2 lenses to be equally-capable, close focus lenses. I simply wanted to let the OP know that the potential for confusion, in fact, exists in this particular circumstance. And I was still not certain which lens the OP was using; I've seen this kind of a post before in forums.

There is another Vivitar, 135mm f/ 2.8, also was made by Komine. The question arises as to whether or not it is a "close focus" lens: Some people do not consider it a close focus lens, and some people do consider it a close focus lens. Note my use of quotation marks in my 2nd response to the OP="other so-called 'close focus' versions." If you research with Google, this immediately becomes obvious; there are countless Viv 135mm Komines 2.8 (55mm front filter) online advertised as close focus lens . This so-called "close-focusing" lens (55mm filter) is far more common than the Komine-made, 62mm front-filter lens which actually has the words "close focusing," in white letters, on the front ring. Whence the confusion?

There simply is no standard definition for the term "close focusing." Some lenses focus closer than others. The word close, by its very nature, always (whether in adverbial or adjectival form) derives meaning only in relation to something else. Philosophy or lexicology, though boring or pedantic to many, offer keen insight into the limitations of language. Hence the need to be, as clear as possible, arises in matters such as these.

I was not expressing any opinion whatsoever; rather, I was seeking to get the OP to clearly define which Vivitar 135mm lens he was testing, PRECISELY because this confusion perennially appears in forums. I own the Komine 62mm lens, with close focusing, written on the front ring. I suspected the OP was using this lens, but wanted clarity; not only for me, but for anyone else out there who might need to know. I also wanted to clarify, specifically because he was, in his own words, "not aware of others existing" that some people do believe others, in fact, exist. I do not care, in the slightest, if a person calls the Komine 135mm, f 2.8, 55mm lens a close-focus lens or not; like so many things, the perception is in the mind of the beholder. However, when someone is releasing tests, I do seek positive Id for the lenses being tested. Otherwise, the test loses much of its validity.

You (Briansvp) make an attempt to define the lens in question with this sentence: "The Komine is the only 135 marketed by Vivitar as a close focus model." But I asked the OP which model he used! (Did you work for Vivitar, or do you mean, by the phrase “marketed by Vivitar,” that the words, on the lens itself, imply a Vivitar marketing move?) Collectively, I must have > 15,000 posts at many different photography forums. I am, like I said, "no expert." For that very reason, I seek as much clarity as possible when gleaning from other forum posters. You must grasp: understanding of people varies, immensely, in this subject as in others, particularly when gathering to share & obtain knowledge. We all view reality from the very limited and very biased, ego--perhaps the word "SELF" is better. When we come to learn, we must come humbly and be slow to judge. We can neither learn, nor teach, when we believe ourselves to possess full knowledge of a matter.

BTW, a similar yet even more complex issue erupts with the Vivitar28mm f 2.8, Komine made lenses; I own 2 versions. Both focus close & both have 49mm front filters, but only one of them has the words Close Focus printed on the front ring: the one which focuses closer has the words on the front ring, but this does not mean the other lens is NOT A CLOSE FOCUS LENS. I also own a Vivitar, 135mm Komine-made, f 2.3 lens. I do not know how "Vivitar marketed" it in 1971, but it focuses close for a 135mm lens: I believe it focuses just under 3 feet. I owned 1 of the Viv 100mm macros, but sold it 8 years back. I also own the 55mm Komine-made, f 2.8, 1:1 macro lens. And I've owned many other Vivitar lenses.

Finally, a similar issue complicates the word "Macro" lens. The word "Macro" is thought to be clearly defined as a lens which can get 1:1. But, in reality, it's not this simple. Things get even more intricate when we introduce the term "Flat Field" into the macro lens definition, though most Macro lenses are Flat Field lenses. I see lenses all the time which claim macro ability, but which cannot meet any of the standards employed by the macro definition.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2025 3:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
That's quite the wall of text and effor to argue a point that is contradicted by two very basic facts:

1) As I specifically stated in my original post, the Komine 135 2.8 is the only 135mm prime marketed as a close focusing lens that Vivitar made,

and

2) It's unique among the Vivitar lineup in that its the only 135mm that focuses to 1:2. The closest any other Viv 135 gets, the VS1 135/2.3, is 1:4.7. That's fairly close, but not in the same ballpark as the close focusing lens.

You'd think a guy called "Focusthrow" would make the obvious observation that none of the other Vivitar 135mm MF lenses has a double-helical barrel design, with magnification marks, nor indeed, the amount of focus throw that the Komine 135 does. It was specifically called "Close Focusing" in order to distinguish it from the "regular" single helical 135s and to group it with its two true 1:1 macro siblings (the 90mm 2.8 and 55mm 2.Cool while acknowledging it doesn't focus quite as closely as a true 1:1.

Focusthrow wrote:
BrianSVP wrote:
Focusthrow wrote:
I'm no expert with old lenses, but believe there are other so-called "close focus" versions out there.


You keep expressing this opinion, but it's simply not correct. The Komine is the only 135 marketed by Vivitar as a close focus model. Perhaps you are thinking of the 100-105mm Viv macros of the same era, which had Komine, Kino, and Tokina versions?


Misunderstanding exists--read, carefully. My 1st post was for the OP as was my 2nd, in response to his description of the Vivitar lens being tested as: "the Close Focusing Vivitar 135mm f/ 2.8." No pictures of the lens were included in the OP's post. The OP provides the following answer to my original question: "I'm not aware of others existing. It's the one with the serial 28........and similar to the 55/2.8 and 90/ 2.8." Since the OP was not aware others exist, I felt it warranted explaining others do exist, at least in the minds of some people. This did not mean, whether as an opinion or as a fact, from my perception, that I consider the 2 lenses to be equally-capable, close focus lenses. I simply wanted to let the OP know that the potential for confusion, in fact, exists in this particular circumstance. And I was still not certain which lens the OP was using; I've seen this kind of a post before in forums.

There is another Vivitar, 135mm f/ 2.8, also was made by Komine. The question arises as to whether or not it is a "close focus" lens: Some people do not consider it a close focus lens, and some people do consider it a close focus lens. Note my use of quotation marks in my 2nd response to the OP="other so-called 'close focus' versions." If you research with Google, this immediately becomes obvious; there are countless Viv 135mm Komines 2.8 (55mm front filter) online advertised as close focus lens . This so-called "close-focusing" lens (55mm filter) is far more common than the Komine-made, 62mm front-filter lens which actually has the words "close focusing," in white letters, on the front ring. Whence the confusion?

There simply is no standard definition for the term "close focusing." Some lenses focus closer than others. The word close, by its very nature, always (whether in adverbial or adjectival form) derives meaning only in relation to something else. Philosophy or lexicology, though boring or pedantic to many, offer keen insight into the limitations of language. Hence the need to be, as clear as possible, arises in matters such as these.

I was not expressing any opinion whatsoever; rather, I was seeking to get the OP to clearly define which Vivitar 135mm lens he was testing, PRECISELY because this confusion perennially appears in forums. I own the Komine 62mm lens, with close focusing, written on the front ring. I suspected the OP was using this lens, but wanted clarity; not only for me, but for anyone else out there who might need to know. I also wanted to clarify, specifically because he was, in his own words, "not aware of others existing" that some people do believe others, in fact, exist. I do not care, in the slightest, if a person calls the Komine 135mm, f 2.8, 55mm lens a close-focus lens or not; like so many things, the perception is in the mind of the beholder. However, when someone is releasing tests, I do seek positive Id for the lenses being tested. Otherwise, the test loses much of its validity.

You (Briansvp) make an attempt to define the lens in question with this sentence: "The Komine is the only 135 marketed by Vivitar as a close focus model." But I asked the OP which model he used! (Did you work for Vivitar, or do you mean, by the phrase “marketed by Vivitar,” that the words, on the lens itself, imply a Vivitar marketing move?) Collectively, I must have > 15,000 posts at many different photography forums. I am, like I said, "no expert." For that very reason, I seek as much clarity as possible when gleaning from other forum posters. You must grasp: understanding of people varies, immensely, in this subject as in others, particularly when gathering to share & obtain knowledge. We all view reality from the very limited and very biased, ego--perhaps the word "SELF" is better. When we come to learn, we must come humbly and be slow to judge. We can neither learn, nor teach, when we believe ourselves to possess full knowledge of a matter.

BTW, a similar yet even more complex issue erupts with the Vivitar28mm f 2.8, Komine made lenses; I own 2 versions. Both focus close & both have 49mm front filters, but only one of them has the words Close Focus printed on the front ring: the one which focuses closer has the words on the front ring, but this does not mean the other lens is NOT A CLOSE FOCUS LENS. I also own a Vivitar, 135mm Komine-made, f 2.3 lens. I do not know how "Vivitar marketed" it in 1971, but it focuses close for a 135mm lens: I believe it focuses just under 3 feet. I owned 1 of the Viv 100mm macros, but sold it 8 years back. I also own the 55mm Komine-made, f 2.8, 1:1 macro lens. And I've owned many other Vivitar lenses.

Finally, a similar issue complicates the word "Macro" lens. The word "Macro" is thought to be clearly defined as a lens which can get 1:1. But, in reality, it's not this simple. Things get even more intricate when we introduce the term "Flat Field" into the macro lens definition, though most Macro lenses are Flat Field lenses. I see lenses all the time which claim macro ability, but which cannot meet any of the standards employed by the macro definition.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2025 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the comparison. 135mm’s are sort of all good and it is a little hard to one to stand out. To me, this one along with Tamron 135/2.5 are among those.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 12:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
BrianSVP wrote:
That's quite the wall of text and effor to argue a point that is contradicted by two very basic facts:

1) As I specifically stated in my original post, the Komine 135 2.8 is the only 135mm prime marketed as a close focusing lens that Vivitar made,

and

2) It's unique among the Vivitar lineup in that its the only 135mm that focuses to 1:2. The closest any other Viv 135 gets, the VS1 135/2.3, is 1:4.7. That's fairly close, but not in the same ballpark as the close focusing lens.

You'd think a guy called "Focusthrow" would make the obvious observation that none of the other Vivitar 135mm MF lenses has a double-helical barrel design, with magnification marks, nor indeed, the amount of focus throw that the Komine 135 does. It was specifically called "Close Focusing" in order to distinguish it from the "regular" single helical 135s and to group it with its two true 1:1 macro siblings (the 90mm 2.8 and 55mm 2.Cool while acknowledging it doesn't focus quite as closely as a true 1:1.


If you try to find the close focusing 135mm on ebay, it's amazing just how many of the search results are 'standard' Vivitar 135/2.8 lenses even when the sellers haven't used copy&paste (wrong) descriptions. Many of the search results don't even mention 'close focusing'. Maybe that's where this confusion is coming from?

Is it my imagination or have ebay made searching for specific lenses much more difficult than it used to be?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 1:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
SimonOL wrote:
BrianSVP wrote:
That's quite the wall of text and effor to argue a point that is contradicted by two very basic facts:

1) As I specifically stated in my original post, the Komine 135 2.8 is the only 135mm prime marketed as a close focusing lens that Vivitar made,

and

2) It's unique among the Vivitar lineup in that its the only 135mm that focuses to 1:2. The closest any other Viv 135 gets, the VS1 135/2.3, is 1:4.7. That's fairly close, but not in the same ballpark as the close focusing lens.

You'd think a guy called "Focusthrow" would make the obvious observation that none of the other Vivitar 135mm MF lenses has a double-helical barrel design, with magnification marks, nor indeed, the amount of focus throw that the Komine 135 does. It was specifically called "Close Focusing" in order to distinguish it from the "regular" single helical 135s and to group it with its two true 1:1 macro siblings (the 90mm 2.8 and 55mm 2.Cool while acknowledging it doesn't focus quite as closely as a true 1:1.


If you try to find the close focusing 135mm on ebay, it's amazing just how many of the search results are 'standard' Vivitar 135/2.8 lenses even when the sellers haven't used copy&paste (wrong) descriptions. Many of the search results don't even mention 'close focusing'. Maybe that's where this confusion is coming from?

Is it my imagination or have ebay made searching for specific lenses much more difficult than it used to be?

This is could be a good thing. I got mine at the same price as the 'standard' Vivitar 135/2.8. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 4:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 comparison Reply with quote
SimonOL wrote:
BrianSVP wrote:
That's quite the wall of text and effor to argue a point that is contradicted by two very basic facts:

1) As I specifically stated in my original post, the Komine 135 2.8 is the only 135mm prime marketed as a close focusing lens that Vivitar made,

and

2) It's unique among the Vivitar lineup in that its the only 135mm that focuses to 1:2. The closest any other Viv 135 gets, the VS1 135/2.3, is 1:4.7. That's fairly close, but not in the same ballpark as the close focusing lens.

You'd think a guy called "Focusthrow" would make the obvious observation that none of the other Vivitar 135mm MF lenses has a double-helical barrel design, with magnification marks, nor indeed, the amount of focus throw that the Komine 135 does. It was specifically called "Close Focusing" in order to distinguish it from the "regular" single helical 135s and to group it with its two true 1:1 macro siblings (the 90mm 2.8 and 55mm 2.Cool while acknowledging it doesn't focus quite as closely as a true 1:1.


If you try to find the close focusing 135mm on ebay, it's amazing just how many of the search results are 'standard' Vivitar 135/2.8 lenses even when the sellers haven't used copy&paste (wrong) descriptions. Many of the search results don't even mention 'close focusing'. Maybe that's where this confusion is coming from?

Is it my imagination or have ebay made searching for specific lenses much more difficult than it used to be?


I’ve seen several non-close focusing Vivitars being advertised as “close focusing”. I guess sellers either took over the item suggestion that Ebay makes, or they used it to generate more traffic.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1