Vivitar is back
RichA
Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's:
• Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9),
including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and
800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR
cameras.
Dudley Hanks
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c8ec09b-125d-44b0...@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm
I've owned two vivitar lenses in my life. Both fell apart. I'll never buy
another.
Take Care,
Dudley
Mark Thomas
but they made some quite nifty little underwater cameras
(disappointingly the two new ones have no optical zoom, however).. And
a new range of cheap lenses, even if they aren't all that great, will
add competition and put a little additional pressure on the other
manufacturers. I for one would be most interested in taking a look at
the 85/1.4...
measekite
Vivitar is really not back. Some new business just got the rights to the
Vivitar name but the company is long gone.
Dave Cohen
I had a Sakar
Dave Cohen
> was it seemed to work well, couldn't see any difference between that and my
fixed canon lenses. Only problem was when camera hung on my neck, zoom
would creep. This was on a canon slr film camera quite a long time ago now.
Dave Cohen
Rich
news:_vqol.13121$Db2.6735@edtnps83:
>
> "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4c8ec09b-125d-44b0...@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com.
> .. 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
>
>
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.
Rich
@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
But considering Vivitar lenses even in their heyday were made by up to 10
different companies, they are back for all intents and purposes.
Bruce
>
>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.
Dudley Hanks
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:aPGdnYKa6dSDlDnU...@giganews.com...
> "Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in
> news:_vqol.13121$Db2.6735@edtnps83:
>
>>
>> "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4c8ec09b-125d-44b0...@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com.
>> .. http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm
>>
>> Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's:
>> including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and
>> cameras.
>>
>> I've owned two vivitar lenses in my life. Both fell apart. I'll
>> never buy another.
>>
>> 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.
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
Get lost
> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
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.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember RichA <rande...@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.
Kennedy McEwen
<us...@example.net> writes
>> 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.
--
Kennedy
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)
Mark Thomas
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-samyang-85mm-f1-4-aspherical-if.html
Bruce
>On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:11:58 +0000, Bruce wrote:
>> 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.
>
>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.
David Ruether
"Martin Trautmann" <t-...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrngqdm50...@ID-685.user.individual.de...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:06:04 +0000, Bruce wrote:
>> >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_macro_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
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
Bruce
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.