Are vivitar lens filters quality manual#
Are vivitar lens filters quality series#

The 100-400 L IS and the 70-200 f4 L were also used with the Canon TC 1.4 L. The other lenses used are a mixed bag of Canon made lenses. This lens sold for over $600 in the early 80's, and today sells in the $350 range used.

Are vivitar lens filters quality series#

The other is a Vivitar 800mm f11 Series 1 Solid Catadioptric lens. One is a run of the mill Vivitar 500mm f8 Mirror Macro, currently selling for well under $200. Now my casual outfit always includes with combination and I convinced myslef that I actually own a 300/4.This is a lens comparison to see how a mirror lens, and a good mirror lens, stacks up against a refractive lens.ДЇor this test two mirror lenses were used. Only until I picked up a Minolta 300s teleconverter and tried it with my good old 135/2.3 that I realised the potential of the lens. I used to use a cheap tamron 2x teleconverter to get a 'quick fix' telephoto, however there was excessive CA that renders it useless for color. The only problem was the DoF wide-open is pretty narrow and requires critical focusing, a sturdy tripod and a good model who doesnt swing back and forth. On 8x10 prints I could see amazingly sharp image. I have also tried to shoot the typical 'head and shoulder' 135mm portraits, using avaliable light.

Are vivitar lens filters quality manual#

At first it did not work too great but as my manual focusing skills inproved it turned into a superb lens, able of picking up all the details on the stage. I use it mostly for theatric photos where a 80-200/2.8 is pretty slow and rather cumbersome. One friend of mine commented on its focusing action as 'chopping up margarine' The lens is the best one I have ever had in terms of build quality and handling. Secondly, I own a Vivitar 135/2.3 in Minolta MC mount.

The MLU on board a FTb is somewhat easier to use, however unlike am SRT which stops down and lock the mirror seperately, MLU could only be done when your lens is stopped-down. On a FTb it is by pushing a small lever below the self-timer beyond the stop-down mark. On a SRT it is by turning a tiny dial beside the lens mount. The only difference is the way MLU is carried out. Just addingtwo brief points of my own exprience,ДЇirst, the canon FTb does have mirror lock-up. If I really wanted a 135/2.0, my best bet would be the Canon EF model, but that raises problems with focusing and battery drain. I also question how good they are wide open. I guess I could try the Canon FD 135/2.0 or Nikkor AIS 135/2, but it's not worth the money or effort to me. A 135/1.5 sharp wide open would be even better, but probably is far too heavy for my telescope to drive correctly. I had hoped the Viv S1 135/2.3 would have worked for me, because I cannot afford the Minolta MD 135/2.0. The competing Canon, the FTb, does not have mirror lockup I don't think. Besides, I have an old Minolta SRT102, which is great for astrophotography. And I personally do not have the patience to do guided exposures, which is my failing. However, it is too slow and long to do unguided astrophotography. Wide open, or specifically, performance at f/2.8 is important to me. That means little or no coma, astigmatism (I think they are the same or related), spherical or chromatic aberration. So I will specify: For astrophotography, pinpoint sharpness is important. For astrophotography, I could care less about distortion, but is very important for architecture. Keep up the amazing work, hope this helps.

Lastly, the article claims the lens was originally made for NASA, and that it lists for less than $600.00 (Vivitar ad in the same magazine says: 5.5' by 4', 4lb, 3 oz I don't know if the rated resolution is lines per mm, or inch, but it is interesting that the lens apparently doesn't reach maximum resolution until f/16 I recently came across the Aug/Sept 1967 edition of Camera 35, which includes a brief review and test of the Vivitar 135 f/1.5 T-mount on page 57. I have one contribution, correction to make. Wow, what an incredible data base of third party lenses! Congratulations on such outstanding work. Here's another excerpt from Robert Monaghan: It did do well for terestrial photography, though, but with a blue cast. It was not suitably sharp enough for astrophotography wide open (see my thread on 'blue haloes' and chromatic aberration). Note that I (Larry) once owned a Series 1 135/2.3 lens. But these lenses were much poorer performers optically than the later Series I 135mm f/2.3 lenses.

'I should mention that there were a few even faster 135mm f/1.8 and even f/1.5 lenses made by Vivitar in 1968, using the preset T-mount. I found some more info on Robert Monaghan's webpage on cult-classic third party lenses: Also, the front element would need to be at least 90mm in diameter to be f/1.5. I agree with Brian that this lens would only be worthwhile wide-open, so never mind about the Bokeh statement.