Is the vivitar 100/3.5 macro total crap?

[pablo_s]

I try to stick with Canon glass, but I'm open to consider good deals

from third party manufacturers. I've never considered Vivitar since

their zooms seem to be the utmost crap, but I've read elsewhere that

the 100/3.5 is actually a decent lens. I would use it mainly as a

learning tool for macro work; I don't expect miracles from it, but

yes some decent pictures that allow me to evaluate my progress. The

alternative would be a good close-up lens (like 250D) for my

85/1.8, but that would give me less magnification, and I like the

convenience of a dedicated macro lens. Any opinions will be welcome,

thanks!

 

PS. I know I have to save for the EF 100/2.8 macro. I will, but as I

said I want to learn and see how interested I get in macro

photography first.

[johnb]

I have the Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 macro and I thought it was a good lens for the money. I used it on my old Minolta system and had many good shots with it. However the Canon 100mm f/2.8 is better and worth the extra cost (to me).

[rob_murray]

I use the Canon 500D and the results are great.

The 250D would work well on your 85mm and if you

get a 100 macro later it would also work on there for

even more magnification. Sure is convenient to

just pop on a 3oz $80 filter than a 2lb $500 lens.

We have the 100 USM. Its big, its heavy, its got

an enormous $30 hood that you need, its sharp.

[www.antiquecameras.net]

<p>The Cosina/Phoenix/Vivitar 100/3.5 macro is built like a plastic toy but has surprisingly good performance. For the money ( buy used on ebay for about $ 65 ), its worth owning

[andy10]

Have you thought about the tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens.. Its cheap (compared to canon), light and performs wonderfully.. I would advise you to put you money in this lens, you wont feel the need to get the canon 100mm macro lens..

 

There are couple of other options you could think of for macro - (1) try extension tubes or (2)try getting reverse ring which could allow you to reverse mount your 50mm/1.8 on your 85mm/1.8..

 

happy shooting.

[shawn_hooper]

You get what you pay for. The Canon is the better lens. There is a difference (coincidentally, directly proportional to cost) between lenses. However, if this is what you can have now, start with that and work your way up.

[alexdi]

A second vote for the Tamron macro.

 

DI

[pablo_s]

Thanks for the answers, this forum is awesome!

 

I keep hearing that the Tamron is very good and cheaper than the Canon. However, at least in the US they seem to be around the same price (the Tamron is $480 at BH, there's a rebate, but same goes for the Canon). Am I missing something? Is the Tamron actually better than the Canon? And how does it compare to the Canon 85/1.8? (they are too close in focal length and they are both relatively expensive for me, so I couldn't justify having both).

[chip l.]

The Tamron lens does test equal in most tests I have seen compared to the Canon. The

Tamron does offer rebates that might make it a little cheaper to the Canon.

 

One suggestion I have to save money till you know that Macro is for you is close up lenses.

[pablo_s]

Well, that Tamron is out of reach at the moment. The problem I see with close-up lenses is that the working range is so small that if I'm putting them on a prime (and I will, becase my better lenses are primes), I have very little compositional flexibility. What are the maximum and minimum focusing distances with a 250D attached to, say, the 50/1.8?

[awindsor]

I own the Tamron macro. Optically it is probably very slightly superior to the Canon however it lacks a tripod collar and its AF is slower than the Canon, which is not of particular importance for macro photography but is of interest if you intend to use the lens as a portrait lens. Despite the USM motor the 100/2.8 does not focus very quickly though faster than the Tamron. I bought the Tamron when I dwelt in England since it was substantially cheaper. Had I purchased a macro lens in the US I would probably have got the Canon.

 

For macro on a budget I would suggest a combination of dioptre lenses and extension tubes. Unlike a cheap macro lens these have other applications.

 

I haven't used the Vivitar so I cannot comment directly.

 

The best thing to happen to macro photography since TTL flash has to be digital cameras. The immediate feedback is absolutely ideal for macro work.

[peter_foiles2]

I believe it was the founder of photo.net who said it is actually quite hard to make a bad 100 macro. The vivitar is cheaply built and wide open it may not be so hot but when shooting macro you are going to stopped down to at least f11 and in that situation the vivatar can hold it'w own with the best of them.

[wallbanger]

perhaps you should investigate the sharpness level of any lens you buy on the www.photodo web site. Click on products and it has extensive list of manufactures of lens.

[yakim_peled1]

1. I hear that this 100/3.5 lens is rather good at normal macro apertures e.g. f/8-16.

 

2. Instead of the 250D consider Nikon's 6T. With my 85/1.8 it's nearly life-size (never measured exactly).

 

3. If you are only interested in macro, buy a macro lens. If you are also interested in portraits (like me) than the 85/1.8 + 6T is an excellent combo.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.