vivitar 100-400mm, 100mm f3.5 macro series 1 lens

[soumyadip_ghosh]

does any body can give useful reviews on these lenses.

compared to other lenses like sigms , tamron or others how do these

lens perform in the field of macro photography?

[NetR]

I have the 100-400, which is made by Cosina. It has been reviewed by Herb Keppler of Pop Photography here:

 

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=987

 

Essentially it is OK for 6x4 prints.

 

I would not consider using it for macro photography.

 

The 100 lens was discussed, among others, a few weeks ago here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B3Jm

 

Hope this helps, Ross

[wildwoodgallery]

I think that might be a nice lens to try. I have a Ser. 1 70-210mm f3.5 that takes some great photos. It has some vignetting but not that bad. I just got a Vivitar 400mm f5.6. A f3.5 would be great. I didn't know Vivitar made a 100-400mm f3.5.

 

Rick

[anupam]

I don't think the Vivitar 100/3.5 macro is a Series 1 lens. I own the ordinary autofocus one and can vouch that is a very good lens optically but with very light and cheap plastic build. The series one macros include a 90/2.5 and a 105/2.8, I believe - these are MF AFAIK.

 

It is probably not in the same class as the Tamron 90 AF that everyone is impressed by, but very good for an AF lens at the price.

 

-A

[lex_jenkins]

Generally speaking the Vivitar Series 1 lenses are very good and most of the others are mediocre.

 

The last manual focus 100mm f/3.5 macro lens they made was well regarded optically but plasticky and flimsy feeling, as Anupam said. However, it may not be any worse in that regard than many AF lenses.

 

A characteristic of the best of the Series 1 lenses was rock solid, heavy metal construction and large front elements on the faster models. These are not lightweight lenses. My 70-210/2.8-4 Series 1 weighs about as much as my early version 180/2.8 Nikkor (non-AI'd, pre-ED) and almost as much as the original 80-200/2.8 AF Nikkor.

 

I'm always suspicious of superzooms. Usually they're good only within a fairly narrow sweet spot of focal range and aperture range. When that's the case it makes better sense to use a good prime lens.

 

OTOH, I had a 100-300mm f/5.6 Canon FD zoom that was uniformly good at all focal lengths and apertures. It was better than a Canon FD 80-200mm zoom I regret having wasted money on.

 

However I can see the attraction of the 28-300mm superzooms. If all one wants or needs is decent snapshots and prefers a single, lightweight lens, a superzoom on an SLR will usually be better than the equivalent P&S. Superzooms on P&S cameras typically suffer from extreme barrel distortion and field curvature at the wide angle end and pincushioning at the long end. The reviews I've read for the Sigma and Tamron AF superzooms indicate they're at least better than most P&S superzooms.