Vivitar Series One Club

[JamieK]

<p>I became interested in Vivitar Series One lenses after seeing Bulent Celasun's wonderful image, "Two Leaves," (http://www.photo.net/photo/12324770). The Real Camera in Manchester, England, had three in stock (28/1.9, 135/2.3, 200/3.0). I bought the 28 and the 135, both of which I love for their poetry and sharpness. They really are fantastic.</p>

<p>I have found it difficult to search for other photographers using Series One lenses, so I propose a system to identify them. I have added the tag, "series1vivitar," to all of my Series One pictures. If you type that tag into the "SEARCH" box in the upper right of the PhotoNet screen and select, "Photo tags," you will find the 35 images I have tagged so far (in this account and in another account called, "Electric Picture").</p>

<p>That's not so helpful to me, but if you similarly tag your own images, it will be much easier for me and others to locate them. Tags may be added to all of the images in a particular folder by entering text into a white box in the upper left corner. Tags may also be added to individual pictures by clicking "Details," and then clicking "click to update tags." Please feel free to share your experiences here.</p>

<p>Viva Vivitar! Thanks, Jamie</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>i only own vivitat T4 sand a few ficed moit lenses<br>

but the vivitar group on yahoo own many and can help a lot.<br>

one comment:<br>

the older series 1 lenses are excellent<br>

they think less of the newer series 1 lenses,<br>

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivitar-Lenses/?yguid=158556187</p>

[JamieK]

<p>Thanks very much Walter. I have requested to be able to join. Do you have photos there? best, jamie</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've done a couple of reports on and using the little-known Vivitar Series 1 Qdos lens for one-lens anaglyphic 3-D (red/green glasses)<br>

reports at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Nngp</p>

<p>and additional examples at http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YNMx (more about 3D photograph at http://www.drt3d.com/ )</p>

[JamieK]

<p>Cool! Will you add the tag, "series1vivitar?" I'd like to see someone else's pictures in there as well. best, jamie</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Mine are posts in forum discussions, and I don't think there's anyway to "tag" them, is there?</p>

 

[User_502260]

<p>I have many Vivitar manual focus lenses. Of the Series 1 manual focus lenses I have at least one of each of the following: 28/1.9, 90/2.5, 135/2.3, 200/3, 35-85/2.8, 28-90/2.8-3.5, 28-105/2.8-3.8, 70-210/3.5 (1st version), 70-210/3.5 (2nd version), 90-180/4.5. I am missing the last three versions of the 70-210, the 450, 600 and 800 mirror lenses and the 24-48. There was also a 105/2.5 macro marked Series 1. I think this is the same as the 100/2.8 Vivitar (22...XXX). I have two of those Vivitars in Canon FD mount. Many of the non-Series 1 Vivitars are also very good. Some of my favorites are: 24/2 (1st version), 28/2 (both versions), 28/2.5 Fixed Mount, 35/1.8, 55/2.8 macro, 90/2.8 macro, 135/2.8 Close Focusing. I need to start posting photos so I can show some taken with the Vivitars.</p>

[JamieK]

<p>JDM - No, I suppose there isn't. I thought you might have posted the "Gibraltar" photos normally as well. best, jamie</p>

<p>Jeff - That would be great! Thanks for the information. best, jamie</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I wrote up the Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 a few years ago here:<br>

<a href="../canon-fd-camera-forum/00QhRw">http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00QhRw</a></p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I forgot another one I have. It's the 24-70.</p>

[JamieK]

<p>Louis - Thanks. I'm also partial to primes, but those images are beautiful. I particularly like "Troubador, 70mm setting, f5.6, Canon F-1." Post some and tag them with "series1vivitar" if you have time. best, j</p>

<p>Jeff- Thanks again! Post some pictures!! best, j</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I've got only two Series 1 lenses, the 35-85/2.8 varifocal and the 90/2.5 macro. The first time I used the former, I couldn't believe I was shooting with a "zoom." It's IQ is outstanding. And the 90/2.5 is, along with the Kiron 105/2.8, a truly legendary third-party macro prime.</p>

[JamieK]

<p>Hey Mark,</p>

<p>I'm jealous. I really want to pick up the 90/2.5. Do you think you could post some pictures taken with it? best, jamie</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I have Series 1 28-90 and 28-105 (all-metal Cosina version) in Nikon AI and 28-90 and 70-210 (first version f/3.5) in Minolta MD. These are all excellent lenses. <a href="https://secure.flickr.com/photos/21616771@N04/sets/72157629824938539/detail/">Here's a quick comparison</a> (thoroughly unscientific) between the 28-90 and the 28-105 on digital. I know the 28-90 is the cult classic, but I can't even decide which I prefer, they're so similar. Bokeh is beautiful, and sharpness and contrast are up to anybody's standards. The Nikon digital shooters are currently obsessing over which lenses they can use on the high-resolution D800, but these manual focus lenses do fine on the D7000, which is as high res as a D800 in the part of the frame that DX covers. (These are raw shots, processed in Aperture with sharpening on default and no levels or contrast.)</p>

[JamieK]

<p>Hey Andy, your comparison seems pretty carefully controlled to me. That's very useful. You should post some pictures here! Thanks. best, jamie</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I updated that Flickr set to make it more complete, and used a tripod and everything. They're still crop-frame digital shots, but OTOH they're camera porn involving an XD11 with a classic lens and they're also bokeh porn so I don't feel bad about it :)</p>

[JamieK]

<p>It's helpful that you tried different focal lengths because that's a bit like being at different distances, and it creates different base levels of blurriness. best, jamie</p>

[rdm]

<p>Vivitar sold many spectacular lenses, not just the series one line. In-fact some of the series one zoom lenses went through different versions with some versions being worse than its predecessor. And some Vivitar lenses that were not branded "series 1" were terrific lenses too. I have some Vivitar lenses that i think are fantastic. <br>

Also ever since Samyang bought the Vivitar "Series 1" name on almost every darn thing, weather its high end or not. Mostly not. So I would never trust any AF Series one lens ( I don't think Samyang branded any manual lenses as Vivitar) that they slapped the series one name on<br>

I think a general Vivitar lens club is a great idea. But I also think if someone using a vivitar lens just makes sure its listed in the exif data by editing it , and that what ever photos posted retains the exif data, there would be no need to use any type of tag.</p>

[JamieK]

<p>I know! I know! I paid £8 ($17) for a Vivitar 28/2.8, not only a sharp lens but also a wonderfully small lens!</p>

<p>The better Series 1 lenses are just too old to show up in EXIF data, I'm afraid. I've tried searching in lots of ways - none selected relevant images. I experimented with several ways of creating tags. The tag has to be a unified character string, without spaces - otherwise it ends up as two or three separate, independent tags. Tags are better than EXIF data in any case because they show up automatically with the picture. At that point, all you have to do is click them.</p>

<p>Why not tag Vivitar images with the string, "vivitar?" I'd be happy to do that.</p>

<p>I'm really hoping that you'll upload some Vivitar images if you have a lens. You could at least look at and leave some comments on mine. Thanks Dan. best, jamie</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Tagging is superfluous for most discussion forum purposes, since Google will pick up on the context regardless of the order in which the words "Vivitar" "Series" and "One" or 1 appear.</p>

<p>For photo tagging in other contexts and metadata, "series1vivitar" is counter-intuitive. If it's necessary to cram the entire phrase together, "vivitarseries1" would be more intuitive since that's the order in which most people use that phrase.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that not all photo tagging works like photo.net's. Some will accommodate phrases with spaces between words, so "Vivitar Series 1" would be a valid tag on some websites.</p>

[JamieK]

<p>That's all great, but I'm just trying to propose a solution, something that works. It does work by the way, and I did it all for good reasons. Thanks for looking. best, jamie</p>

[rdm]

<p>Jamie , I think that your solution to simply use the Tag "Vivitar" may be a decent Idea.<br>

Also in response about the Exif data, Yes I know the older lenses wont automatically show up in the EXIF data; that is why I suggested editing it.<br>

That's what i do when ever I can. I downloaded an Exif data editor program, and add the lens info to the image when I like it after I convert it .</p>

<p>Also what lens would you like to see some images from?<br>

I use the 28mm f/2.5 (Kiron made) often. I like my Vivitar 28-85mm f/2.8-3.8 lens but I have not used it in a while. I also have a 24mm 2.8 TX mount lens that i have not tried yet. The others are zooms i have in a box somewhere that i haven't touched in a long time. I would have to see what they are because i forgot.</p>

[JamieK]

<p>Thanks. I'll start adding that tag to them.</p>

<p>Anything would be great! The 28/2.5 is particularly interesting; so is the 24/2.8. I like to see them wide open, or nearly so. My 28/2.8 looks pretty good wide open (link below). thanks dan. best, jamie</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/14223152</p>