Canon 100mm vs. Vivitar 90mm Macro

[friskybongo]

I have a Canon A1 and am in the market for a true macro lens in the

90mm - 100mm range. While I already have a zoom lens that covers this

range, I'm looking for the best resolution/contrast for shooting

three dimentional subjects in the 1:1 range. I'm torn between the

Canon 100mm and the Vivitar Series 1 90mm. Both have been seen on

Ebay for $165 - $190.

 

Any recommendations regarding optical quality/general construction

quality?

 

Thanks.

[pensacolaphoto]

Hi Louis,

I own both a Canon 100/4 macro lens and a Tamron 90mm/2.5 macro lens. I have been using the Tamron lens 95% of the time compared to the Caonon lens. The Tamron lens is extremely sharp, and may be even better than the Vivitar macro lens. The newer design allows the Tamron 90mm/2.8 lens to reach magnification 1:1 whereas the orginal 90mm/2.5 lens only reaches 1:2. This is sufficient for my needs. I have also read many good things about the Kiron macro lens. Some claim it is the "best" out there. I recommend to you the Tamron lens.

[gregory_nicholson]

I've used the Minolta MD 100 f4, Canon's FD 100 f/4 S.C., Tokina's 90 f/2.5 AT-X and the newest version FDn 100 f/4 (these are all true macro lenses).

 

Honestly, in the real world, I don't think you'll see much of a difference, unless you test them. They'll all product high quality images. The Tokina, same as the Series 1 as they made that lens, is probably the newest design. The other three started out (late 60's) as a stationary (no focusing helicoids) 100mm lens that must be used on bellows. The bellows are required and allow focusing from 1:1 to infinity. Later (mid 70's) Canon and Minolta put those identical optics into a regular mounted lens, eliminating the bellows but adding very long focusing helicoids. This is what we see today but even though they're based on ancient technology they still perform very well. OTOH, even with its more modern design the Tokina is still capable of taking crumby pictures if used recklessly. I think, if you had nine pictures taken with one lens and added the tenth from another I doubt you find that picture in the stack.

 

My money would be on the lens that was in the better condition. Wildlife specific equipment used in the field tends to get more dirty and is subject to more lubricant thining heat. Make sure you don't buy an "as-is" or no refund lens.

[awahlster]

I have both the 100mm f4.0 FDM the first breech mount version of the 100 Macro (well I will for a few more days it's right now on ebay)and the Tokina 90mm f2.5 AT-X w/1-1 adapter and both are as the others have said great lenses that your technic is going to have to be rock soild perfect in everyway to see any differeance between the two. I just found the Tokina smaller and more suited to my style of Forest Floor photography working in the 1-3 to 1-6 range then the Canon. Which when combined with the FD-50 tube those few times I went to 1-1 made for a very long setup to not have a tripod collar on.

 

BUT Optically they are both great lenses just don't photograph you wife with either one unless she's a fully made up super model as they will show the wrinkles in the bottom of ever wrinkle on her face and she WON'T LIKE IT.

[dave_s]

FWIW, the Vivitar 90 Series I macro has a reputation for fearsome performance. I don't know if this varies at all with the maker, since, as is well known, Vivitars were made by a plethora of manufacturers over the years.

 

There was supposedly some lens test published in one of the mass-market rags 20 years ago, in which the Viv 90 macro blew the doors off all comers, including kilobuck Leitz glass. For all the usual reasons, you can take that with a grain of salt, but nonetheless this lens seems to have a bit of a cult following and it commands high prices for a third-party lens. You can probably find some specific reviews if you google it. Let us know what you end up getting and how it works, OK?

[douglas_green1]

BTW, the Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 Macro is superb, both optically and mechanically. The Tamron 90mm f2.5 is an exact copy optically, and comparably good mechanically. IMHO, you couldn't do any better than either of these.

[pensacolaphoto]

The Tamron has an advantage over the Vivitar lens in that it can be used with almost any 35mm system out there with different adapters. This will also keep its resale value a little better due to this factor. I use the Tamron 90mm/2.5 on the following camera systems:

1. Canon 2. Nikon 3. Rolleiflex 4. Olympus Pen

[bino lee]

One feature on the Vivitar 90mm got my vote over the Canon 100mm. The matched extension tube on the Vivitar has a built in tripod mount that can rotate. I love this feature as it saves me much time when i want to orient my shot from horizontal to vertical in a few seconds. I do NOT miss recomposing and changing my setup all over just to get a different orientation. If this is important to you, the Vivitar is a great choice.

[pensacolaphoto]

By the way, how good is the Vivitar 100mm/3.5 macro lens? Is this a new version of the 90mm/2.5 lens?

[douglas_green1]

The new lens is good optically, but feels cheaply made. This lens has no relationship to the older Series 1 Macro. It's a totally different design, from a totally different company, built to totally different standards for a totally different market. Vivitar is a sales and distribution company. They don't design or build ANYTHING. They USED to occassionally design stuff and have things built to spec, 20 years ago, but not any more.

[pensacolaphoto]

Hi Doug,

Yes, it is true that Vivitar is a marketing company and not a producing company, but I did not know whether the 100mm lens they are marketing is the same as their older 90mm lens. Too bad that they chose a lower quality (less rugged) lens. In comparison, I own their rare and superb 90-180 macro zoom lens. It was meant for medical applications, but it was too expensive for many. It is very heavy and built like a tank.

[friskybongo]

Thanks for your insights and suggestions; I truly appreciate your time. I have one more question: the Vivitar 90mm Series 1 has a rotating tripod collar while the Canon does not. Do any of you have experience using this? How often would this feature really be used?

 

Thanks again all!

[davpress]

so that you can take pictures with your camera in either verticle or horizontal position

[davidng]

Both the Vivitar 90/2.5 S-1 and the Canon 100/4 are only 1:2 lenses. For me it's fine, since I don't work that often with tripod. Since you want to use it for 1:1 photography, working with a tripod is essential! The Canon 100/4 is less heavy than the Vivitar 90/2.5 (the BL version of the 100/4 consist of 5 lenses in 3 groups, "Heliar" design which should have a nice "signature" - I almost bought this lens for that purpose - whereas the 100/4 FDn has a different construction), but when used in the 1:1 region (with their adapter), each of these lenses will have become almost twice of the original length. Another important factor is the speed of the lenses. These lenses act as a bellow when you use it near the 1:2 (thus also 1:1) magnification; the lens(es) is(/are) extended from the film plane. This is certainly the case with the Canon 100/4 (be aware: it could be that the 100/4 FDn retains it's speed). Using the 50mm extension tube for the Canon to reach 1:1 magnification will cost you speed too. Thus when using a macro lens around 1:1, the working diaphragm for (old fashioned) macro lenses (50, 90-100 or 200 mm) will be around 5.6 or dimmer rather than the advertised 2.5, 2.8, 3.5 or 4.

I never checked how much stops I lost when using the Vivitar near 1:2 or 1:1, less than when I use my FL 50/3.5 (with extender).

I guess most macro lenses are quite good, but some are just very good (Vivitar 90/2.5, Kiron 102/2.8 - Heavy), and some are easy to use too!

Be aware that most manual focus macro lenses from that era were primarily made for macro photography - the Vivitar 90/2.5 is also a wonderful portrait lens, albeit a bit heavy - thus making pictures from topics further away than say 8 meters will result in not so brilliant pictures (that's what I found out, a 50mm macro can not substitute a 50mm normal lens, and the Vivitar 90/2.5 does have a flare problem!).

When photographing 1:1 other factors will be important too: MLU, flash sync (you use Canon FD, too bad. Only the Canon EF and the Canon T-90 have "neat" flash sync's), tripod, windscreen(s), patience ..

I'd say: choose the Vivitar, but only if the 1:1 converter is included. The Canon 100/4 can be used with any empty tube (50 mm) to get to 1:1. Be aware that using FD tubes made by Soligor, Vivitar, etc. can cause damage to the lens (I used a Vivitar 20mm FD tube on a lens, but it got stuck and I could only remove it by force, luckily only damaging the tube, i.e. I tore a part of the FD coupling from the tube ...).

Best of luck, and if you have any questions left ..

[pensacolaphoto]

"Be aware that using FD tubes made by Soligor, Vivitar, etc. can cause damage to the lens (I used a Vivitar 20mm FD tube on a lens, but it got stuck and I could only remove it by force, luckily only damaging the tube, i.e. I tore a part of the FD coupling from the tube ...). Best of luck, and if you have any questions left .."

 

I had the same experience as Dave did. I used extension tubes made by Soligor for Canon FD with my Canon 500mm/4.5L lens. Extension tubes do not affect the image quality since they just provide additional distance to allow for closer range photos. The extension tube got stuck and I had to have the 500mm mount repaired. The repairman warned me not to use the extension tube again. I had these tubes since the time I was a poor student, and I never thought of upgrading to Canon extension tubes.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Vivitar 90mm F2.5 Series 1 of mine focuses to a 1:1 ratio; with its 1:2/1:1 Vivitar adapter; that came standard with the lens. Maybe David here bought one without the adapter; or lost his. This is in reference to the comment about only focusing to 1:2...........This is a very sharp lens.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Soory david; I goofed; I saw your comment about the adapter further down your post.

[gregory_nicholson]

Just to comment on David's post. He wrote the newest FDn 100 f/4 has a different construction, the latest EF 100 f/2.8 is the one that's different. Canon's manual focus 100 f/4 lenses are all the same, 5 elements in 3 groups, from the bellows mount FL-M 100 f/4 to the 100 f/4 FDn. check here;

 

http://www.canonfd.com/lenswork/lenswork124.htm

 

With regards to a tripod mount for the Canon 100 f/4; you can have a machine shop make a ring to go over the FD-50-U extension tube to except a detachable tripod collar from a 200 f/4 macro, 300 f/4, 400 f/4.5, 50-300 f/4.5 or 85-300 f/4.5. This is what I did or you can send the FD-50-U to SRB and have them put together one for a very resonable price, check here:

 

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/index1.html.............. click the adaptor price list and go to page 8.

 

"This is certainly the case with the Canon 100/4 (be aware: it could be that the 100/4 FDn retains it's speed)" The Canon 100 f/4 will lose one stop focused at half life size and at 1:1 you will lose two stops. A huge advantage for the 200 f/4 macro is that it will only lose 2/3 stop focused at 1:1, adding it has the tripod collar and fantastic optics. BTW, an FD 200 macro just sold on e-Bay for $232.Check it out;

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48552&item=2982684521

 

"Only the Canon EF and the Canon T-90 have "neat" flash sync's" I don't really understand why David wrote this because more often I use a flash sync of anything less than 1/60. I think the faster flash sync speeds of the EF or T90 are of little advantage at 1:1 macro. It's more important to get some exposure out of your background and the only way to do this is with two flashes, yuck 800 speed film or a slow shutter speed. I find solid black background unappealing. Plus, you don't need a sync speed of 1/125 to stop handheld camera movment using a flash, 1/15 will do this.

 

Sorry David if I stepped on your toes but I wanted to point these out.

[pensacolaphoto]

I can support the superiority of the T90 flash system. It allows you on the A mode to utilize the background lightness and darkness to arrive automatically at a very pleasing result. It is the only camera that allows you to use flash spotmetering, when using the 300TL flash. So, yes, the T90 is a wonderful camera for flash photography, including macro work.

[davidng]

No offense Gregory. I mentioned the flash sync as a factor because it sometimes does matter to have a faster shutterspeed than 1/60 s. In circumstances where the subject is moving (flowers in the wind, insects) it is difficult to have a workable shutterspeed and enough DOF. With a flash you can alter the conditions to have your picture taken; rather a black background than no picture at all. That is if you don't bother to take a number of windscreens or a light tent with you. I don't know what Louis main subjects for 1:1 photography are, but if it's within a confined area (f.i. in a studio), this all is not that important. BTW I have the Vivitar 90/2.5 S-1, the Canon FL 50/3.5, the Konica AR 100/4 (bellows) and AR 50/3.5. I have handled but not used the Canon FD 100/4 (BL) and the Kiron 105/2.8. The lightest lens is the Canon 100/4, whereas the Kiron is quite heavy (just like the Vivitar actually). The Konica AR 100/4 is a macro lens that can only be used with a bellows (or Konica's auto-helicoid), and has an optical construction similar to the Canon 100/4. Pictures taken from flowers from a "portrait" distance do have something which I attribute to the "heliar" design (5 elements/ 3groups). That was the reason why I doubted about the Canon 100/4. Louis, you describe that you were looking for that 3-D effect. When closing to 1:1, I guess that all good macro lenses have that effect. Good luck.

[friskybongo]

Thanks again to all who took the time to respond. I've decided to purchase the Canon FD 100mm f/4.0 for a number of reasons. I'm sure that I couldn't go wrong with the resolution of either lens but I've read that the Vivitar sometimes suffers from flare. Additionally, I feel that a major camera manufacturer's own lenses are somewhat better constructed than 3rd party although for the amount of use I'll be putting through it probably wouldn't matter; I just like the comfort factor. One thing that Vivitar got right is the rotating tripod collar; I'll really miss it.

 

Your input has been most valuable to me; thanks again!