Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-02-2010, 11:14 PM   #31
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,485
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.

Except it's not really a 'cult price' any more than any item sold in any open marketplace is - rarity increases the cost. In this case, it's not a useless collector item, either, it's a well-dampened, solid, smooth-focusing, uber-sharp macro lens that doubles as a wonderful street candid and portrait telephoto.

If you've ever shot a Zeiss 100, Voigtlander 180, or the Viv S1/Lester Dine 105 (as I have,) you'll see that the 105 is cut from the same cloth. It's just a joy to shoot.

Is a collectable copy worth $700? Not to me, right now. $500? Possibly. $300? Most definitely.


.
No experience with the Zeiss, Voitlander or the Actual Lester Dine. Mine is of the last batch produced (I assume because, I bought it new 3 years ago), and I do find it to be quite a nice lens.



05-03-2010, 12:15 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
oh btw, I got one for a bargain. not because it's what it's real value is.....
Actually, mine came with a mint 1:1 adapter and the wobbly aperture was just a lose screw that I tightened. The trade off was that the aperture blades had a minor issue (missing the f3.5 stop) and there were trace amounts of fungus on one of the inner elements. I've sent it off to get it repaired for $70 or so, which still makes it a decent deal at $190 for a fully function albeit fair conditioned lens. On hindsight, I might have been better off buying a fully working one on Ebay, to save me from all that trouble...

QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
just hope the k-x will hold it's original initial value next year and years to come.
Hah, it's all about what you get out of it in the present. Also, you NEVER know what will happen to the price of lenses and bodies.

The main thing holding me back from investing on high priced lenses is the fear that Pentax will falter and not be able to keep up with Canon/Nikon FF bodies for the next 10 years or so. They're on the right path with the K-x and K-7 but now I'm hearing all those rumors on 4/3, which is probably the worst news ever for me (I WANT FF). It would suck if I had to switch over to Canon/Nikon for their superior bodies. K-mount lenses don't work on Canon FF bodies unless you saw off the aperture tab on the back, so only m42 lenses are fully compatible.
05-03-2010, 01:09 AM   #33
Veteran Member
yyyzzz's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 509
Had/have them all

FYI.

Had both and sold Series 1. They look exactly the same, even the coating. I still have the original Vivitar version of the lens. It is great, somewhat different from Sigma 105mm and Vivitar 90mm and DFA 50 and .... Unfortunately, I have too many macro lenses.

Bottomline is it is more about personal preferences. My sigma tends to be a little bit colder, while the series 1 is more resemblant of Pentax lenses. The 90mm (Komine version) is less flare resistant. (again personal opinion). Macro lenses are usually optimized for macro work. Macro adapter or extension tube will do the work, but image quality WILL NOT be the same.

Zhou


QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
There's no need to be rude.

There's nothing wrong in drawing conclusion from a well conducted test. We're talking about macro lenses here, where pixel peeping is the norm.

You do know that David's referring to the NON Series 1 (MC) lens while I was referring to the Series 1 (VMC) lens? I mean if you're going to scoff at this test, it'd help if you actually knew what he was referring to.
05-03-2010, 02:13 AM   #34
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 94
What I'd do:
- Tamron SP 90mm (here is one of many currently available) (+-130$)
- want 1:1? get tubes (30$)

I'd bet that results will be undistinguishible from the other lenses.

05-03-2010, 04:01 AM   #35
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
K-mount lenses don't work on Canon FF bodies unless you saw off the aperture tab on the back, so only m42 lenses are fully compatible.
Yes and that's too bad. it's the only thing that kept me getting a 5D MK II. I love to hate Canon.
05-03-2010, 07:27 AM   #36
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Original Poster
I guess this thread has been officially hijacked.

But I have one lead on a repair house in the UK from the other forum, so I hope to give that a shot.

While I am sure there are other great macro lenses I am not sure any are better than the one I have. Certainly the build and long throw are incredible.

UPDATE: I followed the link provided and checked out the tests. While one of the lenses seemed to certainly have more contrast than the 105/2.5, there was enough variation between the three similar lenses on test that some of the results might be sample variation.

I also noted the author writing "Not surprisingly by f/22 and f/32 these lenses are useless. Even f/16 is pretty poor." But that is exactly the range in which one wants to use a 1:1 macro. I do not find the results here indicative of them being useless, but this makes me wonder.

Last edited by rparmar; 05-03-2010 at 07:55 AM.
05-03-2010, 08:09 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I also noted the author writing "Not surprisingly by f/22 and f/32 these lenses are useless. Even f/16 is pretty poor." But that is exactly the range in which one wants to use a 1:1 macro. I do not find the results here indicative of them being useless, but this makes me wonder.
Sorry for hijacking the thread... What do you mean that's exactly where you want to use macro? Why f16?
05-03-2010, 08:11 PM   #38
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Original Poster
If you are anywhere near 1:1 you need to stop down as much as possible or your DOF will be the size of a gnats leg... literally! I regularly use f/16, f/22, whatever I can get. No-one shoots macros at f/2.5 or f/4.

05-04-2010, 07:05 AM   #39
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,210
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
. . .
UPDATE: I followed the link provided and checked out the tests. While one of the lenses seemed to certainly have more contrast than the 105/2.5, there was enough variation between the three similar lenses on test that some of the results might be sample variation.

I also noted the author writing "Not surprisingly by f/22 and f/32 these lenses are useless. Even f/16 is pretty poor." But that is exactly the range in which one wants to use a 1:1 macro. I do not find the results here indicative of them being useless, but this makes me wonder.
The interesting thing about that test is that 3 of those 8 lenses are made by the same firm: Viv Series 1 105mm, Lester Dine 105mm and Kiron 105mm.
05-04-2010, 01:34 PM   #40
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Original Poster
Yes, that's why I speak of sample variation. They are the same lens, effectively.
06-12-2010, 05:11 AM   #41
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Original Poster
Update: Took lens to Seandean in London, UK and they have it now pending a fix. Apparently the work requires some parts and so might take a while. Also more expensive than I was hoping.

Being broke sucks.
06-12-2010, 06:32 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
Sorry to hear that... but it's the right thing to do for a lens this good.

I am surprised about the needing additional parts though. Usually lenses that have not been physically abused do not need new parts, they just need to be realigned or screwed down.
06-12-2010, 09:01 AM   #43
Senior Member
stover98074's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 153
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
All I know is I cannot actually imagine a better lens. Unless one could magically make it half the size and weight.
You can save money and weight if you consider enlarging lenses. I used to own the manual focus vivitar 90 1:1 f/2.5. It was/is a wonderful lens and I sold it for $130 a month ago.

I use four enlarging lenses mounted on a bellows - a set of tubes would do the job as well.

50 Schneider Componon S
80 El Nikkor
105 El Nikkor
135 Fujinon EP

The sum total for these lenses was about $150.

I have an article on the Vivitar and enlarging lenses here.

06-12-2010, 06:00 PM   #44
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,210
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
Sorry to hear that... but it's the right thing to do for a lens this good.

I am surprised about the needing additional parts though. Usually lenses that have not been physically abused do not need new parts, they just need to be realigned or screwed down.
The one I used to have just quite focusing properly as well as aperture stuck wide open and it needed a part that seemed to be hard to come by. It wasn't abused and I doubt Robin abuses his either.
06-13-2010, 02:28 AM   #45
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
The one I used to have just quite focusing properly as well as aperture stuck wide open and it needed a part that seemed to be hard to come by. It wasn't abused and I doubt Robin abuses his either.
You are right there.

I grew up taking great care of everything I had the good fortune of being given, and that tradition has remained with me. I always put a lens cap on when not using a lens, use padded bags, etc. In fact I have to train myself into being a bit freer with gear since it doesn't pay to be too precious either.

But this is an old lens; parts simply fail after a while. The upside is that this is going to be like brand new when I get it back!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
105mm macro, k-mount, macro, pentax lens, series 1 105mm, slr lens, vivitar series
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 Macro G_Money Sold Items 5 10-27-2009 08:16 AM
Vivitar Series 1 VMC 2.5 / 105mm Macro PK-A hs57 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 08-30-2009 03:51 PM
Vivitar Series 1 105mm f2.5 Macro redpigeons Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 04-16-2009 07:13 AM
Tonight's macro with the Vivitar Series 1 105mm hamidlmt Post Your Photos! 3 09-15-2007 06:30 AM
Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 Macro Buddha Jones Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 35 05-19-2007 03:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:12 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top