Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: FS: Vivitar S1 90/2.5 Macro

Subject: [OM] Re: FS: Vivitar S1 90/2.5 Macro
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:47:46 -0800
Philippe Le Zuikomane wrote:
> Thank you, Paul, this is absolutely fascinating! When I'm settled, I'd love 
> to learn a little about comparison testing. You made a very convincing case 
> in favor of this Vivitar. It sounds like an all-time great design and an 
> absolute bargain... - Phil
>   
Paul has clearly spent more hours testing than I have. I do suggest, 
however, that you take results from one person, one testing method and 
one example of each lens with a slight grain of salt. Nothing against 
Paul, me, PopPhoto, Gary, PhotoDo, etc., but lens testing is a tricky 
business and there is sample variation in lenses.
> On 11:15, Paul Martinez wrote:
>   
>> I've spent endless hours testing all of them on a FF 14MP digital
>> camera (Kodak SLR/c). At close/macro distances there is no doubt.
>> The Vivitar 90/2.5 S1 delivers greater detail and is the best
>> overall performer consistently. 
I'm assuming that the Viv is the Tokina 90/2.5 in drag. Vivitar never 
was a manufacturer, rather marketing lenses made by others. Even the 
legendary original 70-210, although designed for them in the US, was 
made for them in Japan by Kiron. As there were only two 90/2.5 lenses 
made by actual manufacturers, it has to be either the Tamron or the 
Tokina wearing Viv markings. Have you checked the start of the serial 
number to see who actually made it? That could be useful to those 
looking for one.

>> The 90/2, 50/2, and 50/3.5 are all 
>> great lenses (had them all, and the 100/2). They are excellent at
>> normal and close focus, but as they approach their closest focus
>> distance at 1:2 macro, the performance drops off. 
Here, my experience differs. My 90/2 went downhill fast on the way to 
1:2. My 50/3.5s are rock solid at 1:2. I've never had a 50/2.

>> From wide open to
>> stopped down, I tested all apertures. The Vivitar is sharper and has
>> a flatter field of focus, and less CA at all apertures. It even has
>> great bokeh. The Zuiko 90/2 has nice bokeh, but it's not the best.
>> If you want great bokeh from a Zuiko I think the 100/2 is better.
>> I've also tested the Kiron 100/2.8 and similar Vivitar 105/2.8 macro
>> - the Vivitar S1 still came out ahead. 
>>     
A typo, I assume, as the Kiron is also 105 mm and internally the same 
lens as the Viv.

My 5D has one less mp than the Kodak, but it is possible that it 
resolves more detail. Newer sensor systems can resolve more than older 
ones, in some cases. The 5.1 mp of the central portion of the 5D 
resolves more detail than the same area with 6.3 mp in the 10D/300D 
sensor, in my testing.

I tested the 50/3.5, Kiron 105/2.8, Tamron 90/2.5 (52B) and new AF 
Tamron 90/2.8 Di. I didn't test every aperture of every lens, only those 
around the sweet spot, and used the best for each lens.

The 50/3.5 clearly won over the old MF Tamron and Kiron at 1:2, not only 
with better center and edge resolution, but with much less vignetting. A 
really sharp, clear image. At 1:1, the 50/3.5 fell behind a little. The 
other two had different image qualities, but were essentially equal to 
each other. That makes sense, as the Kiron focuses to 1:1 directly and 
the Tamron had a 1:1 adapter made for it, while the 50/3.5 was optimized 
for 1:2, with other, true macro, Zuikos designed for greater 
magnification. Now that I have an 80/4, I may have to do more testing....

The AF Tamron was the winner at both magnifications over all the other 
lenses. I know it's plastic, and all that, but it clearly benefits from 
improvements in lens design materials and technology over the last 2+ 
decades.

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz