Interesting! I guess the answer must be quality control. I have printed pictures up to
A3 size (15.5"x11") including close and distant detail and have been very impressed.
The slide was scanned on a nikon 4000.
I must have a good sample.
Nick.
-----Original Message-----
From: "William Johnson"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 27/01/04 15:11:03
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My experience: Vivitar 19mm
Hi,
I was going to stay out of this thread this time (the subject has come up
before) as it had seemed I'm the only one with a mediocre impression of the
Vivitar 19mm. Ryan's experiences mirror my own, flarey (it's biggest
problem imo) and soft in the corners, at least to f/11. I haven't tried the
Mir but I can certainly attest that the Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye is a vastly
superior lens in these respects.
William in Utah.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: My experience: Vivitar 19mm
> Hi Graywolf,
>
> I don't want to argue with others here, but this is my
> experience.
> I owned a Vivitar 19mm f3.8 for years and was quite
> happy with it, until I compared it to another lens. My
> advice to you is: Don't buy it! It only sharpens up
> stopped way down and even then, it's not that great
> especially in the corners it really sucks.
> It's a piece of garbage compared to the Russian
> MC Mir-20M 20mm f/3.5 Lens.
> When I first bought the MC Mir-20M, I could tell the
> difference
> on the NEGATIVE, between the two lenses. When I
> magnified with Photoshop, I was absolutely Stunned at
> the difference. So, I quickly sold my Vivitar.
> I have since purchased a Pentax FA 20m f2.8 (I wanted
> a k mount wide angle instead of a screw mount) and I
> did some
> comparison shots. I was surprised at how good the
> Mir-20M was even compared to the Pentax. Just about as
> sharp, almost as good even in the corners, flares more
> though under certain circumstances because it's not as
> well coated as the Pentax and it has a large glass
> front. The Mir-20m is a lower contrast lens than the
> Pentax, but it takes awesome photos.
> Perhaps my Vivitar was a bad copy, but I don't think
> so. Any lens can look good with web shots.
> I took nice photos with the Vivitar and they looked
> fine as I stated earlier. But once I saw the results
> of a better (equally priced)lens, it was no longer
> acceptable.
>
> I have no idea about the MIR-47K 20mm f2.8, I never
> used that lens.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ryan
>
>
> >
> > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:19:00 -0500
> > From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Vivitar 19mm
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
> > format=flowed
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > I think I will have to put one of these on my wish
> > list. I have always wanted an
> > ultra-wideange. They are not expensive at all, and
> > from the photos you guys show
> > they seem to be good enough for everyday use.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
>
>
