I have and still use from time to time a Vivitar 135/2.5, which is a very good
lens indeed. Sharp, and less contrasty than many modern lens, but that is a
positive for portraiture, I find.
Someone said that Vivitar Series 1 confounded the opinion that third party lens
were rubbish, and I concur. They received very high praise from most reviewers
at the time ('70's?).
Not sure where they are at now, however, not having seen a good review of their
products recently. IIRC, Amateur Photographer rated one of their zooms as poor
recently.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
On Monday, March 11, 2002 12:22 PM, Bruce Rubenstein
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> The original snippy remark applied to Vivitar and Kiron lenses with Konica
> mounts. Aside from the Series 1 lenses, Vivitar lenses along with Kiron are
> best known for being inexpensive. If they have Konica mounts, they're
> probably
> older than a number of members on this list. My assumption was that they were
> probably cheap, old lenses. Refitting them for K mount would probably cost
> more
> than they were worth. Penny wise, pound foolish. Age and value are often
> independent functions: age alone doesn't make a classic and new doesn't
> always
> confer leading edge performance. Even adapting an original Konica lens, many
> are reputed to be excellent, might be a different story.
>
> --- Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
