Greg McGrath wrote:
>Herbert Keppler devoted his July 1996 SLR column in Pop Photo to a comparison
>of the Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 Macro and the much less expensive Vivitar
>100/3.5 Macro. He reported that the 100/3.5 actually outperformed the 105/2.5
>at 1:1 and 1:2, center and corner. The 100/3.5 goes to 1:2 unaided and uses a
>special matched achromatic close-up lens to reach 1:1. The close-up lens
>reduces effective focal length to 75 mm at 1:1, but working distance is only 8
>mm less than with the 105/2.5 due to the longer helical extension of the
>105/2.5 (140 mm vs. 132 mm working distance).
>
>Physical stats: the 105/2.5 is 100 mm long, weighs 650 g, and uses 52 mm
>filters; the 100/3.5 is 65.5 mm long, weighs 270 g, and uses 49 mm filters,
>the OM standard. Seems like the 100/3.5 fits the Olympus "smaller and lighter"
>philosophy! I have never handled either of these lenses.
Greg is right about the above review, and I read and saved it myself.
However, there are a few points worth remembering:
A. The 100/3.5 is flimsy/plasticky (you get what you pay for!), and so
its great optical characteristics may quickly deteriorate with normal
use. The Series 1 lens is built to outlast the next ice age.
B. The 100/3.5 only focuses to 1:2. The Series 1 goes uninterrupted from
infinity to life size.
C. The extra stop on the Series 1 lens (f2.5 vs f3.5) makes it a much
more useful portrait lens, and thus IMHO a more versatile purchase.
D. H. Keppler once also wrote a rather positive article about Korean-
made zooms (I can provide a ref.!). The world of photography was
underwhelmed, and has remained highly skeptical... :-)
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|