What's new

What do you think of this macro lens for Nikon?

annamaria

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Sep 18, 2013
Messages
3,595
Reaction score
978
Location
Milledgeville, GA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hey guys,

What do you think of this for my Nikon D5100. I can't afford digital lenses so I'd thought vintage might be the way to go for now. Vivitar 98418922, Nikon AI mount macro zoom lens, 70-210mm, f/4.5-5.6 or possibly a 100-500 vintage zoom.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1433963911.531420.webp
 
Last edited:
It's probably on par with the one I sent you.

I'd think a 100-500 might be a bit frustrating for you, especially at the long end. Shooting over 300mm, especially with a crop sensor, gets tricky.

It shouldn't cost more than $35.

AllPhotoLenses has a page for it, but there's no reviews.

The Vivitar MC 70-210 mm f 4.5-5.6 II Lens. Specs. MTF Charts. User Reviews.


By frustrating you mean because it's all manual and focusing would be difficult? I will take a look at the link you sent me. It's too bad the lens you gave me it's not a macro as well. Btw I've been playing with it a lot. I'm enjoying it thoroughly. Thanks again Sparky [emoji3]
 
Well, the Vivitar above has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:5, or one-fifth life size, which is actually pretty good for a zoom lens of its era. While it's not true "macro", it is a pretty good close-up magnification, good for many small subjects. I agree--cost ought not exceed $35 for something like a 70-200 f/4~5.6. Last week at a local pawn shop I looked at the Kiron 70-200 f/4 macro, for $29, which has the advantage of a constant f/4 aperture through the entire zoom range.

This is not really a macro lens. Look up the lens you have on the site sparky referenced above, and check the reproduction ratio if you can.
 
For that price I'd give it a shot. Should be able to sell if you don't like it.
 
Well, the Vivitar above has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:5, or one-fifth life size, which is actually pretty good for a zoom lens of its era. While it's not true "macro", it is a pretty good close-up magnification, good for many small subjects. I agree--cost ought not exceed $35 for something like a 70-200 f/4~5.6. Last week at a local pawn shop I looked at the Kiron 70-200 f/4 macro, for $29, which has the advantage of a constant f/4 aperture through the entire zoom range.

This is not really a macro lens. Look up the lens you have on the site sparky referenced above, and check the reproduction ratio if you can.

Not sure if I understood, but are you saying the lens sparky sent me the link to is not a macro right? I could not find the info on reproduction ratio on that site. Will have to do some research.
 
In the 1970's, 35mm SLR photography enjoyed a very good popularity expansion once Canon figured out a way to make a cheaper and lower-priced 35mm SLR than just about anybody else, and by the early 1980's, there was a HUGE explosion of 70-200mm or 70-210mm zoom lenses made by about 15 different Japanese-based lens manufacturing companies, and those lenses were "branded" by various stores, camera chains, and small-time "labels", often under multiple "labels. A famous one was Vivitar. Vivitar never actually manufactured a single lens; they contracted that out, and had many different makers for their multiple lenses. Well, in that era, with so much competition, it was found that adding a Macro mode was a sales feature. Just adding a couple of lines showing the closest focusing zone was enough....fill 'em with orange paint and the word "Macro" also in a colored Paint, and suddenly a lens that focused relatively close could easily be labeled as and marketed as a "macro zoom lens".

A real, true macro lens almost always focuses to at least 1:2, or 1/2 life size. More commonly today, that is improved, and a macro lens will focus to 1:1, or life size. But on macro zooms, the range is usually around 1:10 to 1:5, which is a LOT LESS magnification than 1:1, or even 1:2. So...the words "macro zoom lens" from the 1970's until 2015 means basically a zoom lens that focuses a bit closer than what would be considered normal, but is pretty much not much more than marketing hyperbole. The word "Macro" on the barrel of a zoom lens do not mean much. Think of it more as a close-focusing zoom lens than a real, true, purpose-built macro lens.

One thing: adding a good-quality close-up lens, like the Canon 250D, or the Nikon 5T or 6T, or other high-grade, two-element close-up lenses (screw-in filters, basically, but with two lens elements and good multi coatings), can actually do pretty good macro work with a number of lenses.
An inexpensive 12 to 20mm extension tube, or even a cheapie teleconverter with the glass smashed out with a hammer to MAKE an extension tube, can be used with something like the Nikon D5100. SInce your camera uses only the central image zone, the results can be pretty acceptable to maybe even good. The best close-up lenses, when used with a good zoom, can produce pretty good image quality.

HERE is an inexpensive Nikon mount zoom with a macro focusing mode, constant, perfectly round max aperture of f/5.6, and which works exceptionally well with a reverse-mounted Nikon 6& close-up lens on the front of it. This lens combo is specifically mentioned as being exceptional by Bjorn Rorslett, the Nikon lens expert, on his web site's lens review sections.NIKON 100-300MM F 5.6 AIS MANUAL FOCUS LENS 62 - KEH Camera

AS he wrote: Zoom Lenses For Nikon F Mount Telephoto
"The real surprise of the 100-300, however, comes when you put a close-up lens onto its front threads. I employed my standard Nikon 6T (reverse-mounted) and was absolutely floored by the high quality close-ups produced by this combination. High image sharpness and contrast, perfectly flat field, and virtually no CA are features you associate with an expensive Micro-Nikkor, not a makeshift combination of a achromatic attachment and a consumer zoom lens. Food for some real thoughts"

I acquired a Nikon 6T and reversing ring for it myself...what he wrote is true. On 24 MP FX Nikon, the closeups are staggeringly good from the 100-300 zoom.
 
Not sure if I understood, but are you saying the lens sparky sent me the link to is not a macro right? I could not find the info on reproduction ratio on that site. Will have to do some research.

FWIW, there is no formal definition of the word 'macro'. So that means manufacturers are free to use it as loosely and liberally as they like. It's called 'a bit of Madison Avenue license'. The lens is 'macro', in the sense that the manufacturer can simply claim it is. I've seen lenses that proudly boast "1:20 macro!!!" By the same token, McDonalds can start selling Macro Big Macs, Ford can start churning out Macro Mustangs, and Obama can change our policy on Macro Foreign Affairs.

But the 'general' consensus is 'macro' starts at 1:1.
 
In the 1970's, 35mm SLR photography enjoyed a very good popularity expansion once Canon figured out a way to make a cheaper and lower-priced 35mm SLR than just about anybody else, and by the early 1980's, there was a HUGE explosion of 70-200mm or 70-210mm zoom lenses made by about 15 different Japanese-based lens manufacturing companies, and those lenses were "branded" by various stores, camera chains, and small-time "labels", often under multiple "labels. A famous one was Vivitar. Vivitar never actually manufactured a single lens; they contracted that out, and had many different makers for their multiple lenses. Well, in that era, with so much competition, it was found that adding a Macro mode was a sales feature. Just adding a couple of lines showing the closest focusing zone was enough....fill 'em with orange paint and the word "Macro" also in a colored Paint, and suddenly a lens that focused relatively close could easily be labeled as and marketed as a "macro zoom lens".

A real, true macro lens almost always focuses to at least 1:2, or 1/2 life size. More commonly today, that is improved, and a macro lens will focus to 1:1, or life size. But on macro zooms, the range is usually around 1:10 to 1:5, which is a LOT LESS magnification than 1:1, or even 1:2. So...the words "macro zoom lens" from the 1970's until 2015 means basically a zoom lens that focuses a bit closer than what would be considered normal, but is pretty much not much more than marketing hyperbole. The word "Macro" on the barrel of a zoom lens do not mean much. Think of it more as a close-focusing zoom lens than a real, true, purpose-built macro lens.

One thing: adding a good-quality close-up lens, like the Canon 250D, or the Nikon 5T or 6T, or other high-grade, two-element close-up lenses (screw-in filters, basically, but with two lens elements and good multi coatings), can actually do pretty good macro work with a number of lenses.
An inexpensive 12 to 20mm extension tube, or even a cheapie teleconverter with the glass smashed out with a hammer to MAKE an extension tube, can be used with something like the Nikon D5100. SInce your camera uses only the central image zone, the results can be pretty acceptable to maybe even good. The best close-up lenses, when used with a good zoom, can produce pretty good image quality.

HERE is an inexpensive Nikon mount zoom with a macro focusing mode, constant, perfectly round max aperture of f/5.6, and which works exceptionally well with a reverse-mounted Nikon 6& close-up lens on the front of it. This lens combo is specifically mentioned as being exceptional by Bjorn Rorslett, the Nikon lens expert, on his web site's lens review sections.NIKON 100-300MM F 5.6 AIS MANUAL FOCUS LENS 62 - KEH Camera

AS he wrote: Zoom Lenses For Nikon F Mount Telephoto
"The real surprise of the 100-300, however, comes when you put a close-up lens onto its front threads. I employed my standard Nikon 6T (reverse-mounted) and was absolutely floored by the high quality close-ups produced by this combination. High image sharpness and contrast, perfectly flat field, and virtually no CA are features you associate with an expensive Micro-Nikkor, not a makeshift combination of a achromatic attachment and a consumer zoom lens. Food for some real thoughts"

I acquired a Nikon 6T and reversing ring for it myself...what he wrote is true. On 24 MP FX Nikon, the closeups are staggeringly good from the 100-300 zoom.

Wow! Lots of info here. Will have to read this several times and make sure I understand it. I will definitely look into all the links you sent me. I may have more questions for you after I assimilate all this. [emoji6] Thank you so much!! You always take the time to explain things to us noobs. I for one am very appreciative.
 
Not sure if I understood, but are you saying the lens sparky sent me the link to is not a macro right? I could not find the info on reproduction ratio on that site. Will have to do some research.

FWIW, there is no formal definition of the word 'macro'. So that means manufacturers are free to use it as loosely and liberally as they like. It's called 'a bit of Madison Avenue license'. The lens is 'macro', in the sense that the manufacturer can simply claim it is. I've seen lenses that proudly boast "1:20 macro!!!" By the same token, McDonalds can start selling Macro Big Macs, Ford can start churning out Macro Mustangs, and Obama can change our policy on Macro Foreign Affairs.

But the 'general' consensus is 'macro' starts at 1:1.

So Sparky how do I know for sure a macro lens is truly a macro lens?

Btw this was hilarious!! [emoji12]
 
Not sure if I understood, but are you saying the lens sparky sent me the link to is not a macro right? I could not find the info on reproduction ratio on that site. Will have to do some research.

FWIW, there is no formal definition of the word 'macro'. So that means manufacturers are free to use it as loosely and liberally as they like. It's called 'a bit of Madison Avenue license'. The lens is 'macro', in the sense that the manufacturer can simply claim it is. I've seen lenses that proudly boast "1:20 macro!!!" By the same token, McDonalds can start selling Macro Big Macs, Ford can start churning out Macro Mustangs, and Obama can change our policy on Macro Foreign Affairs.

But the 'general' consensus is 'macro' starts at 1:1.

While we're on the subject of macro what do you think of enlarger lenses?
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom