Discussion Forum for various Lenses of different major labels in a shared environment at Photography In Malaysia

1. From : MrVivSeries1 (quietlightphoto@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 10:54 AM Tuesday 08 April, 2003

#5, RE: Anyone remember Vivitar & Kiron Lenses? Posted by Russ Butner on 29-Dec-02 at 06:58 AM In response to message #0

Yes, the Kiron's were very good lenses. Made by Kino Precision Industries, of Japan. They made the first of the Vivitar Series One, 70-210 3.5 zooms. The rumor is that the Kiron lenses were becoming too, close in design to the Vivitar Series One line, and that Vivitar, through political moves, had their US distribution rights revoked. After that, Vivitar went to Tokina for the building of their Series One line, and then to Komine. Eventually Sigma, Baso, Kobori, Samyang and a few other's made their lens line. They are now made by Cosina. (sigh)

I have and use the Kiron 28-85 2.8 zoom, and it is a very good lens, optically and construction wise. (very similar to the Vivitar Series One, 28-90) Also have and have used the Vivitar 7 element macro converter (made by Kiron) and have to agree with the many that state it as being the best teleconverter ever made. If you are looking for an extremely good macro lens, the Kiron 105 mm 2.8 is phenomenal. Goes to 1:1 life size without any adapters, and the images are great. I love mine. The optics and construction is the usual, great Kiron build. The Vivitar Series 1 90mm 2.5 macro, is also a very good lens. I have the production code for the Vivitar line. If you are interested in one of their lenses, just ask and I'll tell you who made it for them, and when. Yeah, too bad that Kiron is no longer around. They are beautiful lenses. As are the older Vivitar Series 1 line.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."---Exupery Q.L.P.

2. From : rick oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 11:52 PM Monday 07 April, 2003

Hi Noel: I'm not sure if I have a direct answer to your question; I'll look at my notes and see. One thing that does occur to me, though, is that the Nikon Nikkor lenses are made with a modular construction that would permit you to remove the entire optical assembly from the focusing barrel as a unit, thus getting rid of all of the excess bulk without disturbing the optics. It might be easier for you to find a pair of second hand Nikkors for your project than to make the Canons fit (I assume the optics would be sufficiently similar). While I don't have construction information on the Canons at my fingertips, you can get an idea of the Nikkor construction here: http://members.tripod.com/rick_oleson/index-102.html

3. From : Jason Shultz (Flyrguy10@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:07 AM Monday 07 April, 2003

I was wondering if you can repair a Nikon 55mm F3.5 no ai macro lens with a bent filter ring, which causes sluggish foccus. If you would please include an approx estimate if you can do this repair. The serial num of the lens 692824. The other item is an Nikon auto focus 35-70mm F3.3/4.5. This lens was chewed by my dog. It needs a front filter ring and possible other cosmetic repair. This lens I prefer to get an estmate on before spending any money. If you would please repond to this.

4. From : Noel Stephens (noel@aberlink.co.uk)
Url : http://
Date : 05:34 PM Friday 04 April, 2003

This is an unusual request, but I need your help. I am an optical designer (not a Canon camera owner), and have identified the standard FD Canon 50mm F/1.4 as being suitable for a project I am working on. I want to use two similar lenses in binocular configuration and their optics need to be as close to one another as possible. I bought one (second hand)lens (new style) from a local photographers and proceeded to disassemble it. I have separated the lens assembly from the rest of the mechanics, but it still has a large front ring border preventing two such lenses from being place close enough together. The question is: can the front diameter of the lens assembly be reduced by removing this border ring, without the glass elements falling out, and if so how? I hope someone if familiar with this level of detail. Many thank, Noel

5. From : Steve (sdrobb@hotmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 10:41 AM Friday 04 April, 2003

Hi there, I'm considering buying an older Minolta 7000, my first SLR was a Minolta (SRT100b) and I still have all of the lenses I used to use with it. My question is, will these lenses, which I think have the "MD" mount, fit on the 7000? Obviously the auto functions won't work, but will the physically attach to the camera? Thanks. Steve

6. From : rick oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 01:47 AM Thursday 03 April, 2003

Hi Carol: A camera shop should be able to take a quick look at the camera and tell you whether it needs repair. Getting warranty service without the receipt might be a problem, however: you should ask at the camera shop about that as well while you're there, and possibly see if it's possible to get a copy of the receipt from the person who gave you the camera. I'm sure that it wasn't their intention to stick you with a repair bill if something should go wrong.... rick :)=

7. From : Carol (max11@athenet.net)
Url : http://
Date : 10:29 AM Wednesday 02 April, 2003

Please help. I received as a gift a Nikon N65 camera with a Tamron 28-80 lens plus a Tamron 75-300 lens. I took about 5 rolls of film with no problems. The last 2 rolls of film came back undeveloped. There was just a small flash of light on the returned film. I was just told by the developer that there was some problem, which may be with the camera. When I received the camera I sent in the warranty and all necessary paperwork but there is just one problem, I have no reciept. I did write on warranty card that it was recieved as a gift. I have no idea what could be wrong. I take all pictures with the 'auto' setting. Any help will be greatly appreciated. I am very concerned about this. Will a camera shop be able to tell me what is wrong?

8. From : Mark W. (awahlster@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 03:38 PM Monday 31 March, 2003

I just checked the manual and you should have no problems. YES it will. You will have to stop down to meter. But other then that should be a good fit.

9. From : Richard Miller (rcmiller45@hotmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 11:50 AM Monday 31 March, 2003

Greetings from Vancouver, B.C. I was wondering if a Canon FL 28mm 1:3.5 lens will work with an original F-1? Thank you all :)

10. From : mark wahlster (awahlster@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 02:12 PM Thursday 27 March, 2003

Yep these were used by navy pilots for recording stuff they saw while flying hence the fixed aperture/focus everything would be infocus at the distances you would see something in a jet at sea. And rather then risk missing a shot due to needing two hands to operate the camera (and not being in control of the 1500mph jet) they fiured this was a better choice. You will also find the 100mm f2.8 nFD with a set screw in the focus ring and a normal aperture ring function. A whole butt load of these was auctioned off by the Gov. a while back in Norfolk. I really wanted to bid buut you had to pick up the stuff in person. And Oregon is a bit of a drive from Norfolk VA. THey were complete sets with a F-1 body 35mm f2.0 50mm f1.4 100mm f2.8 or 135mm f2.8 80-200mm f4.0 and 600mm f4.5 along with a hard case and a whole bunch of little items. I did get one off ebay after they ended up there. a month or so after the Gov auction closed. Mark W.

PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216