Hi, adphoto. > Of the 4 which is the better macro?
Well, you have to be more specific, or expand your "4" - There are (as far as I know) only one VS1 90/2.5, one VS1 105/2.5, and one Kiron 105/2.8. However, there have been at least three Tamron 90mm macros - the original (I believe) 90/2.5 with 49mm threads, another 90/2.5 but with 55mm threads, and a 90/2.8 (which, I think, is the newest one). (I am not knowledgeable about Tamron macro lenses, so, anyone who knows more than this, please jump in here.) Then, although you didn't mention them, there have been other 90's - the Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 (optically identical to the VS1), a Vivitar non-VS1 90/2.8, a Sigma 90/2.8 - and there probably are still others... And Ricoh has a 100/2.8 or 105/2.8 (I forget which)... And then, of course, there are a few great Pentax 100's... And, to confuse things further, some of these reach 1:1 all by themselves, while some use an extension tube to do so, and some (e.g., the VS1 90/2.5 and the AT-X 90/2.5) use an "extender" with internal field-flattening elements to do so. > is the 105mm 2.5 S1 vivitar the same as the 105mm 2.8 kiron? Supposedly they are the same (although I've never had a chance to check out the Kiron). > Is the series 1 vivitar 90mm as good as its cult status ? Yes indeed. However, I've ~never~ tried a 100-ish (90mm-105mm) macro lens that was not a very good lens (and I've never heard bad things about any, either, except for a Sigma 100/2.8 "Micro-Macro" compromise that was apparently pretty soft closeup). Fred
