100mm f/3.5 Yashica ML Macro or Vivitar 100/2.8 Macro in Y/C Mount9

I have a number of versions of the Vivitar 100/2.8 Macro in different mounts. In Y/C mount I have a 100/3.5 Vivitar Macro and the two Tamron 90/2.5 Macro versions. I would like to add, in Y/C mount, either another Vivitar 100 /2.8 Macro or the 100/3.5 Yashica ML Macro. I realize that for more money, the Zeiss 100 Macro is also a possibility. I guess I wasn't paying attention but I just learned that the Yashica lens only gets down to 1:2 without additional extension. I have other Macro lenses in the 100mm range which also need extra extension to reach 1:1 so that's not a new thing. While shooting hand held I am usually not going all the way to 1:1 anyway. Eventually I will probably have both of these lenses. For now, the Yashica lens seems more plentiful than the Vivitar 100/2.8 Macro (or its equivalents) in Y/C mount. I have Contax extension tubes. How good is the Yashica lens at 1:1 with the extra extension?

If you want the best quality, why are you dismissing the Zeiss 100mm -- or others for that matter?

I have the Vivitar 90mm 2.5 S1 macro with adaptor in Konica mount, I think it was made my Tonkia. pretty sure it was offered in C/Y mount as well. Really sharp well made lens, trick would be finding the adaptor.

dynachrome said:

I have a number of versions of the Vivitar 100/2.8 Macro in different mounts. In Y/C mount I have a 100/3.5 Vivitar Macro and the two Tamron 90/2.5 Macro versions. I would like to add, in Y/C mount, either another Vivitar 100 /2.8 Macro or the 100/3.5 Yashica ML Macro. I realize that for more money, the Zeiss 100 Macro is also a possibility. I guess I wasn't paying attention but I just learned that the Yashica lens only gets down to 1:2 without additional extension. I have other Macro lenses in the 100mm range which also need extra extension to reach 1:1 so that's not a new thing. While shooting hand held I am usually not going all the way to 1:1 anyway. Eventually I will probably have both of these lenses. For now, the Yashica lens seems more plentiful than the Vivitar 100/2.8 Macro (or its equivalents) in Y/C mount. I have Contax extension tubes. How good is the Yashica lens at 1:1 with the extra extension?

Click to expand...

I realize there's no disputing tastes. And I can understand acquiring lenses that seem to be much the same, especially if they're not too expensive. On that point, I have way too many normal lenses for 2x3 (6x9 in metric). In 35 mm, I'm a Nikonist, with relatively few lenses that fit Nikons. Historical accident that I don't regret, but many, not all -- Miranda! Oh! The horror! -- of the makes I could have started with would have served me as well.

All that said, Dynachrome, would you please explain why you've accumulated so many nearly identical 100 mm macro lenses. Because is a perfectly good answer, I sometimes answer "why?" questions that way.

I am not dismissing the Zeiss 100 and may eventually get that one too. For now I am also expanding my Yashica ML collection. My example of the Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 is in Canon FD mount. I have had good luck with the versions of the Vivitar 100/2.8 I already have but they are in other mounts. Some of my other macro lenses in the 90-105 range include the 90/2.8 Vivitar, 90/2.5 Rokunar, 100/3.5 Vivitar/Phoenix/Promaster, 90/2.8 Panagor, 90/2.8 Sigma. I don't think all of these were made in Y/C mount.

I have a Contax bellows and three examples of the Yashica ML 100/4 bellows lens. Whether I will be interested in getting the Zeiss 100/4 bellows lens is something I will have to think about. Not many were made and they are costly. With my Vivitar and Spiratone bellows I can mix and match cameras and bellows macro lenses. Apart from the Spiratone models, I have bellows macro lenses in the 90-105 range from Pentax, Konica, Nikon, Minolta, Canon and Novoflex. I also sometimes use enlarging lenses. The choice between the 100/3.5 Yashica ML Macro and the Vivitar 100/2.8 Macro in Y/C mount is mostly for hand held shooting. My two Zeiss lenses in Y/C mount are a 35/2.8 and a 180/2.8.

Dan,

I was typing another reply while you were posting yours. Why do I have so many macro lenses? The first answer is that I like having and using them. The second answer might be a little longer. My first close-up device was one of those variable close-up lenses. It was in Series 7 size and needed an adapter to 55mm to fit my 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon standard lens. It wasn't too bad in the center if the lens was well closed down but the corners of the frame were cut off. Some time later I got a short manual bellows and used that with the same standard lens. I did not realize then that beyond a certain magnification, it was better to reverse the lens. Also, I had no focusing rail so the set-up was awkward to use. Later, using the Lester Lefkowitz book as a guide, I used a range of enlarging lenses on the bellows, with and without flash, with good results. It would be a while after that when I would get my first macro lens with a focusing helicoid.

A friend in High School had a Minolta SRT 101 with the 55/1.7 standard lens. His second lens was not a 135 or a 28. It was the 50/3.5 MC Rokkor QF macro. His uncle traveled to Japan for work and brought the lens back for him. I forgot to mention that I also had a set of Vivitar extension tubes while still in High School. I think I must have had macro lens envy for a long time. Now the Minolta part of my collection includes every version of the Minolta 50/3.5 macro except for an early pre-set version in Leica thread mount. How many 50/3.5 Rokkor, Celtic and plain MD lenses do I have. I don't really remember but it's more than a few. These are some of my favorites. I am still missing the first version of the Minolta 100/3.5 Macro.

Some people collect beer cans. Some collect coins or stamps. Others collect horses. What is the right number of each to collect? I can't say. I have one car, a Honda Odyssey. I have had and still have only one wife. I have one child and, so far, one granchilld. I don't have doubles and triples of everything.

Paul Howell said:

Really sharp well made lens, trick would be finding the adaptor.

Click to expand...

Any set of extension tubes would work fine.

dynachrome said:

I am not dismissing the Zeiss 100 and may eventually get that one too. For now I am also expanding my Yashica ML collection. My example of the Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 is in Canon FD mount. I have had good luck with the versions of the Vivitar 100/2.8 I already have but they are in other mounts. Some of my other macro lenses in the 90-105 range include the 90/2.8 Vivitar, 90/2.5 Rokunar, 100/3.5 Vivitar/Phoenix/Promaster, 90/2.8 Panagor, 90/2.8 Sigma. I don't think all of these were made in Y/C mount.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you should check out the Vivitar Series 1 90-180mm f4.5 Flat Field Macro Zoom -- if you haven't already. It only gets to 1/2X without an extension tube -- but the Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter is the perfect accessory to get PASSED 1X!!! Both are available in every mount you can imagine. It is one HUNK of glass -- that's one reason it has a rotating tripod socket. Two and a half pounds!!!

One of the original vivitar series 1 zooms, dating from 1978, and one of the most "cult classic". Made by Kino Optical (=Kiron) - 22xxxx serials. Reputedly one of the best macro zooms ever made. Focal length: 90-180mm Filter thread: 72mm Min. Aperture: f/4.5 Max. Aperture: f/22 Angular field of view (diagonal): 27° Elements/groups: 18/12 Min. focusing distance: 27" (68.6 cm) @ 180mm Max reproduction ratio: 1:4 @ 90mm, 1:2.7 @ 135mm, 1:2 @ 180mm Weight: 2.4 lbs. ( 1.1 kg)

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userre...-90-180mm-f-4-5-flat-field.html#ixzz89eVWj1b0

If your primary goal is to build out a Yaschia C?Y lens collection then just go ahead and get one if only for the sake of the collection.

dynachrome said:

Dan,

I was typing another reply while you were posting yours. Why do I have so many macro lenses? The first answer is that I like having and using them. The second answer might be a little longer. My first close-up device was one of those variable close-up lenses. It was in Series 7 size and needed an adapter to 55mm to fit my 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon standard lens. It wasn't too bad in the center if the lens was well closed down but the corners of the frame were cut off. Some time later I got a short manual bellows and used that with the same standard lens. I did not realize then that beyond a certain magnification, it was better to reverse the lens. Also, I had no focusing rail so the set-up was awkward to use. Later, using the Lester Lefkowitz book as a guide, I used a range of enlarging lenses on the bellows, with and without flash, with good results. It would be a while after that when I would get my first macro lens with a focusing helicoid.

A friend in High School had a Minolta SRT 101 with the 55/1.7 standard lens. His second lens was not a 135 or a 28. It was the 50/3.5 MC Rokkor QF macro. His uncle traveled to Japan for work and brought the lens back for him. I forgot to mention that I also had a set of Vivitar extension tubes while still in High School. I think I must have had macro lens envy for a long time. Now the Minolta part of my collection includes every version of the Minolta 50/3.5 macro except for an early pre-set version in Leica thread mount. How many 50/3.5 Rokkor, Celtic and plain MD lenses do I have. I don't really remember but it's more than a few. These are some of my favorites. I am still missing the first version of the Minolta 100/3.5 Macro.

Some people collect beer cans. Some collect coins or stamps. Others collect horses. What is the right number of each to collect? I can't say. I have one car, a Honda Odyssey. I have had and still have only one wife. I have one child and, so far, one granchilld. I don't have doubles and triples of everything.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. As I said, there's no disputing tastes. You're happy with what you do, so I'm happy with what you do. But I wondered.

Re macro lenses. I started out with a 50/1.4 Nikkor (pre-AI) and Nikon's own close-up lenses. Horrible results, absolutely horrible. When I could I got a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor, also pre-AI, and its extension tube. I was set, except that working distance was too short for some subjects and situations. Also got a PB-4 bellows, tried it with my Sonnar type 105/2.8 Nikkor. Great lens at distance, horrible close up. And the bellows was just impossible with moving subjects. When a 135/2.8 Steinheil Macro-Tele Quinar turned up at a reasonable price I bought it. I used Novoflex adapters to hang it in front of my Nikkormat. Good, not great, and far focusing distance was just a couple of feet. I used it until the 105/4 Micro-Nikkor came to market. And when the 200/4 AI/S Micro-Nikkor was released I got one. Not particularly good, as macro lenses go, but the working distance is useful. After my kit was stolen I got 55/2.8, 105/2.8 and 200/4 MicroNikkors, all AIS. And there I sit. I b'lieve there are now better lenses in F mount but mine are still better than good enough.

On one field trip to Costa Rica I observed Rivulus isthmensis out of the water looking for terrestrial insects to eat. Couldn't stalk close enough to get usable photos. Went back three years later with a Celestron C-90 -- it would do 1:4 at ten feet -- and a strong enough flash. Everything had been cut down, found no Rivulus in or out of water in that area. My C-90 was terrible, beautiful example or strong strong astigmatism. I now have a Questar 700 that will do 1:4 at ten feet and that's as good at 1:4 @ f/8 as my 55/2.8 at 1:4 @ f/8. Great working distance. I've never tried it on extension tubes or on the D810.

I've never had the money to get a Wild photographic stereo microscope, have used one in the Smithsonian and another different model in The Academy of Natural Sciences. I've cobbled together a rig that does somewhat the same. Polaroid MP-4 stand, Zeiss Luminars, various adapters, bellows, extention tubes, even a D-810. Sorry to say I've never used it.

I've gone berserk getting lenses for my 2x3 kit, most at surprisingly low prices. My late friend Charlie Barringer -- if you don't know who he is, google him -- once asked me what my rationale for getting them was. Partly to find out what they were, mostly to get good lenses at low prices. He appreciated good lenses cheap.

xkaes - I have the Vivitar 90-180 in Konica AR mount. It's an interesting lens. I don't think I have ever seen one in Y/C mount.

Dan - We have surely seen each other years ago at the Second Sunday Camera Show. I know it was a longer drive for you. I have never has a 200mm Micro Nikkor. The Vivitar Series 1 90-180/4.5 Flat Field is the closest I have come to that. The compact 200/4 AI and AIS Nikkors work well with extension. One of my favorite lenses for close-up work is the Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing. It gets down to 1:1 with nice working distance. The Vivitar 200/3 Series 1 gets down to 4 feet and that's handy for some subjects. I would love to have a Questar 700 even if I don't know what I would do with it.

Update - I bought a copy of the Yashica ML 100/3.5 Macro tonight from a U.S. seller on the auction site. The price was reasonable and the condition looked good. All of the other sellers of this lens were in Japan. I think it's funny when you see a description from one of these sellers which reads Excellent +5 and then you read that the lens has a "thin haze." Anyway, I will now look for one of my sets of Contax extension tubes.

Here's what CAMERAQUEST has to say about the 90-180. It appears that there was no C/Y mount -- which I still find hard to believe -- but you can always use M42:

The Vivitar 90-180/4.5 was originally designed for medical photographers who needed maximum magnification at a great camera to subject distance. It was optimized for 1:10 and features outstanding performance. In the words of Modern Photography's test of June 1978, "the combined abilities and quality of image of this Vivitar Series 1 lens are not even approached by any other zoom lens. It is by far the best close-focusing zoom going." Yet it is also immanently usable for nature photography of small insects or flowers, or small product photography such as jewelry. Today it's difficult to find, and well worth looking for.

Nicely finished in black, the 90-180 features a rotating locking tripod mount, separate diamond knurled focus and zoom control rings, and clearly marked reproduction ratios though out the zoom range. Weighing in at 38 oz, Vivitar used Multi-coating in its 18 element, 12 group design. Filter size is 72 mm. Minimum aperture is f/22. Minimum focus distance is 27" for 1:2 ratio at 180mm. Mounts were available in Nikon NAI and AI, Canon FD, Olympus OM, Pentax K, Pentax M42, Konica Autoreflex and Minolta MD. There was also a special matched 2x tele-extender designed specifically for this lens which provided superb image quality at 1:1.

dynachrome said:

xkaes - I have the Vivitar 90-180 in Konica AR mount. It's an interesting lens. I don't think I have ever seen one in Y/C mount.

Dan - We have surely seen each other years ago at the Second Sunday Camera Show. I know it was a longer drive for you. I have never has a 200mm Micro Nikkor. The Vivitar Series 1 90-180/4.5 Flat Field is the closest I have come to that. The compact 200/4 AI and AIS Nikkors work well with extension. One of my favorite lenses for close-up work is the Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing. It gets down to 1:1 with nice working distance. The Vivitar 200/3 Series 1 gets down to 4 feet and that's handy for some subjects. I would love to have a Questar 700 even if I don't know what I would do with it.

Click to expand...

We may well have met, although I tried to be there early and usually left not too long after I arrived. As time passed, the show degenerated into "same tired old vendors with, usually, the same tired old gear." Still and all I miss it. There was the occasional piece of buried treasure. And I had some good conversations with interesting characters.

About the Q700. Big fat heavy lens, hard to use because so long and so sensitive to vibration. But good for making the distant near. I used it mainly for photographing perched birds. I've never used it on my D810, really should. Re vibration, the big problem was usually torsional vibration. Many of the tripods I tried out twisted just a little. And that was too much.

xkaes - I think the word you were looking for in the first paragraph is eminently, unless you wanted to use the lens right away. I don't remember a special Vivitar 2X teleconverter for this lens. I might use the Konica Hexanon 2X with my 90-180 to get to 1:1. I do have a Vivitar 2X teleconverter which was made for the 450mm "solid cat" lens. It is in T mount. With the 90-180 I might also try the Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter if I had the 90-180 in a mount other than Konica.

Dan - You might have known me as Jeff. Over the years I found all kinds of interesting things at these shows. I didn't buy all of them but I did buy some.

dynachrome said:

xkaes - I think the word you were looking for in the first paragraph is eminently, unless you wanted to use the lens right away.

Click to expand...

It is imminent that I will say "Don't quote me on that!" The first sentence of my post was: "Here's what CAMERAQUEST has to say about the 90-180."

It's not my fault that "they" failed high school English -- eminently

I also have never seen/heard of a 2X specifically for the 90-180mm, but who knows? I use a Vivitar MACRO 2X converter which adds a built-in, variable, extension tube to add extension between the lens and the converter -- great combination.

I haven't done this in a while so let's see if it will work. Attached are two photos. One shows the front of the 100/3.5 Yashica ML Macro and the other shows the lens on a Yashica FX-7. The FX cameras have terrible skin. I found a textured vinyl stair tread material which is suitable as a covering. It is adhesive backed but my repairman does not like the adhesive that it comes with. He uses solvent to remove it and uses Pliobond instead. So far it had worked well. I had three FX-3 cameras overhauled and recovered with the same material but in black.

One more.

One more try.

The file size of the second photo is too large. I probably should have just reshot at lower resolution. Both shots were made using my phone. I tried to shrink the file size and I seem to have overdone it.

Very nice looking covering. Now all you need is a matching, recovered Vivitar 90-1800mm & 2x converter.

Here's to reviving a slightly old thread. I have been using the Yashica ML macro lens but earlier today I also bought the 100/2.8 Vivitar Macro in Y/C mount. When I'm in the mood for carrying something heavy and think I might want to go as far as 1:1, I'll take the Vivitar 100/2.8. For a lighter set-up and only going to 1:2 (unless extra extension is carried) I'll take the Yashica ML macro. If I want something even lighter, I'll use the 100/3.5 Vivitar Macro and carry the 1:1 adapter just in case. I'm expecting the 100/2.8 Macro to get here next week.