In article <4juuka$t2k@kira.cc.uakron.edu>, r1eb@dax.cc.uakron.edu says...
>In article <4jubjq$ljh@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman) writes:
>Concerning the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 Macro: [....]

>>The 90 was very sharp, a tad lower in contrast than
>>Nikkors, and VERY prone to flare at normal focus
>>distances - which makes it unuseable for me much of
>>the time as a normal short tele, though for flash
>>insect shooting, it works very well by itself, with [....]

>Interesting. The one I used for some time with my Olympus system was
>superior in every way. It was especially good as an all-around short
>tele. I wonder whether one or the other lens was atypical. [....]

I have had several of these, and have also looked at ones owned by people who said that they had no problem with the flare (they flared
as badly as mine...), which makes me wonder if I am the only one
who notices the big diffuse spill of brilliance-killing light across
a noticeable proportion of my slides produced by this lens when any
bright light is just out of the frame area (even a plain sky will do
it, if shooting a tree...). Someone else (DJ?) who is aware of the
90mm Ser. I flare problem suggested that if only negatives are taken with this lens, the prints are made darker to compensate for the loss
of brilliance, masking the lens flare. I have tried extremely deep
lens shades without success (though maybe a rectangular one would work).
There is a long shiny element spacer near the rear of the lens that I suspect is the culprit, but efforts to get at it to cover it with black flocking have been unsuccesful, darn! It is still a nice lens for
some purposes, but it was almost so much more!
Hope This Helps