Opinions on or Experience with

[Panda Bear]

the 67MM Vivitar 60-300 mm 1:4-5.6, originally built for Minolta?

Dyxum doesn't list this particular lens.

I've come across this 20 year old lens, at a reasonable price. I wonder if it is worth a gamble (seems in very good condition, but no opportunity to test drive it), or if it would be a box of frustrations looking for someone to happen to.

[DonSchap]

Are you absolutely sure it is an AF mount lens ... and not an MD-mount (or MC-mount, for that matter)?

If it is not autofocus, my tendancy would be to say "FORGET IT" and get yourself a TAMRON AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD ($159) lens. That is, at the very least, designed for today's digital cameras.

[Panda Bear]

Yes to both, it is autofocus, and AF mount.

The larger size (the Tamrom in 62, vs. 67) was intriguing. The real question I guess is about the relative quality of the glass typical of Vivitar-made lenses.

[sparkie1263]

You can look at most of my images they are taken with the Tamron 70-300. I am vert happy with the lens. It just needs light. I guess that lens will need the same amount of light. You get a 6 year warranty withe the Tamron. All for about $175.00. Just my 2 cents.
Frank

[DonSchap]

I only have one Vivitar lens (500mm f/8) and it is made in South Korea. It is currently a "shelf lens" for quality aspects. It only costs $100, when I got it new ... and there was a darn good reason for that.

I cannot help in evaluating this choice, so apologize for that. I would go with the conventional wisdom that has been proven to be effective and "digitally" qualified: The TAMRON AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD

[seanhoxx]

I have said more then a few times here, the tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD really is a good lens, Look at Frank's work with it, I use it to shoot highschool sports when I have the "good" light. IMHO it performs like a lens worth twice the price. It really is a MUST have lens for alpha users. Look at the posters in this forum I think we all have the lens.