Is it a lens separation issue? Vivitar S1 28-90

PhantomLord · Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 476 Location: Szczecin, Poland

Hi,

I bought on ebay Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f/2.8-3.5 which suppose to be "in beautiful condition, clear optics" etc. However there's something wrong with the inner group of lenses.
The questions are:
1) Is it lens separation issues?
2) Is it going to spread or I could hope it will stay as is?
3) How does it affect quality? (I'm on APS-C if that's important)
The last question will be answered when I received the lens as it was shipped to my sister, but what are yours experience with such matter.

Photos:

Mateusz

guardian · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 1747

That appears to be a Komine lens.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Vivitar_serial_numbers

This might or might not be relevant. Don't know if Komine lenses have certain "tendencies", if you know what I mean.

Regardless:

I can only offer you my opinion, as I hope other contributors will do. I don't like the lens. I think you got "schnookered". If it were me, I would seek to make recovery ASAP if that alternative is available to you.

As for the specifics, that could be separation, or fungus, or a distribution of lubricant over internal surfaces. I lean toward one of the latter two possibilities. It could even be coating degradation. That's why I posted the manufacturer. Others might know whether Komine lenses have one or more of these predispositions.

Bottom line, though, the lens surely is not as described by the seller, and was wrongly sold as clear. You deserve a refund IMO!!

kuuan · Expire: 2014-12-26

I agree with Guardian.
I don't like if an inner element of a lens looks 'milky', have had a few which turned out to be kind of 'etched glass' that could not be fixed, they were very difficult to focus, produced very hazy results, actually were rather useless.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2727 Location: Kiel, Germany.

PhantomLord · Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 476 Location: Szczecin, Poland

Thank you guys for replies.
I bought it by normal price and already asked for refund. I cannot test it right away as it's at my sister's home, but will get it in the week. The auction was covered by ebay money guarantee program, so there's no worry about getting refund if seller will turn back.
I just so really wanted this lens for so long that it's a real pity it has some flaws when I finally bought one Wink

.

Mateusz

PhantomLord · Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 476 Location: Szczecin, Poland

ForenSeil
About the fungus, the lens is at my sister so I cannot say for sure, but as I asked her, she says lenses are clear. Well, I find out soon as I get the lens. For now, I received partial refund, not so happy about the amount, but have to live with it.
All in all I think I have to shoot the lens and see how it perform, if it's bad then it would be some money wasted on paper weight.

Actually I think about 40% lenses I bought cheaply on ebay, described as "great, clear optics...etc" had some kind of troubles. If it's just fungus at a few elements, stuck aperture or adjusting infinity focus, that's easy to fix. Very often I receive full refund while being able to keep the lens (so the seller knew that something was wrong with the lens from the beginning), nevertheless I always clean the lens up and sometimes I was happy to leave the lens for myself and sometimes I sell it further away with more accurate description.

However I really don't get it, when I'm selling the lens I always attach full size photos taken with the actual lens together with description which says true things, like "it's best at f/5.6, little soft wide open but usable/ or not; great at 70-150mm range, 150-210 it's softer, there's a spot of fungus" and so on and the lenses always sell for reasonable amount of money.

Cheers
Mateusz