Vivitar Series 1 in comparison

[woodrim]

Way back in the days when the Series 1 line of lenses came out, I was in family mode and couldn't afford the lenses. Today I still can't afford the big dollar lenses, but can now revisit the old goodies, and am doing so.

I've done searches here and elsewhere on Series 1 lenses, specifically the 90mm 2.5; 135 2.3; and 200mm 3.0. The threads I saw were always positive, but I don't recall those lenses being discussed in comparison to others in their class. I tried to insert the 90mm in a Helios 85mm thread here last week, but was ignored. The 90mm is supposedly actually 87mm. I would love to hear what others who have had experience with these lenses think about them when compared to others.

How does the 90mm 2.5 compare to the others discussed in the 85mm range? How about the Series 1 200mm 3.0 when compared to Zeiss glass, Nikon, Minolta, Takumar?

Also, I've noted that in addition to the Series 1 135mm 2.3, there was also a close focus 135mm 2.8 that was also highly regarded. Can you comment on those two as well?

So far I've purchased a 90mm, but have to convert the mount before I'll be able to use it. I just purchase the 200mm and am awaiting its arrival. This one in M42, so I'll get an immediate chance to use it.

Thanks very much for all comments.

[aoleg]

I quite like my Series 1 135/2.3 VMC, it's sharp and fast and focuses close. But. The bokeh wide open is quite harsh (typical to a Planar design I would say), colors are not quite as vivid and contrast not up to Contax Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8. There're also purple CA wide open. The Vivitar can be compared to Nikkor Ai/AIS 135/2.8 though. So it's a great lens in its own regard, perfect for some types of shots, especially when you need to get close (Zeiss Sonnar focuses down to only 1.5m or so).

[cooltouch]

I've been a big fan of Vivitar S1 lenses ever since I bought my first one back in 1984. I have not had the chance to use any of the three you mention, though. However, I know that there have been threads here regarding the 200mm f/3 within the past six months or so, so if you do a search, you'll run across the posts, complete with photos.

I would be interested in a comparison between the Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 and the Tamron 90mm f/2.5. I own a Tamron 90mm f/2.5, and I propose that a possibly workable way to compare tests long distance would be to take photos of the same or similar objects. I have a 10 euro note here that I can use for comparisons, which would be easy for our friends in Europe to match.

[patrickh]

I own the Viv 90 and the Tam 90, as well as the Viv 105 macro. All three are equally fab. In addition I have the 135/2.8 CF, which focuses way down and gives excellent results. My experience with Viv Ser1 lenses is very positive. They are virtually all built like tanks and have very very good glass. Perhaps a bit heavy?


patrickh

[Screamin Scott]

I've got the Vivitar 90mm F2.8 macro (Komine made) as well as the Komine made Vivitar 135mm F2.8 CF. While I love them both, I prefer my Kiron made Lester Dine 105mm F2.8 (related to the Viv S1 105 macro) ...I also have several other S1 Viv's . The 24-48 F3.8, the 35-85 F2.8,the 28-90 F 2.8/3.5, both the 1st & 3rd versions of the 70-210 & the AF (for Mf lenses) 200mm F3.5...Oh, & I also use the 24mm F2 & 28mm F2 Viv's...I have about 20 Vivitar lenses all told

[woodrim]

Thanks, guys, for the comments. While a comparison between the 90mm f/2.5 and its Tamron equivalent is appropriate given their like characteristics - both being macros, I'm much more interested in knowing how the 90mm might compare to the likes of Helios, Jupiter, and Takumar in the 85mm range. It seems that the Vivitar is left out of those discussions even though it is considered to be very sharp and with great bokeh.

With regard to the 135mm lenses, I haven't picked that one up yet, so would like some comparisons between the Series 1 version and the Close Focus version. I have a lead now on a Nikon mount Close Focus and there is another one on ebay for Canon (not a mount I would want) that has no bids with an initial ask of $80. What is a good price for each? Which should I go for? And, will I gain something in IQ from the standard Komine 135 I have now? To be honest, I think the standard Komine does pretty well...

[gaeger]

A related question: Is the Panagor 90mm f2.8 macro the same lens as the Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.8 macro? If so, how do they differ from the f2.5 version?

[Screamin Scott]

Panagor was the European marketing name for Kino Precision Industries (aka Kiron) up till Kino's demise then Tokina & others marketed their lenses under the Panagor label. The Vivitar Series One were made by either Kino, Tokina or Komine & you have to check the serial # to determine who made the specific one you are asking about. As for the difference between the 2.5 vs the 2.8, it's likely that it the same as the marked F stop is just an approximation. In testing, neither is likely exactly what they are stated as being. If a lens was tested by let's say Modern Photography & the aperture of a 2.8 lens was tested as being being actually 2.6, then the next iteration of the lens was marketed as being a 2.5...Just a marketing gimmick as there really is a minuscule difference between the two

[Mike Deep]

With regard to the 90/2.5 specifically, it was manufactured by Tokina. Everything I've read claims the design originates from Perkin-Elmer. Tokina also produced the same lens under their own name.

The Tamron 90/2.5 is very similar, but the elements in the Tokina/Series 1 are much thicker.

[JerryMK]

Just shot this Valentine picture today with the Series1 90mm f2.5 using the Macro Extender with it. I love this lens...

[woodrim]

As the question was asked: "Is the Panagor 90mm f2.8 macro the same lens as the Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.8 macro?", I'm not aware of a Series 1 90mm at f2.8, but maybe there was. The Series 1 lens I've discussed was f/2.5 and was different than the f2.8 Macro in more than maximum aperture. While the f2.8 non-series 1 version accomplished 1:1 magnification, the Series 1 f2.5 model requires a matched three element adapter for 1:1. It goes as far as 1:2 without the adapter.

[JerryMK]

I own both the f2.5 and the f2.8. As I understand the f2.5 is Tokina made/alike and the f2.8 Komine made/alike. The f2.8 can reach 1:1 by it's own while the f2.5 like the previous poster says needs an extender.

More info on the f2.8 here: Click here to see on Ebay

[gaeger]

Lots of good info! As far as serial number, the Panagor I have begins with 81. Any idea who made it?

[woodrim]

I have not heard that the other resellers of like lenses; Panagor, Elicar, Spiratone and Rokunar, used the same serial number convention. If by chance the convention was the same, an 81 would indicate Polar, and that is probably unlikely.

[woodrim]

I mentioned in initial post that I've purchased a Series 1 200mm. It's still in the hands of a friend who acquired it on my behalf. He was kind enough to send me a few pictures from it taken with his Digital Rebel. This one, of his beautiful daughter, was shot at 1/80 in low light. ISO 200 and aperture not reported, although from the looks of it I'd say wide open. He thought it soft due to hand holding. Perhaps, but maybe also due to being wide open. Regardless, I'm impressed with the picture - or maybe it's just his daughter's smile and blue eyes. *** Yes, I did make adjustments in Photoshop.

[Piotrek]

I have S1 90/2.5. I can compare it only with Pentax FA* 85/14. and Voigtlander 90/3.5. Pentax is king of portrait. Vivitar is great for close-up & macro and what is important is great for portraits. Voigtlander 90 is small- cute lens, extremely sharp, good bokeh, vivid - but I sold Voigtlander and stay with Vivitar

Pentax PENTAX K20D,Vivitar 90 mm f/2.5 Macro
1/200s f2.5 90.0mm iso200


Pentax K20D ,Vivitar 90 mm f/2.5 Macro
1/640s f/2.5 at 90.0mm iso100

[woodrim]

Hello Piotr. I had exchanged a couple of messages with you on pbase on this subject. As you can see, I'm still gathering opinions. My research did identify the Takumar 85mm f1.4 as a superior lens, but I must do price/performance assessments and the Takumar is outside my range.

I'm really looking forward to using my 90mm 2.5. I've determined what I need to do to convert the mount and it's actually going to be very easy. What I need now is material at precise thicknesses so I can fabricate a ring to replace the current mount. The 200mm Series 1 I just bought was also on my short list. With me its part quality and part sentimentality, but ultimately I will swap my lenses until being satisfied with what I find.

I think I'm going to like the 200mm and 90mm Vivitars, and I'm glad to hear that the 90mm is good also for general use. It seems to be only discussed in regard to macro, thus my question about how it compares with the popular choices of Helios, Jupiter, Zeiss, etc.

I still have the 135mm question outstanding. I have this $10 lens that is much better than I had anticipated, but I'm still looking. I wish I could see some side by side comparisons of several of them.

[bogolisk]

[woodrim]

By the way, some of you guys have the lens thing real bad. I think I like Piotrek's collection best.

Last question (maybe), for those of you who have the Vivitar close focus model, aside from the close focus functionality, how would you compare it to other popular 135s in portrait or general use?

Thanks much to all.

[Boomer Depp]

I was a loyal Nikon type back in the film days although I could have been a Canon type easily as well,or bought into any extensive system for that matter.Consequently I bought Nikkor's and f-mount Vivitars Series 1 as well as a few of Vivitar's macro lenses.

I finally jumped into digital about four years ago and choose to go the Canon route because of their AF L lenses and compatibility with other manufacturers lenses.Not till last year did I finally start taking advantage of mounting 3rd party lenses on my Canons,including my many Nikkors and Vivitars.

I've always thought you can never have enough macro or close focus lenses.Most macros are exceptionally good lenses,some do better at macro,other shoot exceptionally well at infinity or quite well.Whether your shooting macro or at infinity,macros usually deliver pleasing results.Some like using a macro for portrait as well as other shooting,others like simplifying their shooting by having multiple shooting tasks for a few lenses.So my recommendation is to go out and shoot the lens and see if you're satisfied with the results,if so,for $10 keep it.

A few hand held shots with my old beat up copy of the Vivitar 135/2.8,nothing spectacular but showing the lens isn't to bad.The first pic wasn't focused well,but you can see detail where it was almost focused on the right edge of the pic(somebody must like the shot,because it got about 500 views on my Photobucket site)The last shot BTW was a low light shot at ISO 1200,and I missed the focus here as well.





The lens set up in the pic below for macro with the 36mm extension tube,and the Vivitar Macro Focusing 2x TC.....set up like this would usually be shot mounted on a focusing rail on a tripod.



One of my favorite macro lenses(and as other say,"a joy to use")....the Kiron 105/f2.8 with a macro focusing 2x TC.

[Russ]

[JerryMK]

Now we are talking great macro lenses, yes the Kiron 105mm f2.8 also my favorite!

[Russ]

[cooltouch]

Does the Kiron 100mm f/2.8 go down to 1:1, or just 1:2?

That's one thing about my Tamron 90mm that I wish it did. It's "just" 1:2, and needs the SP dedicated 2x for 1:1.

Speaking of which, well, it's no slouch either. I think it compares favorably with the much revered Kiron 100mm macro:



Still, if the Kiron (or its Vivitar clone) goes to 1:1, I'll be looking to add it to my arsenal. Errr . . . on second thought, after checking out several eBay auctions, it would appear that there is no shortage of Kiron 100/2.8 macro lenses, but all of them have very high b-i-n's or have been bid up to levels that I would have a lot of difficulty participating in. *sigh* Hey, how about them Nikkors, eh?

[Russ]