New Arrival: Vivitar 135/2.8 SN28509265

[zippie]

Today I found at small local antique market this lens in mint condition.
I bought it and did not expect very much of it.
Untill I tried it.... it is sharp wide open, nice bokeh and gets very sharp when stopped down.
This one was really big surprise.

It seems i need to collect more vivitars




100% crops no sharpening

[Attila]

Congrats for this great lens!!

[symphonic]

Congrats! It holds true that there's no such thing as a bad 135mm lens.

[woodrim]

Not surprising to me. I've posted about that lens. Quite sharp with great colors and low CA.

[zippie]

When I bought it I was expecting lots of CA and horrific sharpness wide open.
Everything turned out very different.
And for 7$ I can not complain

This lens is going to be one of my favorites.

[woodrim]

After seeing this post, it reminded me that I did not try this lens with a recent subject. I've been photographing a tiny spider for the past three weeks, trying to get the perfect picture. Hundreds of clicks later I still don't have a perfect shot, but many good ones.

I've used the following lenses and combinations:
Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f/2.4
Vivitar Close Focus 28mm
Helios 44-2 with short extension tube
Standard Vivitar 200mm with extension tube
Vivitar Series 1 200mm with and without extension tube
Vivitar Series 1 135mm with and without extension tube

The best shots came from the Helios and Flek. The Close Focus 28mm was a close second to the Flek, but actually produced more usable images. I was able to get good shots with all lenses, but those top three did the best. Today I took out the standard Vivitar 135mm, which is the subject of the post. I used the sam extension tube, which is actually a 2x tele-extender with glass removed.

I'm amazed how well this lens did, and it will become one of my go-to lenses for macro with this short extender. For one, the focus was the easiest of all the lenses I tried. It was much more clear when the spider poped into focus, and consequently I received the greatest percentage of usable pictures. In fact, some of the better shots I've gotten overall. The Flek provided the smallest percentage of in focus shots.

I would gladly provide pictures from each lens if anyone should ask, but this post is about the Standard V-135, so here are a couple from today. Oh, I should also tell you that the spider is very tiny, about 1/2" including the long legs.

[Big Dawg]

Uh oh!! You are now infected with the Vivitar version of LBA. Join the crowd!! That is one of the good ones from Vivitar. Love mine and should use it more but so many lenses(and getting more every day) prevents me from using one too much. Keep that lens...It won't disappoint!

[magkelly]

I'm also unexpectedly very impressed so far with the C/Y Vivitar 300MM zoom I have. Compared to the other C/Y 200MM lens I have it's very sharp and very easy to focus. The other one actually isn't a bad lens, supposedly, but next to the Vivitar it pales a bit somehow. I'm very much looking forward to that Vivitar T-mount (M42) I have coming.

I'm definitely still a Takumar fan but with my budget being what it is these Vivitar's are proving to be a real bargain in terms of price and quality and I am definitely going to be on the lookout for any I can pick up cheaply if this 300MM is any indication of how good they are.

I don't think I could consider it wasting the $5-10 when it comes to acquiring more lenses like these.

[Excalibur]

erm you have persuaded me to pack my rarely used Viv 135mm f2.8 for my holiday. My backpack of 35mm gear is now 9kg/20Ibs
Oh wait I've forgotten why I don't use it, well I have a Canon 135 f3.5 and Meyer 13 blade 135mm so I think I'll take the Meyer for some portrait shots instead.

[zippie]

Of all my 135's I have this one surprised me the most.
I never thougth I could find a 135 that could rival my CZJ 135/3.5 in terms of color/contrast (and in some cases even in sharpness). But his one is really nice. Especially if you see what they are going for. There are also some versions of this lens with lower quality. This ones seems to bemade by Komine.
Not every Vivitar 135/2.8 is the same in terms of quality.

[AhamB]

So Komine also made a nice 135/2.8, apparently. Your crops look pretty crisp.
Build quality should be nice too, like my Komine Vivitar 28/2.0.

[woodrim]

[magkelly]

It's a 75-300MM MC 1:4.5-5.6 (#77412825)

Now it's true I don't have much to compare it with yet, but it does seem quite a bit more sharp to me when compared to my Kotaishi MC 80-200 MC 1.45. That's not supposed to be too bad according to what I've read so far but the Vivitar is definitely better.

That 75-300MM is half the reason I went after the M42 Vivitar I just got. I was holding out for a 200MM Takumar, but the optics on the 300MM surprised me and I eventually decided to try another one for my SPII. I love the Takumars I've got but recently they're just getting too pricey for me to be able to afford them. I really wanted to add a 28MM and a 200MM Takumar to my SPII kit but I've priced them and I can't go there just yet, shrug.

I got a 75-260mm f/4.5 Vivitar with a T-mount and M42 adapter last week for $5 plus shipping. If it's as good as the Vivitar C/Y 300MM I think I'll like it just fine. I'm still learning so it's okay if all of my lenses aren't the better, most expensive ones. I'll save being ultra picky for later when I know more about lenses and I'm actually more qualified to use them well.

;p

[woodrim]

$5 is a hard to beat price; I hope that's not your limit I paid twice that for my 135mm. If you're still looking for a 28mm, I suggest another Vivitar; the Close Focus version by Komine. It must say "Close Focus" on the front. Superb lens.

[Big Dawg]

[magkelly]

That "Vivitar" post was supposed to be a reply to the thread here. I have NO idea how it ended up being a new thread. I just posted it the normal way below? Can we move that back here?


The new lens it's coming this week sometime. I think I was talking and typing at cross purposes. Sorry, I've been up all night. I haven't slept at all yet. I'm probably mixing up all my lens info. I'll post pics of all 3 when I have them with the serial #'s and such visible and then you all can tell me which one is which, okay? I'm off to bed soon. I'm turning into a blithering idiot rapidly here.

[cooltouch]

What do you Vivitar experts know about this old preset T-mount?

Click here to see on Ebay

Short S/N begins with 74. Price seems a bit steep.

[woodrim]

I just noticed that mine is a little different than zippie's. Mine has a different grip - not rubber. Perhaps older, but otherwise the same?

[zippie]

Hey,

If i understood the coding of the serialnumbers correctly, my lens was produced 1 year later then yours.
This could clarify why the grip is a little different. Maybe a production evolution or improvement?...

Just guessing

[cooltouch]

Hey Woodrim,

Your 135's styling is identical to that on my 200/3.5, which I've assumed is probably mid-70s. Could be off a few years either way, I suppose.

[woodrim]

Well, the serial number - the number 4 following 28 indicates either 1974 or 1984. More likely 1974 as you said. How is that 200mm?

[cooltouch]

It's quite good. I commented on it over in Big Dawg's 200/3.5 thread. But to recap briefly, I compared it to a Canon 200/4 I also own, which I consider to be a lens that doesn't get the attention it deserves. Since both are Canon FD mount lenses, I had to do the comparison with a Canon film camera, an F-1 in this case. I used ISO 200 film, Kodak I believe, and shot the same subject with the camera mounted on a tripod at all lens apertures. I then made duplicates of the negatives with my slide/film duplicator rig attached to my DSLR, then reversed the negs in my image processing software, and compared them for sharpness, contrast, flare, etc.

I found the 200/3.5 Vivitar to exhibit quite a bit more flare than the Canon wide open, but by f/8 it was completely gone. Sharpness, color, and contrast were on par with the Canon. I'd have to go back and look at the test images again (they're on another computer), but as I dimly recall, the Vivitar may have slightly outperformed the Canon.

So, yeah, I consider it to be a very good lens, and I'll warrant that your 135/2.8 is as well.

[woodrim]

But you can't use it on your digital camera? Maybe should look for an M42 version.

[Big Dawg]

[cooltouch]