Sell me an 80's Super Zoom

[tromboads]

I feel I'm ready. I feel I'm ready to walk around with a 80~200~ MF zoom, From what I can gather from this place;

1) Vivitar Series 1 (1st version f3.5)

2) Tokia At-X Pro 70-200 f2.8 (rubbish at f2.8 )

3) Tamron SP 19AH

4) Pentax A 70 -200 F4

Is that really all there is worth looking at?

Oh, Preference is to M42, but I might be talked into K-mount.

Also Also. What are the Nikor Zooms like? I've never bothered with them but on recent discovery that they fit upside down in a Pentax K mount (more or less) they have become usable once more...

Anything else worth looking for?

[Attila]

Tamron SP 19 is great lens for sure, Tokina was a giant and I didn't like it.
According to my current knowledge, I don't use any zoom some exception apply only.
I rather use two cameras with two prime lenses.
I don't think any superzoom is worth to buy, they are heavy beasts and image quality in most cases lower than cheap primes.

[WNG555]

My idea of a super zoom is a lens with great than 3x magnification. ie 28-200, 35-200, 60-300.

Vivitar Series-1: I hear the 2nd version by Tokina is the preferred version.
Kiron 70-210 f/4 Zoomlock is excellent.
Minolta MD 70-210 f/4 (manual beer can).

M42 makes options limited. I'd 2nd sticking with a high end Tamron.

[PhantomLord]

Hi,

I agree with Attila that zooms are less good than primes, but I disagree that good zoom cannot be better then cheap prime.

From your list I have Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 (1st ver.) and it's splendid lens. You've mentioned Pentax A 70-200/4 and I don't know if it's optically the same as Pentax-M 80-200/4.5 but I had it and it was practically on par with Vivitar S1 and had better coatings and handled harsh light with ease. It had no sufficient close focus mode though.
I did own Kiron 70-210/4 but without zoomlock and I agree it's excellent lens, and shorter cousin - Kiron 70-150/4 is even better.

However none of those lenses are really that brilliant wide open, unless you absolutely need it you probably would preffer stopping them down 1-2 clicks on aperture ring (not necessarily 1EV difference).

Recently I became very fond of Tamron SP 23A 60-300, it's as sharp as Vivitar S1 with longer range and very good macro mode. It's not f/3.5 aperture lens though, but variable f/3.8-5.4 which is a bit of a hassle when shooting with film bodies as prisms on focusing screen tend to become quite dark on 300mm and f/5.4, none of those problems of course when focusing on LiveView on digital.

Here are a few photos I took with my Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 on spring morning:

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6

[bernhardas]

edited

[buerokratiehasser]

60-300 4-5.6 (Soligor /whatever C/D UMCS)
I hear there are even 28 or 35-200 (!) in this style never had them but people say good things about them.

I believe these are also in MF mounts. No clue as to how they relate to the 60-300 with other F, maybe same formula a bit optimised, maybe not.

Very sharp but spherochromatism (color bokeh) especially wide open. This can be a problem with white highlights.
Very nice, inexpensive birding/walkaround lens

[Oldhand]

I have the Vivitar S1 70-210 (Kiron) and it is quite good - best stopped down a couple of stops.
It is also very easy to find as it is more common than the Komine version which seems very rare indeed.
As for super zooms, the 28-200 range was considered super zoom territory in the 80's.
I have tried three different Vivitars in this range by Kiron, Cosina and Kobori.
The Kobori was easily the best - I kept it and sold the other two.
The Tamron 60-300 is also a very good lens and is the same weight as the Vivitar S1 by Kiron. At 300mm though it becomes a longer lens as the barrel zooms forward.
OH

[cooltouch]

[tromboads]

Guys, as usual your personal knowledge on such matters is greatly appreciated.

[tb_a]

[stevemark]

In a first step i have tested the following Minolta MF and AF lenses on 24 MP Full Frame:

1) Minolta Auto Zoom Rokkor 3.5/80-160mm
2) Minolta MC Zoom Rokkor 4.5/80-200mm
3) Minolta MD Zoom Rokkor 5.6/100-200mm
4) Minolta MD Zoom 4.5/75-200mm
5) Minolta MD Zoom 4/70-210mm
6) Minolta MD Zoom 4/75-150mm

From these, the MD 4/75-150mm has the best corner details and least CAs. Not surprising given it's limited speed, focal length and the fact that it is one of the newest Zooms for the SR bayonet. The MD 4/70-210mm is slightly worse, the 4.5/75-200 and 4.5/80-200 have much more problems with corners, and the venerable 80-160mm from the early 1960ties is really ... quite bad.


Earlier i had already checked the AF zooms:
1) Minolta AF 4/70-210mm ("beercan")
2) Minolta AF 2.8/80-200mm APO G and APO G HS
3) Minolta AF 2.8/70-200mm APO G SSM and Sony AL 2.8/70-200mm G

Not surprisingly, the Minolta/Sony 70-200mm G wins clearly, especially at f=200mm. The 4/70-210 mm which has the same optical formula as the MD 4/70-210 is the weakest, and the 2.8/80-200 APO is in between. In the lower range (f=70mm ... f=135mm) the 4/70-210 is not worse than the 70-200 G SSM!!

Today, i have compared the following set, including a few of the suggestions given above by others:
(24MP Full Frame)
1) Canon nFD 4/80-200mm
2) Canon nFD 4/70-210mm
3) Minolta MD 4/75-150mm
4) Minolta MD 4/70-210mm
5) Nikon Series E 4/70-210mm
6) Pentax SMC A 4/70-210mm

8 ) Minolta MD 4/200mm (early version, 520g, existing also as MC)
9) Minolta MD 4/200mm (late version, 400g)
10) Canon nFD 4/200mm IF
11) Canon nFD 4/200mm Macro IF
12) Nikkor AiS 4/200mm
13) Pentax SMC M 4/200mm

The results were as follows:

@ f=70/75/80mm, extreme FF corners:
* Canon nFD 4/80-200mm has best corner resolution and zero CAs
* Minolta MD 4/75-150mm has a trace less corner sharpness, and also nearly no CAs
* the four 4/70-210mm zooms behave nearly identical, apart from different colors of their CAs; they have some CAs (nothing to worry about, though)

@ 135mm, extreme FF corners:
* the four 4/70-210mm are nearly identical: slightly less detail resolution and some more CAs compared to 80mm
* the Canon nFD 4/80-200mm has a slightly lower micro-contrast than the above 4/70-210mm zooms
* the MD 4/75-150mm has slightly more CAs than the other zooms

@ f=200mm, extreme FF corners:
* all four 4/70-210mm lenses have a good detail resolution even at f4 and in the extreme corners, but CAs are quite strong (much stronger than the Minolta/Sony 2.8/70-200 APO G SSM and 4/200 mm primes, let alone the Minolta AF 2.8/200 APO).
* the Canon has slightly less CAs, but also sligthly less micro-contrast

A few remarks concerning vintage 200mm primes from around 1980:
* The Minolta MC and MD 4/200mm (first version, about 520g) and the Canon nFD 4/200mm IF have a much better corner resolution than the above mentioned 4/70-210mm zooms, and less CAs as well.
* The second, smaller version of the MD 4/200mm, the Nikkor 4/200mm, the Pentax M 4/200mm and the Canon 4/200mm Macro IF are very similar. They have slightly less corner resolution than the above mentioned primes, but their corners are still visibly better than the 4/70-210mm zooms @ 200mm
* The Minolta AF 2.8/200mm (1987) outperforms them all.

SUMMARY:
1) all tested vintage tele zooms 4/70-210 (Canon nFD, Minolta MD, Nikon E, Pentax A) are very similar in their performance and characteristics
2) the Canon nFD 4/80-200mm has a slight advantage at f=80mm (no CAs), but generally a bit lower contrast
3) the corners of all tested 4/200 teles are visibly better than their zoom counterparts; all of them perform quite similarly
4) the Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO G (1987) outperforms them all

Stephan

[invisible]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I've tried quite a lot of them and the best two I have found (I haven't tried any expensive 2.8 ones) are these:

Konica UC Hexanon-Zoom 4/80-200
Minolta AF 4/70-210 1st gen 'beercan'

The Hexanon is probably better overall but the Minolta is more than good enough for me on my 24mp FF A850 for all but the most critical work, and then I would use a prime.

Others I have had that were good:

Canon new FD 4/80-200
Tokina RMC 4/80-200 (also sold as a Mamiya, a Rolleinar and a Voigtlander, probably others too)
Tamron 103A 3.8-4/80-210
Vivitar Series 1 v2 (Tokina) 3.5/70-210
Vivitar 22 serial 3.8/75-205
Soligor C/D 3.5/70-210

I have tried at least a dozen cheaper ones with lower specs such as 4.5-5.6/80-200 and none of them were very good imho, the ones I listed above outclass them.

If you lean towards close up work, the best is the Vivitar Series 1 or the Minolta AF/MD as those have very effective 'macro' settings. The Tokina 4/80-200 stands out for it's sharpness at distance and smooth bokeh. The Tamron suffers from purple fringing, but you can easily correct it and the overall contrast and sharpness make up for that shortcoming. The Soligor is a huge all metal beast and soft wide open but gets sharp one stop closed throughout the range.

I expect the Nikon, Olympus and Pentax equivalents will all be good too so I think it largely comes down to what you can find in what condition at a fair price.

If you wanted the very best and have the budget, two I would look at are the Canon FD L 4/80-200 and the Zeiss Contax T* 4/80-200. However, the Zeiss is said to be the least sharp of the Contax zooms and the bigger 4.5-5.6/100-300 is the big daddy in size and quality.

My recommendations based on price:

Cheap as chips: Vivitar S1 3.5/70-210
Quite Cheap: Minolta 4/70-210
Reasonable: Konica UC Zoom-Hexanon 4/80-200
Expensive: Canon FD L 4/80-200
Big and Pricey but worth it: Zeiss Contax T* 4.5-5.6/100-300

[Nordentro]

[marcusBMG]

[Attila]

Don't under estimate cheap eastern block lenses, like Vega 90mm f2.8 or Jupiter-11 RF lens etc etc they are cheap, small and stunning performers

[RemcoR]

The Carl Zeiss Contax 80-200/4 is also highly regarded. It is 24oz/680 grams. Filtersize is only 55mm.

Or perhaps the versatile SMC Pentax 35-105/3.5 macro. I love it.
http://forum.mflenses.com/smc-pentax-a-35-105-3-5-macro-t70970.html

RemcoR

[kryss]

tromboads...I have all 3 choices and for sale and the Pentax A would be K mount anyway.

[tromboads]

Guys this is such an incredible resource! Stevemark, many thanks for all that above.

Again thanks to all that have gone before us with patience and time to report on these matters.

Krys, I'll be doing some more thinking. and get back to you.

[tromboads]

But speaking of the 70-150mm f4's by Kiron, Where does the 75-150 Pentax Fit with that?

Because being a Pentax Tragic I can already feel myself leaning that way Also found one for $40, I'll let you know what it's like.

[fwcetus]

[cooltouch]

[fwcetus]

[tromboads]

[WNG555]

+1 for the Tamron SP 60-300 23A. Big fan of it. And it fits the definition of super zoom. It's my only travel manual-focus zoom lens, should I deem one is needed. It just performs and delivers the goods.

I would choose it over my Vivitar S-1 70-210 Tokina and Komine versions, and the Kiron Zoomlock.

Can't recommend the Vivitar (Kino) 75/85-205mm f/3.8. Even though it's cheap as dirt due to the millions out there. Useless at f/3.8.
It's my sacrificial zoom lens for adverse conditions that would risk losing a lens.

On the subject of 75-150mm, the Vivitar (Kino) two-touch and one-touch versions, plus its matched multiplier, makes for a better combo than the Vivitar 75/85-205mm f/3.8.