Vivitar 200mm f/3.5

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Recently there was a thread in which this lens was discussed, and it got me interested enough to think about seeing if I could find one -- for cheap, of course. Well, I found one in Canon FD mount on eBay that was priced cheaply and won it. Heh, the shipping was more than my successful bid.

It looked pretty clean in the photos, but I was really surprised when it arrived. This lens is truly mint -- not a mark on it anywhere. And it was shipped in an old Takumar 4/200 case that's just as clean. My apologies for the noise in this photo -- I had my DSLR set to ISO 1600 and just now realized it.

This lens is rather large and quite heavy, and built as if it were meant to last a hundred years, which I suspect it can do with ease. This early model has a solid metal, finely ribbed focusing ring that provides good grip. It has a built in hood, and came with a nice metal push-on cap. Filter size is 67mm.

I took some photos with this lens yesterday, and because it's Canon FD, I had to scan negatives. So, the images I have to show are not as sharp as the negatives really are, but they're enough to give some idea as to the performance of this optic.

I tested it by photographing subjects at the lens's minimum focusing distance (6 feet, ~2 meters), at a middle distance and at close to infinity. I'll only show the infinity pics here. If you want to see some of the others, just ask. Here's a full frame of the subject, a satellite dish antenna on a neighbor's roof, taken with the Vivitar 200mm at f/8:

All photos were taken with the camera and lens mounted to a sturdy tripod. The point of focus for all images was the far edge of the dish. Following are a few 100% crops of the above scene. No post processing of any kind were done.

Vivitar 200mm @ f/3.5:

@ f/8:

@ f/16:

As you can see from the above crops, purple fringing is noticeable at f/3.5, still evident at f/8, and almost gone by f/16. As you can also see, the lens is sharpest at f/8 (I didn't try it at f/11 with this scene, but based on other shots I took, f/8 and f/11 are very close in terms of sharpness, with somewhat less color fringing at f/11).

The images I took with this Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 certainly looked quite good, but of course, I was curious how it stacked up against some other optics I own. So, I also shot the same scene with my Canon New FD 200mm f/4, and with my Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 zoom, set to 200mm. Here are a couple of samples from these two lenses:

Canon 200mm at f/8

Tamron 60-300mm at 200mm and f/16. The image taken at f/8 suffered from camera shake, but this Tamron zoom, unlike both the Canon and Vivitar 200s was still quite sharp at f/16, so I'll use it here.

The Canon exhibited the same sort of purple color fringing wide open as the Vivitar, but not as much. The Tamron showed some very slight blue color fringing wide open.

The real surprise in this test was the Tamron 60-300. Sharpness fall-off was very noticeable by f/16 with both the Vivitar and the Canon, but the Tamron was showing very little signs of it. It also exhibited better color correction than either of the 200's. At f/8, I would have to say that all three optics deliver almost the same resolution. I'd probably give a slight edge in contrast to the Canon.

All-in-all, I'd have to say that I'm quite pleased with the results I've gotten with this old Vivitar 200. The color fringing doesn't bother me. All it takes is basically one click to eliminated it in the processing software I use.

I actually like it enough to consider getting another. I can't use FD with my Canon DSLR, but I can use Nikon F. Besides, I don't own any 200mm teles in Nikon mount at the moment. Although I do have an Adaptall-II Nikon mount for that Tamron . . . hmmm. Decisions, decisions.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

That Viv has a quiet "rep"amongst the Viv crowd, almost a well kept secret. There is another version with "automatic focusing" which is actually a battery driven motor so you can focus by pushing a button, rather than turning the ring! That lens is really very sharp, but ungainly and fugly. Very Happy

patrickh

Big Dawg · Joined: 28 Jan 2009 Posts: 2530 Location: Thach Alabama

Fugly? This prime pristine finly tune piece of optics FUGLY??? How dare you!!!! LOL I love all my Viv 200's. From the preset t-mount to the T4mount, TX mount to the fixed mount m42 lens. They are all goo performers.

Shot these with mine as a trial. The original and 2 cropped photos. Hand held too. Pretty darn good for a FUGLY lens.

A pic of mine.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Big Dawg, yours is identical to mine, I'll wager, except for the focusing rings. Yours has the later rubber grip.

Patrick, I suspect that the optical formula for the manual focus 200/3.5s and that push-button AF model are the same. At least I was counting on that when I bought mine.

BTW, I shot some dupes of a couple of the negatives with my DSLR and a slide duplicator. Then I had to go through the whole rigamarole of converting the neg to a positive and then balancing color and contrast. But after all of this, it was quite evident that the scans I've made aren't really doing this lens justice. The duped negs were noticeably sharper. Oh well, can't afford a Nikon CoolScan at the moment -- maybe someday.

If I can put together some good dupes of the above shots, I'll go ahead and add them to this review.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well I think you confirm what I have found and that is:- A good zoom can at least equal some cheaper 200mm primes by well known makes. IMO the same applies for 135mm primes.
But my experience is only for the primes:- Canon fd 200mm f4, fd 135mm, hexanon 135mm, super Tak 135mm, and Viv 135mm.

So for most conditions I don't bother carrying my 200mm or 135mm prime around.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well I think you confirm what I have found and that is:- A good zoom can at least equal some cheaper 200mm primes by well known makes. IMO the same applies for 135mm primes.
But my experience is only for the primes:- Canon fd 200mm f4, fd 135mm, hexanon 135mm, super Tak 135mm, and Viv 135mm.

So for most conditions I don't bother carrying my 200mm or 135mm prime around.

Russ · Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 432

Both Series 1 versions are better than your non-Series 1 version.

Boomer Depp · Expire: 2011-12-04

I have a few versions of this lens in the fixed mount and TX mount.I'll occasionally grab one of these Vivitar 200/3.5 lenses on overcast days for a garden shoot.These pics are with Vivitar fixed mount Komine version mounted on a Canon 50D at F5.6 on a overcast evening just before sunset.Not a great lens...but not a bad lens,either.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Thanks for the picture Russ. Now you can see what fugly is! Sharp too.

patrickh

Russ · Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 432

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

I think that's a point we are all trying to make all the time. These old MF lenses will deliver performance well beyond what would reasonably be expected of them. I'm with Russ, but it does not mean that those older Vivs are slouches by any means. Frankly my fugly Viv Ser1 200/3.5 outperforms my nikkor 200/4 on most days! The nikkor is nonetheless a great performer for such issues as OOF rendition and colours.

patrickh

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I think in Series 1 200mm f3.0 is exists, other ones are 200mm f3.5. I love them also. I sold my 200mm f3.0 I had three copies , but I still have 200mm f3.5.

bob955i · Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495

I have a Vivitar S1 3/200 - the one you kind of sold me Attila... Laughing

I took a few test shots last Saturday and was very impressed with it's sharpness both wide open and stopped down plus it's colour rendition and contrast.

For a thirty to thirty five year old lens, it's very very good.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Russ · Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 432

Michael

I guess I didn't word my reply properly, and I apolgize. I was not knocking the quality of your non-Series 1 version at all. I'm sure that you'll be most pleased with its performance.

Kiron Kid

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Russ,

No apology necessary. I didn't take it that way. I am curious about the difference in the optical formulas, however.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I have found that I get significantly better detail digitally when I use a slide duplicator with my DSLR and dupe the slides instead of scanning them. Problem with negatives, though, is two fold -- 1, they're in strips, and 2) they're negatives.

Well, I rigged up a way to shoot dupes of the negatives with one of my duplicators using an old slide mount as sort of a sleeve for the carrier. And as it turns out, these negatives hold quite a bit more information than my scanner was able to capture.

Here are a few more images, from the Vivitar 200mm, the Canon 200mm, and the Tamron SP 60-300, all at f/8:

Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 @ f/8:

Canon FD 200mm f/4 @ f/8:

Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 @ 300mm and f/8:

This time, I did do a bit of post processing -- I ran a noise filter on each of the images. It didn't really affect sharpness, but it did make it easier to evaluate the images, I feel. Also, since the Tamron experienced camera shake when I took its photo at 200mm f/8, I've included one photo I took at 300mm f/8, but reduced it so that it's close to the same size as the other two.

So, anyway, my opinion hasn't really changed. These new images show that the Vivitar holds up very well against the Canon, and also show that the Tamron, even at 300mm, when you might expect it to start exhibiting some softness, still does a good job.

It's also been a bit of a learning experience for me, processing negatives. I've kind of gotten the hang of it now, but I'm still not very good at color consistency from one image to the next. And you can see this in the above photo comparison. Processing negs can be a bit touchy.

The duplicator I used for this can be found on eBay and elsewhere under a variety of brand names. Mine is a Cambron zoom slide duplicator, sold back in the day by Cambridge Camera in NYC. Spiratone called theirs a Vario-Dupliscope. And I've seen the same device sold under other brand names as well. It's a T-mount duplicator with a zoom ring and a slide mount that can be adjusted up or down and sideways. They sold new during the 1980s for about $80-100. I paid $15 for mine several months ago, from an eBay auction.

Unfortunately, because my Canon DSLR is a crop body camera, all the dupes are, in effect, 1.6x enlargements. I have another slide duplicator I also bought recently -- it's an Opteka brand I bought from 47th St. Camera in NYC. This one attaches to the front of a lens, and with the right focal length, I can get full-frame dupes. Typical cheap Chinese, and it's already developed a crack in the barrel, but it actually does a decent job of duplicating. But it's really awkward trying to shoot negatives with it. So, the Cambron got the nod.

Boomer Depp · Expire: 2011-12-04

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks for the info, Boomer. Do you have any on the Komine-made AF S1 200mm f/3.5, like Russ's fugly one? That's the one I was wondering about.

By the way, I think the saturation you achieved with the photos you posted previously was remarkable given that it was an overcast day. Nice.

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on an S1 200/3. It might alleviate my cravings for either a Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 or a Tamron 180mm f/2.5. Or one of those fat CZJ 2.8 teles. Probably cheaper as well.

Boomer Depp · Expire: 2011-12-04

I believe the optical formula is the same as the earlier non-auto focus version,the multi-coating may be different.I don't have this auto-focus version of the Vivitar 200mm,but I do have the others dating to the mid-70's.

I don't know if it's me or not (I'm red/green color blind) but I like shooting the 200/3.5 on overcast or hazy days and like bringing it out about an hour or so before sunset and just before and after sunrise...to me the colors are more vivid.

The Nikkor 180mm is a nice lens and well worth the investment...I would really consider getting one over the Vivitar Series 1 200/f3....down the road if you want the Series 1 to fill a hole in a collection,then get one...

I may collect Vivitars...but I never discount my 21 lens strong AI & AI-S Nikkor collection...they are a very very worthy lens line.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Regarding the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8, you're preaching to the choir here. I owned one -- the later ED version -- and after using it for the first time, was literally stunned at the quality of photos it produced. I sold it during a lean time of not enough cash and too much photo gear, and have regretted it. Eventually I'll get another -- or a suitable substitute. And the best suitable substitute to me wuld be the Tamron 180mm f/2.5 LD IF. In testing that I've seen, it actually outperformed the Nikkor. Unfortunately that Tamron is a rare bird -- only 3,000 of them were made. And as a result, whenever I see one for sale, like on eBay, it usually goes for a pretty good chunk of change.

For now, regarding teles in the 200mm range, I'm mostly interested in acquiring a good one in Nikon mount that's f/3.5 or faster. I have only zooms in that range for my Nikon (and my DSLR via adapter), and I like the idea of having a sharp prime for critical work. When I can afford it again, I'll get another Nikkor 180 ED or one of those Tamron beauties.

Boomer Depp · Expire: 2011-12-04

Ah-ha,I see said the blind man...the Vivitar 200/3.5 is a not to bad a performer...in fact it was the Vivitar 200/3.5 that started me down the road to ruin and collecting a few fixed mount Vivitars and later the complete Series I lineup from back in the 70's and early 80's,with the exception of the 90-180 flat field focus,given time I'll acquire that Series I as well...later I decided to collect the TX lineup as well and have all the lenses from that line except the 600mm and the 800mm which were actually T-mount lenses.

The Tamron 180/2.5 LD-IF has a very good reputation indeed,equal to the Nikkor 180/2.8 ED....Olympus made a few fast 180's,a f2 & a f2.8,the 2.8 needs to be stopped down a bit to about 5.6 to perform in the neighborhood of the Nikkor and the Tamron...but the Olympus 180/2 is better then the Nikkor & Tamron are wide open and actually performs better from wide open and down through all the stops.The Olympus 180/2 is spendy like the Tamron 180/2.5...and it's rare to find the Olymus 180/2.8 at a reasonable price as well.

The Olympus Zuiko line really impresses me...I've collected four so far...but have plans to collect all the better performers in the line.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Back in another life, when I was a camera dealer, I owned several Olympi. Never actually shot pictures with any, though. One thing I learned even way back then was that Oly has a hard core following -- rivaling the SM Pentax crowd -- and they manage to keep the prices of used Oly gear elevated quite high because of high demand. Currently I own an OM-10 with manual adapter, and it's usually a camera that I forget about owning, although I shouldn't. It was bought on a whim at a garage sale for a paltry sum a few years ago, and maybe one roll of film has been put through it since then.

I actually have a couple of Olympi on my wish list: the original OM-2, and the OM-3. Dunno when I'll ever be able to afford some really nice Zuiko glass though.

Come to think of it, I'm still wondering just why it is I bought this Vivitar 200 in the first place. I think I got sucked in because of the price. I mean, I already own a nice 200 in FD mount. I should have just waited and picked up one in Nikon mount, which would have ended up being much more useful. Oh well, no big deal. It's so purty, I don't mind adding it to my collection.

Speaking of which, I can understand your attraction toward S1 glass. I've been a big fan of Vivitar products ever since I bought my first S1 28-90 in 1984 or so. And I've owned a few beauties that, in moments of weakness, I sold. Ever seen one of the Vivitar preset T-mount 135mm f/1.5 "Professionals"?

http://www.astromart.com/images/classifieds/337000-337999/337501-1.jpg

I owned one for years. Incredibly soft wide open, and even stopped down, it was no better than OK. Coupled to my Vivitar 7-element teleconverter, I had myself a "poor man's 300/2.8" or almost -- a 270mm f/3 -- but in no way did it perform in that class. Another beaut I owned briefly until I got talked out of it and sold it for substantially more than I paid for it was the 90-180mm flat field macro.

I keep wondering if the S1 solid cats are really as good as people say they are . . . Yeah, I can see how it would be real easy getting sucked into Vivitar collecting.

Boomer Depp · Expire: 2011-12-04

You had to show me that 135/1.5 didn't you...Nice!...looks like a beauty...someday perhaps...oh,well...can't collect them all,but I can sure try...sigh

Talk about the solid cat mirror lenses sometime...but it's way past my bedtime...I will say though that the Tamron mirrors are better mirror lenses...and the Russian mirrors are even better...