Vivitar Series 1 135/f2.3 vs K135/f2.5

yusuf · Joined: 19 Jan 2013 Posts: 68 Location: India

Hi,

I plan to get 135mm and so far the plan is to get Pentax SMC K135/f2.5 (58mm thread version, non Bayonet). However, I was offered VS1 135mm f2.3 M42 by a local dealer for a very good price and while I am interested, I am unable to find significant reviews of that lens.

Any idea how is VS1 135mm/f2.3 and how it compares to Pentax version.

Thanks
Yusuf

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The vivitar 2.3/135 can either be very good or very bad, I had a very bad copy. If you can try it out before buying, that would be best.

yusuf · Joined: 19 Jan 2013 Posts: 68 Location: India

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

They are all with the same serial number series starting with 22 I think, all by same maker.

I was just unlucky with my copy to get a bad one, I think most of them are good.

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

My copy of the VS1 happens to be very good. The close focusing ability is nice advantage to have in the field and supposedly the floating element design improves the performance at those distances. The front element is bigger at 72mm, if that matters to you. Actually, the entire lens is a bit bulky by comparison. It does have quite a lot of CA though. I don't shoot with 135mms too much so all I have is old samples. Here's one example I posted a while back: http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-series-1-2-3-135mm-t42673,start,15.html

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

To me, that level of CA is unnacceptable. My copy had bad CA until closed to 5.6, but also, it was very soft until 5.6, and even then, wasn't as sharp as most other 135s. Moleman's looks quite a lot sharper than mine. Still, I'd take a smaller, lighter and cheaper 2.8/135 that didn't have the terrible CA issues. This is another reason why I suggest trying before buying with this lens, it's big and heavy and that factor combined with the IQ issues some copies have can be a deal breaker. I mean, if you need to close the Vivitar to f4 to get good performance, there's no sense in carrying all that extra size and weight and you might as well just use any of the many excellent 3.5/135s that are much smaller and weigh much less.

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

My Vivitar S1 135/2.3 is sharp. But it does have a lot of CA as others mentioned. Doesn't bother me though.

Also, when I got my lens, its rear element was covered with haze. I had to remove the mount and clean the rear element (easy!), then the lens gained quite a lot of contrast. I posted before and after pics somewhere on this forum.

DR.JUAN · Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661

Both of them have strong CA.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Pass both, this is my opinion too and buy a CZJ Sonnar 135mm for less.

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Probably the Canon FL or FD 2.5/135 and Konica 2.5/135 are safer purchases, but that is if the OP's camera can mount them. The Canon is pretty common on ebay and not expensive.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

This is from my S1 wide open at f/2.3

This too...

This at f/4 or 5.6

SonicScot · Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:18 pm Post subject:

There's nothing wrong with Woodrim's examples Shocked

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

You are correct, Attila. I have never said the lens was without CA. Same for the 200/3, which remains my favorite in that range. The pictures had no CA correction in post processing, although I used to do it regularly with my Sony A200. Using the A200, CA was present from both lenses, but since it is so easy to correct and the lens' offered such good IQ otherwise, I put up with it. As I have said before, the Sony NEX-5N has been a tremendous tool in that all of my lenses perform better. The NEX-5N has internal CA control, and that is responsible for the near elimination of CA from virtually all of my lenses. But even more than that, I never got the quality you see above from my A200. I thought the 135mm and 200mm lenses were unacceptably soft until I saw the results from the NEX. I now believe my other sensor just wasn't up to the task since a sensor won't make an image any better than what the lens gives it to work with, but the sensor CAN degrade the image. So the moral of this story is that all things aren't equal - a recommended lens can give different results depending on both the camera and the photographer; I think less so copy variation.

Here's a crop from the bird and CA shot. Minimal CA, yet very good sharpness considering wide open at f/2.3.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

My conclusion was same, CA is not so critical faulty and NEX makes many lens to way better than previous cameras like 4/3 or m4/3 older models.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4071 Location: Switzerland

deleted - erroreneous posting!

Sorry