Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Vivitar Series 1 135mm F2.3 VMC on A7R II
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was curious, so I took a look on eBay just now for 135mm f/2 lenses, and got a couple hits, both Canon FD and Nikon 135/2's. Prices are roughly in the same ballpark as the Vivitar S1. So this got me to wondering which I'd prefer . . . I think I'd lean more toward the Canon or Nikon over the Vivitar S1. But I'm also wondering how they compare to the S1 in terms of optical performance. Anyone here have any experience comparing one of these others against the S1 135mm?

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I am curious.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I was curious, so I took a look on eBay just now for 135mm f/2 lenses, and got a couple hits, both Canon FD and Nikon 135/2's. Prices are roughly in the same ballpark as the Vivitar S1. So this got me to wondering which I'd prefer . . . I think I'd lean more toward the Canon or Nikon over the Vivitar S1. But I'm also wondering how they compare to the S1 in terms of optical performance. Anyone here have any experience comparing one of these others against the S1 135mm?

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I am curious.

Get a used Samyang for about $300 if you want a sharp lens with low CA. The Vivitar, which is a budget lens with excellent build quality, can be found for $50 to $60 only.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
I was curious, so I took a look on eBay just now for 135mm f/2 lenses, and got a couple hits, both Canon FD and Nikon 135/2's. Prices are roughly in the same ballpark as the Vivitar S1. So this got me to wondering which I'd prefer . . . I think I'd lean more toward the Canon or Nikon over the Vivitar S1. But I'm also wondering how they compare to the S1 in terms of optical performance. Anyone here have any experience comparing one of these others against the S1 135mm?

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I am curious.

Get a used Samyang for about $300 if you want a sharp lens with low CA. The Vivitar, which is a budget lens with excellent build quality, can be found for $50 to $60 only.


That used Samyang price is more than what clean used Canon and Nikon 135/2's are selling for on eBay right now. And the Vivitar S1 135 -- its prices are MUCH higher than $50-60 on eBay as well.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I was curious, so I took a look on eBay just now for 135mm f/2 lenses, and got a couple hits, both Canon FD and Nikon 135/2's. Prices are roughly in the same ballpark as the Vivitar S1. So this got me to wondering which I'd prefer . . . I think I'd lean more toward the Canon or Nikon over the Vivitar S1. But I'm also wondering how they compare to the S1 in terms of optical performance. Anyone here have any experience comparing one of these others against the S1 135mm?

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I am curious.


I've seen stuff with the Nikon 135mm f/2--it too is great lens. I think most people, if for no other reason than they are OEM, would lean to the Canon or Nikon. For me, I've always loved the underdog, in all walks of life--kind of an American thing, I think. Of course, I own many, many Nikon lenses too, but this Vivitar really does bring home the IQ. I should note, all my shots were Raw, which I processed to my personal taste. The original RAWs have dead-on colors.

notheworthy IMO:
Viv has the built in hood
Viv has half-stop detents


Here are some pics of the one I own, with a Wide Open shot @ distance


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5 WIDE OPEN


#6


#7


PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just stumbled on this relatively old thread when searching for info on the Vivitar 135mm f2.3. I have known about this lens for a while and have always kept my eyes open for one at a reasonable price. And yesterday I found one locally here in South Australia. What's more it is in near mint condition and so far (one day in) I have been quite impressed with its performance and handling. Later today I will take it out for a "run" to see how it really performs. (I also found a 135mm f2.8 Close Focus a few years back and can confirm it is an excellent performer too.)

But one thing I am curious about is the optical design of the 135mm f2.3. It is 6 elements in 6 groups and clearly not a planar. At first I thought it to possibly be a Xenotar designbut that does not seem to be the case either. At least not strictly a Xenotar. It might be what could be regarded as a Xenotar derivative as it has an extra lens element to provide additional correction (according to one Vivitar brochure I read - which however was silent on the nature of the basic design.) But even then I do not really think this is so.

The optical design is depicted in this link. http://makingnottaking.blogspot.com/2010/03/vivitar-series-1-135mm-f23.html

Can anyone inform me please?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
yoyomaoz wrote:
I just stumbled on this relatively old thread when searching for info on the Vivitar 135mm f2.3. I have known about this lens for a while and have always kept my eyes open for one at a reasonable price. And yesterday I found one locally here in South Australia. What's more it is in near mint condition and so far (one day in) I have been quite impressed with its performance and handling. Later today I will take it out for a "run" to see how it really performs. (I also found a 135mm f2.8 Close Focus a few years back and can confirm it is an excellent performer too.)

But one thing I am curious about is the optical design of the 135mm f2.3. It is 6 elements in 6 groups and clearly not a planar. At first I thought it to possibly be a Xenotar designbut that does not seem to be the case either. At least not strictly a Xenotar. It might be what could be regarded as a Xenotar derivative as it has an extra lens element to provide additional correction (according to one Vivitar brochure I read - which however was silent on the nature of the basic design.) But even then I do not really think this is so.

The optical design is depicted in this link. http://makingnottaking.blogspot.com/2010/03/vivitar-series-1-135mm-f23.html

Can anyone inform me please?


Based on the 3 non kitted front elements one could argue Ultron design and not Xenotar if it had to fit the double gauss category.
However the front elements design are more like an Ernostar as in many faster teles of that period, the rear is less conventional but certainly not double gauss, the group where the Xenotar belongs to. If the front had kitted groups it could be called a Sonnar design, in the Vivitar the separation acts as a Luftlinse like in more Ernostar designs. All IMHO.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
yoyomaoz wrote:
I just stumbled on this relatively old thread when searching for info on the Vivitar 135mm f2.3. I have known about this lens for a while and have always kept my eyes open for one at a reasonable price. And yesterday I found one locally here in South Australia. What's more it is in near mint condition and so far (one day in) I have been quite impressed with its performance and handling. Later today I will take it out for a "run" to see how it really performs. (I also found a 135mm f2.8 Close Focus a few years back and can confirm it is an excellent performer too.)

But one thing I am curious about is the optical design of the 135mm f2.3. It is 6 elements in 6 groups and clearly not a planar. At first I thought it to possibly be a Xenotar designbut that does not seem to be the case either. At least not strictly a Xenotar. It might be what could be regarded as a Xenotar derivative as it has an extra lens element to provide additional correction (according to one Vivitar brochure I read - which however was silent on the nature of the basic design.) But even then I do not really think this is so.

The optical design is depicted in this link. http://makingnottaking.blogspot.com/2010/03/vivitar-series-1-135mm-f23.html

Can anyone inform me please?


Based on the 3 non kitted front elements one could argue Ultron design and not Xenotar if it had to fit the double gauss category.
However the front elements design are more like an Ernostar as in many faster teles of that period, the rear is less conventional but certainly not double gauss, the group where the Xenotar belongs to. If the front had kitted groups it could be called a Sonnar design, in the Vivitar the separation acts as a Luftlinse like in more Ernostar designs. All IMHO.


Ernst that is pretty much what confuses me. I had meant to mention that to me too it bore certain similarities to the Ernostar but just could not figure it out as it was also quite different - it kind of breaks the mold and is an unusual design. In any event on my few snaps with it it seems to be a very good performer as befits its reputation. I iwll take some images over the next couple of days and post some here just for people's interest.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
yoyomaoz wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
yoyomaoz wrote:
I just stumbled on this relatively old thread when searching for info on the Vivitar 135mm f2.3. I have known about this lens for a while and have always kept my eyes open for one at a reasonable price. And yesterday I found one locally here in South Australia. What's more it is in near mint condition and so far (one day in) I have been quite impressed with its performance and handling. Later today I will take it out for a "run" to see how it really performs. (I also found a 135mm f2.8 Close Focus a few years back and can confirm it is an excellent performer too.)

But one thing I am curious about is the optical design of the 135mm f2.3. It is 6 elements in 6 groups and clearly not a planar. At first I thought it to possibly be a Xenotar designbut that does not seem to be the case either. At least not strictly a Xenotar. It might be what could be regarded as a Xenotar derivative as it has an extra lens element to provide additional correction (according to one Vivitar brochure I read - which however was silent on the nature of the basic design.) But even then I do not really think this is so.

The optical design is depicted in this link. http://makingnottaking.blogspot.com/2010/03/vivitar-series-1-135mm-f23.html

Can anyone inform me please?


Based on the 3 non kitted front elements one could argue Ultron design and not Xenotar if it had to fit the double gauss category.
However the front elements design are more like an Ernostar as in many faster teles of that period, the rear is less conventional but certainly not double gauss, the group where the Xenotar belongs to. If the front had kitted groups it could be called a Sonnar design, in the Vivitar the separation acts as a Luftlinse like in more Ernostar designs. All IMHO.


Ernst that is pretty much what confuses me. I had meant to mention that to me too it bore certain similarities to the Ernostar but just could not figure it out as it was also quite different - it kind of breaks the mold and is an unusual design. In any event on my few snaps with it it seems to be a very good performer as befits its reputation. I iwll take some images over the next couple of days and post some here just for people's interest.


Searching a bit further I am not that confused. The Ernostar design has often been used for 135mm and longer lenses for the 35mm film cameras. It still is in fact. When Vivitar was no longer just relabeling other manufacturers lenses but started with exclusive designs for the Series 1 lenses, the designers it hired also made use of computers and one of the innovative steps was the introduction of a floating element to improve the image quality from nearby to infinity. For both the 200mm 3.0 and the 135mm 2.3 it is the rear element that stays at a fixed distance from the lens/sensor and the rest of the elements move together. By that the focal length will change somewhat too when the lens is focused. For the 135mm 2.3 it was a first use of a floating element in a prime lens BTW so the lens is quite unique. If you deduct that floating element part of the design formed by the last two more or less identical but reversed lenses of the 135mm 2.3 from the total, you have a basic 4 element Ernostar design.
Like the 4 element Vivitar 135mm 2.8 lens diagram shown here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-auto-telephoto.html

Ernostar lens diagram:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ernostar_Lens_Design_Type1_DRP458499.jpg

Vivitar document on the first floating element primes:
http://allphotolenses.com/public/files/pdfs/07d266886bbb70b3e783cf28524640da.pdf

The more complex modern lens designs are harder to put in classical categories but this one is actually not that complex.

The Vivitar macro 90mm 2.5 has a similar fixed "floating element" at the rear.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
yoyomaoz wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
yoyomaoz wrote:
I just stumbled on this relatively old thread when searching for info on the Vivitar 135mm f2.3. I have known about this lens for a while and have always kept my eyes open for one at a reasonable price. And yesterday I found one locally here in South Australia. What's more it is in near mint condition and so far (one day in) I have been quite impressed with its performance and handling. Later today I will take it out for a "run" to see how it really performs. (I also found a 135mm f2.8 Close Focus a few years back and can confirm it is an excellent performer too.)

But one thing I am curious about is the optical design of the 135mm f2.3. It is 6 elements in 6 groups and clearly not a planar. At first I thought it to possibly be a Xenotar designbut that does not seem to be the case either. At least not strictly a Xenotar. It might be what could be regarded as a Xenotar derivative as it has an extra lens element to provide additional correction (according to one Vivitar brochure I read - which however was silent on the nature of the basic design.) But even then I do not really think this is so.

The optical design is depicted in this link. http://makingnottaking.blogspot.com/2010/03/vivitar-series-1-135mm-f23.html

Can anyone inform me please?


Based on the 3 non kitted front elements one could argue Ultron design and not Xenotar if it had to fit the double gauss category.
However the front elements design are more like an Ernostar as in many faster teles of that period, the rear is less conventional but certainly not double gauss, the group where the Xenotar belongs to. If the front had kitted groups it could be called a Sonnar design, in the Vivitar the separation acts as a Luftlinse like in more Ernostar designs. All IMHO.


Ernst that is pretty much what confuses me. I had meant to mention that to me too it bore certain similarities to the Ernostar but just could not figure it out as it was also quite different - it kind of breaks the mold and is an unusual design. In any event on my few snaps with it it seems to be a very good performer as befits its reputation. I iwll take some images over the next couple of days and post some here just for people's interest.


Searching a bit further I am not that confused. The Ernostar design has often been used for 135mm and longer lenses for the 35mm film cameras. It still is in fact. When Vivitar was no longer just relabeling other manufacturers lenses but started with exclusive designs for the Series 1 lenses, the designers it hired also made use of computers and one of the innovative steps was the introduction of a floating element to improve the image quality from nearby to infinity. For both the 200mm 3.0 and the 135mm 2.3 it is the rear element that stays at a fixed distance from the lens/sensor and the rest of the elements move together. By that the focal length will change somewhat too when the lens is focused. For the 135mm 2.3 it was a first use of a floating element in a prime lens BTW so the lens is quite unique. If you deduct that floating element part of the design formed by the last two more or less identical but reversed lenses of the 135mm 2.3 from the total, you have a basic 4 element Ernostar design.
Like the 4 element Vivitar 135mm 2.8 lens diagram shown here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-auto-telephoto.html

Ernostar lens diagram:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ernostar_Lens_Design_Type1_DRP458499.jpg

Vivitar document on the first floating element primes:
http://allphotolenses.com/public/files/pdfs/07d266886bbb70b3e783cf28524640da.pdf

The more complex modern lens designs are harder to put in classical categories but this one is actually not that complex.

The Vivitar macro 90mm 2.5 has a similar fixed "floating element" at the rear.


Thanks for this - very useful.

I have made a few images with the lens now and I have to say it is a performer and has damn nice bokeh too. (Bear in mind the following have been worked in Lightroom but they give the idea).

Examples:

Entranced by blur by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Bus Trip by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2