Vivitar Series 1 in comparison

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

H'mmm people forget that old lenses were made for film cameras....well I have many ordinary Vivitars (no series one) and would rate the worst that I own as "good" for resolution.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I think I was unlucky with mine, sadly.

Boomer Depp · Expire: 2011-12-04

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I don't, pretty rude actually.

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

Ian: My apologies, sort of. Let me first say that if I properly understood something that Attila said in another post, then I have the utmost respect for you on a personal level. My frustration came from trying to help you through your evaluation of the Series 1 135mm lens. I made some recommendations that apparently fell on deaf ears. No, I am not convinced that the lens you had was defective at all. I wish you could have handed it over to Lloydy (is that who it was?) who took your mediocre 28mm CLOSE FOCUS and achieved brilliant results. And that was another frustrating experience getting you to understand that the Close Focus was part of the proper name, not just a function of focus, and was different from the other 28mm Vivitars.

The Series 1 135mm is far from perfect, but when used properly considering its strengths and weaknesses, it will provide outstanding results. Your test shots, including the one you posted a few up from here, were designed to demonstrate the lens' weak points. I can assure you that I can also produce an equally poor picture from my version. In fact, I did - plenty of times - before I learned how to use it. I don't expect all lenses to perform the same in all circumstances, and I don't rate them exclusively on wide open performance.

I'll stop here for fear of further concussion, but I'm perfectly willing to explain more about your testing issues if you're open to listening.
------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Boomer, nice to see you back again.

Boomer Depp · Expire: 2011-12-04

Boomer Depp · Expire: 2011-12-04

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Sorry for taking offence.

I don't agree that the 135mm lens I had was tested by me to emphasise it's weaknesses, I used it more times than the samples I posted and it was incapable of producing a sharp image without horrid CA, I can't accept this was my fault as I have used at least 15 other 135mm lenses and never had similar issues.

I just had an awful copy, I think it's good to recognise that awful copies exist and I would recommend someone to test a copy of this lens before handing over money for it, just in case it's as bad as the one I had.

Same with the 3.5/70-210, Lloydy has a good copy, I had a bad copy. Mine was absolutely mint, like it had never been used, and I suspect that was because the owner tried it once, discovered it sucked and never used it again.

On the two 28s I had, they were identical apart from one said CF and the other didn't, they had similar serial numbers and had the same close focussing distance, so I reckon the only difference was the lettering. The copy I gave to Lloydy didn't do well on my NEX, it had lower contrast and washed out colours, sharpness was alright though. It performed differently for Lloydy, why that is I don't know, but I had a similar experience with another lens which sucked on the NEX but did fine on my friend's EOS 400D. The other copy I had of the 28 was just a dog on the NEX, I didn't try it on another camera.

I'm not disputing there are very good copies of the Vivitars, but I do believe there are issues with QC and therefore some bad copies too.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

In the late 60s-early 70s a real fashion for super fast lenses boomed. All the manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon
and released very fast lenses, especially tele. But unfortunately, many did only because a very fast lens would sell more,
while a slower lens would remain on the shop shelves. For this reason, lenses were released that were practically unuseable
wide open - the fast aperture was there as a marketing call, not much differently from the number of pixels in a digital camera today.
Buyers must be aware that in order to be sure to get a very fast lens that is also useable wide open, they'd better stay with the consolidated
brands: Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta (and maybe a few others I forget now).
These brands had a reputation that they could not afford to waste with unadequate products.
On the other hand, brands like Sigma, Tamron, Vivitar, Soligor, and the likes, were already known for providing low cost alternatives to the top brand lenses,
and they kept doing that with the super fast lenses too. This does not mean that every super fast lens they released is crap,
but it surely means that the risk of getting a poor super fast lens exists. So buyer should document himself very well, read reviews,
browse for forum opinions, before buying a super fast lens from a third party company.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I think the Vivitar 2.3/135 was designed as an answer to the super fast but crap 135mms that appeared earlier.

Clearly many people have great copies of it, so my experience isn't indicative of the possibilities with this lens, provided you get a good copy.

Mine was absolutely mint so I do wonder if it was used once or twice then never used again.

Maybe I got a 'Friday' lens?

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

I tried shortly a Vivitar 2.3/135 and wide open it behaved like yours: soft and plenty of CA.

I think the wisest way to use such a lens is to take advantage of the fast aperture for critical focusing, then stop it down for shooting.
Provided, of course, that it doesn't focus-shift too much. But f/2.3 is not that fast to be a likely focus shifter.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Copy variation is a likely factor in budget lenses, but I don't think so it's possible that the same lens design can range from excellent to crappy.
Most CA is removable in postwork, there are techniques for improving the apparent image quality, especially at web sizes...
so it's possible that the photos that you saw did speak more of the photographer's competence with photoshop than of the lens' quality.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Warning about trying is an excellent advice in any case.

Hatch · Joined: 19 Feb 2012 Posts: 30 Location: Netherlands

Don't know if it's been mentioned yet but the series 1 started out as Vivitar's topend series and they had some exceptional lenses.
They had a good thing going but blew it when they tried to cash in on that reputation when they released a lot of sub par lenses under the series 1 nomer and quality control went overboard.

Mine is a Q-DOS type.
All pictures I shot with it were out of focus.
I had some trouble focussing on the NEX 5 rear screen.

Now that I have a NEX 7 I'll try again.

Having seen these results from Atilla I'm looking forward to giving it a go.

http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-series-1-70-210mm-f28-f4-qdos-rare-3d-lens-t43011.html

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

Really wish I could use this for other than close up, but is not to be until I purchase a NEX. Nevertheless, I took it out into the yard for some close up fun. Series 1 90/2.5

Tedat · Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany

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

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Excellent macro shots. Is there much copy variation with the 90mm? I might be tempted to try one despite my prior horrific Vivitar experiences.

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

Ian: I don't think this lens would perform well for you. And it's expensive.

Tedat · Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07