vivitar 70-210 3.5 vs canon 70-210 4

<p>I already own the canon version of the lens and so far am happy with though I haven't run a bunch of film through it yet as I've been waiting to get my darkroom setup which I have finally done. I'm able to get a vivitar version of the lens for under 30. from the looks of it according to this site <a href="http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm">http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm</a> the version I'm looking to buy is the tokina version. how do the canon and the vivitar lenses compare to one another though?</p>

<p>Dear Tracy,<br>

I had the Vivitar 70-210/3.5, the first one with macro option 1:2.<br>

This was the very left one from the picture of your link. For me it was not as sharp as my Canon 80-200/4 (non L), it was heavy, big and a picture made with it was sometime a bit blueish. The macro function is working when the lens is in 70 mm setting and the distance was very close to the subject, sometimes it was very hard to use because the shadow it created.<br>

Finally I sold it and held the Canon one. <br>

All the best,<br>

Peter</p>

<p>Tracy, if you can find an FD 80-200/4 L that's within your budget, it's the one to get. It's by far the best FD zoom in its focal length range.</p>

<p>I'm hesitant to sink a lot of money into this camera at this point as it is more or less my fun camera and I would rather get a camera that has lenses that are interchangable with my EOS based camera like the pentax, nikon, olympus or something instead. plus my PC socket and hot shoe are not functioning so it is really limiting with this camera. so doubtfull at this point I would buy the L though I do at least thank you for bringing it up. wouldn't mind getting my hand on one if I could as long as it's cheap enough though as I don't mind having a couple lenses as it's still something to use and if nothing else these things are built like a brick so when my daughter is old enough to use the camera she can. just have to watch her make sure the camera doesn't break her as I doubt she will break the camera.</p>

<p>the 70-210 has that same macro function though I haven't had to worry about shadowing yet as I don't believe it gets that close to the object unless the light is jst right. you bring up the 80-200 non L though in comparison and I must say I don't know much about that lens. it is ia two touch lens isn't it? any idea how that compares to the 70-210 canon?</p>

<p>Dear Tracy,<br>

I had three FD cca 70/80-200/210 lenses. Tokina RMC 80-200/4, which was nothing spectacular, but very compact. The V1 mentioned above, was definitely better, but with the few cons, I mentioned.<br>

The remaining Canon 80-200/4 is fine for me, it is a two touch zoom with very close focusing minimum point (app. 1 meter). It was said to be very close or equal in IQ to the newer 70/210/4, but I have not compared them myself.<br>

On the other hand I have heard/read from everywhere, that the 80-200/4L is the lens what you need if you want the best in this range. Unfortunately I never have had 80-200/4L and since now having the non L version, which is decent enough to me, I do not intend to buy the L version. Maybe if I find a really cheap one I could be tempted ...<br>

Cheers,<br>

Peter</p>

<p>Stick with your Canon FD zoom over the third parties. It really is more practical to get Nikon lenses for your EOS, other than the stopped down metering, which never bothered me much.</p>

<p>Oddly enough the Canon FD 80-200/4 L is one of those lenses that is almost worth buying an FD body for. Nikon has never made an equivalent lens, even today. At about $250 USD it is cheap enough to buy a $100 USD body for and still be cheaper than the Canon EF 70-200/4 L. The 80-200/4 L clearly beat my two 200/2.8s and my 85/1.8, and was not put to shame by my 300/2.8 Fluorite.</p>

<p>If you are lucky you might find one for $150 USD. The only other lens that I'd consider is the Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF, the first two versions are in the $300-450 range though. </p>

<p>I have version 3 of the Series 1 Vivitar, generally regarded as the sharpest one of the bunch. Below is a sample of its capability vis-à-vis the Canon L, with the Vivitar sample appearing first. Other tests produced similar results. I could not find a single aperture or focal length where the Vivitar was superior.</p><div></div>

<p>Talkative enough.<br>

I have not seen such a big difference, but I have checked the first version against the normal Canon 80-200/4 zoom and it still have persuaded me.</p>

<p>I have the vivitar series 1 70-210 f3.5. I got it for 9.99 on ebay less shipping. It is definitely a heavy but well made lens. I am satisfied with its performance and haven`t seen any `bluish`cast as someone else mentioned. I have a few fd pics in my portfolio. I am satisfied with its performance. I did some macro flowers that are not put up here but performance was good here too. If you can get it at a good price, its well worth picking up, you won`t be sorry.</p>

<p>Thanks Howard, a photo says a thousand words..now I know what my next FD lens should be!</p>

Howard? Version 3 is not the sharpest vivitar. Version 1 is. Correction.

<blockquote>

<p>Howard? Version 3 is not the sharpest vivitar. Version 1 is. Correction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess it depends on your source of information. The first post contains a link to a page with this table:<br>

 

<table border="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="7">

<h4><em>RESOLUTION (lpm)</em></h4>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td> </td>

<td colspan="2">Version 1</td>

<td colspan="2">Version 2</td>

<td colspan="2">Version 3</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > <em>Aperture</em></td>

<td ><em>Center</em></td>

<td ><em>Corner</em></td>

<td ><em>Center</em></td>

<td ><em>Corner</em></td>

<td ><em>Center</em></td>

<td ><em>Corner</em></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td> </td>

<td colspan="6">At 70mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > f/2.8 (3.5)</td>

<td >44</td>

<td >35</td>

<td >48</td>

<td >38</td>

<td >49</td>

<td >39</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > f/8</td>

<td >62</td>

<td >44</td>

<td >60</td>

<td >48</td>

<td >69</td>

<td >62</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td> </td>

<td colspan="6">At 210mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > f/3.5 (4.0)</td>

<td >39</td>

<td >25</td>

<td >44</td>

<td >35</td>

<td >45</td>

<td >40</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > f/8</td>

<td >55</td>

<td >31</td>

<td >55</td>

<td >39</td>

<td >56</td>

<td >45</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td colspan="7">

<h4><em>CONTRAST (at 30 lpm)</em></h4>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td> </td>

<td colspan="2">Version 1</td>

<td colspan="2">Version 2</td>

<td colspan="2">Version 3</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > <em>Aperture</em></td>

<td ><em>Center</em></td>

<td ><em>Corner</em></td>

<td ><em>Center</em></td>

<td ><em>Corner</em></td>

<td ><em>Center</em></td>

<td ><em>Corner</em></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td> </td>

<td colspan="6">At 70mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > f/2.8 (3.5)</td>

<td >43</td>

<td >28</td>

<td >55</td>

<td >45</td>

<td >53</td>

<td >25</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > f/8</td>

<td >58</td>

<td >32</td>

<td >67</td>

<td >54</td>

<td >70</td>

<td >44</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td> </td>

<td colspan="6">At 210mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > f/3.5 (4.0)</td>

<td >27</td>

<td >16</td>

<td >38</td>

<td >26</td>

<td >58</td>

<td >29</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td > f/8</td>

<td >52</td>

<td >27</td>

<td >40</td>

<td >34</td>

<td >66</td>

<td >43</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<br>

I interpret this as evidence that version 3 is the sharpest. I've also seen similar claims on other websites. At any rate, I doubt that any of the versions will compete with the Canon L.</p>

I read that version 1 to 3 are the ones to get, being sharpest. But I don`t doubt that the canon L series is sharpest. But still, pricewise, the vivitar is good bang for the buck and easier to come buy. I will keep my eye out for a canon L though. Thanks for this.

Marie