24mm f2 - Vivitar Kiron vs Vivitar Komine

<p>I have seen two Vivitar 24mm f2 designs available for FD. One is made by Kiron and looks like it has the focusing ring fairly close to the front filter ring. The other is made by Komine and looks like it has a focusing ring that is set well back from the front element ... the lens looks like it has longer barrel extending well forward from the focus ring. </p>

<p>These actually look like different designs with different formulas. Does anyone have information on the relative performance and reputations of these two lenses?</p>

<p>I have both of these lenses. The Vivitar 24/2 (22XXX...) almost always has oil on the aperture blades. The lens has a floating element design and is very difficult to service. The person who was finally able to repair this lens for me was Ken Ruth at Photography On Bald Mountain in Davenport, CA. The Vivitar 28/2 (22XXX...) also has the oil problem. The Komine made 24/2 rarely has oil on the blades. I find that the Komine made lens is better overall, lighter and smaller. If you intend to use these lenses wide open and at distances nearer than infinity I think you will find the Kino made lens sharper. If you stop them down a little then they are both good and the Komine made lens might even be a little sharper. The Kino made lens is sometimes misdiagnosed as having a weak or bad aperture stop down spring if it has the oil problem. After all the work that went into getting my Kino made 24/2 working, and after a few years, there is some oil on the aperture blades again.<br>

If you can afford a 24/2 New FD lens that might be a better choice. Many posters in this forum consider this to be Canon's best 24mm FD lens. My only Canon 24 is an early FD SSC. Even though the design is from the early 1970s I find it to be quite good. The problem with the 24/2.8 FD SSC is that most of them seem to have separation in the rear element group. This was an early floating element design and can be difficult to repair. Ken Ruth repaired one of these for me several years ago and it still works very well. The 24/2.8 Vivitar Fixed Mount (37XXX...) made by Tokina is a decent performer amd seems to have the same optical design as the 24/2.8 Vivitar TX lens. </p>

<p>I will echo Jeff's point on the Canon 24 F2. This is a great lens and probably the best FD wide angle that I use. I do not have the 14mm or the 24 F1.4 but I have shot both and the 24 F2 performance is up with the F1.4 lens. If you can find one get it.</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses. I have read very good things about the Komine manufacturing and design outfit as a whole, though not about these lenses specifically. The oil problem sounds like it could become very frustrating. If the sharpness difference is not that pronounced, I will probably lean towards the Komine.</p>

<p>Apparently the Vivitar Series 1 lenses were designed by a U.S. firm with roots in Perkin-Elmer and were innovative and top-notch. I know these 24's were not Series 1's, but I am wondering if their designs did not have similar roots. Actually, what was it that made a lens desing qualify for the Series 1 premium designation? Apparently Vivitar didn't set out to design a Series 1 ... it designed a couple of 28's, for example, and had them do a shoot-out to see which would get the Series 1 designation. </p>

<p>The Canon 24mm f2 does have an excellent reputation. I'm not sure it focuses as close as either of the Vivitar optics though ...</p>

<p>If you can find a 5mm Canon FL extension tube that should get your wide angles a little closer. You will have to set the aperture manually if you use one. One reason lenses don't focus closer is that they are not all designed to perform well that close. If you were to use a 24/2.8 FD SSC at its closest focusing distance, its floating element design would provide some correction. If you used the same lens and set it at infinity with an extension tube, the performance would not be as good. There is plenty of information floating around about the Vivitar Series 1 lenses. It seems logical that when more than one company was designing a prototype, Vivitar compared them. I have read here that there are some 90/2.5 Vivitar macro lenses which were prototypes and which have the 22 (Kino) designation even though the final product has the 37 (Tokina) designation. I have two examples of the Vivitar 28-85/2.8-3.8 Auto Variable Focusing. One is in K mount and the other in Minolta mount. It looks like a Kiron model which was sold later. Some people think this lens was a prototype for a Series 1 design and that the 28-90/2.8-3.5 Series one design was chosen instead. Both of these are very good lenses. I have he 28-90 in several mounts too. The 28mm f/1.9 Vivitar Series 1 has a sophisticated floating element design and is also very well made. Some people consider it to be very good while others are less excited about its performance wide open. I have the lens in M42 and Minolta mounts and like both of them. This was the widest Series 1 manual focus single focal length lens offered. Vivitar had a 28/2 22 lens and a 28/2 28 lens. The 22 amost always has the oil problem. The 28 lens rarely has the oil problem. Both lenses are sharp. In this case I also prefer the 28 model. One of my 22 28s is in K mount and the oil problem has not returned. Kino sold its own 24/2 and 28/2 lenses. These seem heavier and better made than the 22 Vivitar counterparts. I have the 28/2 Kiron in Konica, Minolta and Canon mounts. It's an excellent lens. Years ago I tested it against the 28/1.8 Konica UC Hexanon using Panatomic-X. The lenses were, opticaly, neck and neck. The lower cost and decent performance of the 28/2 Vivitar 22 lens made the 28/1.9 Series 1 model less attractive to most buyers. The speed of the f/1.9 model was no longer such a novelty. I hoped that there would be a fast 35mm Series 1 lens but Vivitar never sold one. Their 35/1.9 Fixed Mount (28) was quite good and I have it in several mounts. </p>

<p>I used a Kiron 24/2 for six years in the 80's and it's resolution, contrast and colour rendition are not up to levels achieved by Canon. I never did compare it to a Canon 24mm lens but my 17/4, and 35/2 were vastly superior as are my current Nikon 14/2.8 and Nikon 28/2.8 AIS lenses. I too would definitely go for a Canon 24/2 or 24/2.8. keh.com has some excellent deals on the f2.8.</p>

<p>If close focus is a major issue perhaps the 20/2.8 may help.</p>

<p>John, I find that the 24 f2 canon is a lot better than the 17 f4 and slightly better than the 35 f2</p>

<p>I just got the Vivitar/Kino (#22xxx) 24/2, and (as warned) it had oil on the diaphragm blades. However, I was able to clean them by just removing the rear lens mount and the rear group, and cleaning them with a cotton swab and naptha (lighter fluid). Yes, I got the next element dirty, but it was easy enough to clean up.<br>

I'll probably have to do this once a year a few times around. But, a nice deal for $93.</p>

 

I have both the Kiron and the Komine model. I prefer the Komine.