Vivitar Series 1 200mm f3 & 135mm f2.3 any users?

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

Anyone out there used these lenses and have any comments on build quality and

image quality?

 

Thanks Steve.

[tommyinca]

My 2 cents; I have a 135/2.3. It has very good portrait characteristics. Just a tad soft wide open (but in a good way) and sharpen up quickly when stop down a little. It is a keeper.

[david_eicher]

I still use a F 3.5 series one 80-200 zoom, but for my old Minolta film cameras. Great lens.

[User_502260]

I have the 135 in Konica AR and Nikon AI mounts. It's a very nice lens. It focuses down to 3 feet and the extra speed makes focusing it easier. I haven't noticed that my samples are particularly soft wide open but this is something which would have to be tested on a tripod and not hand held at a slow speed in low light. The depth of field at f/2.3 is very shallow. With the exception of some special purpose lenses like process lenses or micro lenses all very fast lenses are less sharp wide open then closed down a little. This would be true of the 135/2 Nikkor, the 135/2 Canon FD and the 135/2 Rokkor too.

 

The 200/3 is also very nice. I have this lens for Konica AR and M42. I must have paid about $15 for the M42 model because the seller listed it as an Alpa lens. There were two Alpa models which were actually made by Chinon and which had M42 mounts. The 200/3 focuses down to 4 feet. This is very close for a 200 and can be useful for times when you need to get a close view of a subject but can't get pysically close to it. Both lenses have excellent build quality and are capable of excellent image quality too.

[tim_franklin]

Send a message to Roger Hicks. I believe he owns both these lenses.

[User_502260]

Make that "than closed down.."

[w. shinn ii]

I have a Vivitar 200mm f:3 lens AI-S version circa mid-1970's. This was the poor man's 180mm f:2.8 Nikkor. The lens had a great reputation back in those days for sharp, contrasty and ability to focus close. My only critism of it, as I remember, was the focusing was in the opposite the Nikkor lenses. Since I didn't use telephoto lenses very much, this was hard to get used to.

[waltshoe]

I had the Vivitar 200mm f:3 for many years, and it was a really sweet lens. I used it for macro a lot; with a tube you could really get in there. Very solid build. I hated to sell it, but it was a screw mount, and I went to the Pentax K mount.

[ashleypomeroy]

<p>"Not many" is the answer. I recently got hold of a Vivitar 200mm f/3 and I've been having a go with it, mounted on a 5D MkII with a Nikon-EOS adapter. As per the above it's chunky, heavy, short, focuses very closely, has a built-in lens hood. Most chaps on the internet confuse it with the 200mm f/3.5, because most chaps on the internet are easily confused.</p>

<p>The bokeh is quite something. Very busy, grainy, but I quite like the effect. Here's a sample shot with the aforementioned arrangement:<br>

<img src="http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9886/img6927800.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>On the other hand, if you right up close and use the close focus ability, the background mushes out quite nicely. On the other, other hand, at f/3, 200mm, four feet, the depth of field is tiny, and you're manually focusing a heavy lens.</p>

<p>Sharp? Not a bit of it. The sample looks sharp because I've sized it down from twenty-one megapixels. At f/3 there's a bit of CA and a lot of purple fringing, and it's not sharp at all. Almost no vignetting though. Doesn't get much better at f/4; does get better at f/5.6 but you don't want a 200mm f/5.6, do you?</p>

<p>It makes me wonder; why didn't Vivitar just lie, and call it a 200mm f/2.9? Nobody wants an f/3 lens. Or perhaps they <em>did </em>lie, and it's actually an f/3.2. Dunno.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ashley, that busy bokeh is very similar to that of my 70-210/2.8-4 Vivitar Series 1. Generally it's noticeable only with daylight photos featuring out of focus foliage. Overall a good, versatile lens when used within its sweet spot.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"It makes me wonder; why didn't Vivitar just lie, and call it a 200mm f/2.9? Nobody wants an f/3 lens..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />One of the minor controversies of that era - occasionally discussed in Modern and Pop Photo magazines - was the discrepancy between nominal and actual maximum apertures. This is just a wild guess, but Vivitar might have decided to try the full disclosure route and list the actual, measured maximum aperture rather than fudge toward an inaccurate but more popularly recognized nominal maximum aperture. Soligor also marketed a few of their upper tier C/D lenses with out of the ordinary maximum apertures. Perhaps a savvy marketing consultant persuaded them this practice might lend an aura of greater credibility with buyers. I'm not sure it helped Soligor tho'. While the Vivitar Series 1 lenses I've owned or used were very good performers I haven't yet found a Soligor C/D lens that matched the Vivitars.</p>

[ashleypomeroy]

<p>For the heck of it, and because I could, and the weather was nice, and so forth, I decided to use this very lens to photograph an actual person, viz:<br>

<img src="http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3351/img7856800.jpg" alt="" /><br>

The lovely Hannah Ashlea there - she almost has the same name as me, except that it's spelled differently and has Hannah in front of it. You have no idea how long it took me to Photoshop those freckles in.</p>

<p>Anyway, as a portrait lens for portraits rather than test charts it's a lot better. The purple fringing is less obvious with low-contrast subjects - such as a human being - and the centre sharpess is, if not outstanding, or even particularly good, at least not awful. That picture was shot with a full-frame 5D MkII with no cropping at all, at f/3, and there's very little vignetting. The background is far enough away that it's mush.</p>

[ashleypomeroy]

<p>Same lens, same model - freckles don't show in infrared - but mounted on an infrared 10D:<br>

<img src="http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/4717/crw3302800.jpg" alt="" /><br>

It's a bit too long for comfort on an APS-C camera; the 135mm f/2.3 would be a pretty good APS-C analogue of the 200mm f/3 on a full-frame camera, although I suspect it would be hard to tell them apart in the camera bag!</p>