Nikon MF 70-210 Series E x Vivitar MF 70-210 Series 1

[obede]

Hi, dear

 

What lens is better? Nikon MF 70-210 Series E or Vivitar MF 70-210

Series 1 (22927787) with Macro made by Kiron? Why?

 

Thank you very much

 

Obede

Brazil

[jv1]

In that budget, consider an even cheaper Nikon MF 75-150 Series E (constant f/3.5 maximum aperture), it's a great lens, it's range is somewhat more limited but the quality is amazing, especially for that price!

 

If you're set on either of the two mentioned above, go for the Nikon, you won't regret it... The Vivitar is probably much less in quality, plus a macro feature on a cheap zoomlens is completely worthless, believe me!

[steve_dawson1]

The old Vivitar Series 1 lenses were not 'cheap zooms'. They were very expensive, and an attempt to launch a premium range. That said, I've no idea whether the macro mode has any value or not.

[albert_smith]

Back in the 1980s, I bought the 70-210 Series 1 f/2.8-4 zoom based on the very good test results it got in several of the photo magazines of that time, and also based on the reputation of the previous f/3.5 versions.

 

The lens was first class as far as the mechanical feel and function was concerned, very solid, very precise. The optical performance was very good. I shot mine wide-open very often with good results and at a stop or two down ir was very sharp and contrasty.

 

Just from curiosity, I did a side-by-side test against my father's 70-210 Series E Nikon lens, and I found the Vivitar pretty much the equal on-film in non-scientic comparison of slides shot with both lenses. The Vivitar had a more solid feel over the Nikon lens, at least my example versus my father's lens.

 

There is one important factor that made me quit the Vivitar... it focuses in the wrong direction. My other lenses are all true Nikkors, and it was an effortless thought process to rack those lenses to infinity or close-up as needed. To make manual focus work in fast changing situations, you have to react without thinking. I found myself instictivly rotating the Vivitar in the wrong direction, and missed shots because I was slow to focus. If I used the lens for some time, I got use to it, and then I had to re-learn the Nikkors after switching back.

 

The Vivitar was optically good, but the mechaical operation made me go back to all Nikkors.

[lex_jenkins]

The Vivitar Series 1 zooms were sometimes better than most other zooms available from any manufacturer at the time, and they remain very good lenses. Vivitar helped legitimize zooms as tools for "serious" photographers.

 

Nikon's E series was, in part, a response to this encroachment. How successful it was, I don't know. I've seen some Series E lenses that appeared to be well made while others looked and felt cheap.

 

Given the examples you've specified, I'd be surprised if there was any significant optical difference between the two. Series 1 zooms made by Kino (later operating independently as Kiron) were among the best, if not the best, Vivitars.

 

The philosophy of Vivitar at the peak of the Series 1 days was to design a lens to maximum standards. Vivitar wasn't a manufacturer - they designed the lenses and submitted the specs to third party makers, some of which were and are virtually anonymous.

 

After the design phase and cost estimations came in Vivitar would decide which compromises could be accepted to maintain the integrity of the lens while keeping costs down - remember, they had to compete with the big name camera makers on a different level. This often involved making variable aperture rather than non-variable aperture zooms. Or it might involve making the lens a non-variable aperture type of f/3.5 or f/4.

 

In some latter cases, such as the popular 100/3.5 macro, it appears the compromises Vivitar chose to make were in terms of build quality rather than sacrificing optical quality. While I'm skeptical about that particular decision, Vivitar certain is up against an entirely different market compared with 20 years ago. Back then camera manufacturers hadn't yet put a lot of emphasis on designing top quality zooms, so Vivitar didn't have much real competition. Now it appears that Nikon, Canon and others have put a lot of effort into designing zooms of top optical quality. By legitimizing zooms as a tool of serious photographers, Vivitar may have undermined it's own footing in the market.

 

There were variations of the 70-210, such as my variable maximum aperture f/2.8-4 made by Komine which offers true close focusing rather than a special "macro" mode that involves pressing a button and twisting a ring. Also, my version of this lens close focuses at the long end, from around 150-200mm, where it's actually useful. Many "macro" zooms will close focus only at the wide end, a feature of dubious value since it allows less working room and tends to be compromised by barrel distortion and field curvature.

 

I've owned a few Series 1 zooms in various mounts and they were uniformly very good and well made. If anything, they're a bit heavier than I'd like. My 70-210/2.8-4 Series 1 is almost as heavy as an 80-200/2.8 Nikkor.

[cooper8168]

I don't have near the historical knowledge that others here do and I can't speak about the

Vivitar lenses as I've never owned one. However, I second what Jonas said - I bought a

75-150mm

Series E based on recommendations here and elsewhere and am very pleased with the

results. I think I paid $130 for lens, making it arguably one of the best purchases, cost-to-

value, that I have ever made.

[bwcombs]

I used the Vivitar lens only once, and was happy with the results.

I owned the Nikon 70-210mm and was happy with it. It did end

up with loose zoom syndrom. But it was a very nice lens (on an

EM, FG, F3 HP and later on my D70).

 

The 75-150 E is a better lens I think. It was a bit shorter and

lighter, and seemed a little sharper when shot wide open.

 

All of the E Series lenses were underestimated in my opinion.

While they did not have the full metal jacket quality of the older

and more established Nikon lenses, they were and continue to

be awfully good quality for the price.

 

I sold all of my E Series and other Nikon MF lenses to help

defray the cost of DSLR disease. Then, this fall, my son needed

a manual body and lens for a college photography class. I had

the body, but no lens (other than my AF lenses). So I picked up a

50mm f/1.8 E for $19. Yes, nineteen dollars. What a deal.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Regarding Viv S-1 glass. There are numerous (8) Series 1, 70-210 lenses. However, for the sake of discussion, we will deal with the first five. The 4th & 5th editions are nothing to seriously consider, so we will concentrate on the first three editions, which are the good one's. The 4th & 5th editions are also 2.8-4 variable aperture model's, but lacking in construction quality (Cosina built). Due to the fact that the third one is a variable aperture lens, (2.8-4) it will be somewhat sharper than a fixed aperture lenses. It is much easier to design and build a quality variable aperture lens.

The first edition was designed by Vivitar (Ellis Betensky had a hand in it) and built by Kiron. (67mm filter-macro engagement collar)) It is a professional caliber lens, with a 1:2 macro feature built into it. It was the first zoom, designed with the aid of computers, that truly rivaled the OEM lenses of the time. That was in "76." It is a very high quality zoom, that will deliver professional quality results.

 

The second edition (my personal favorite) was built by Tokina, per, Vivitars specs. It too, is a fixed 3.5 aperture, but smaller, lighter and sharper. (62mm filter size). I really like it because of the fixed 3.5 aperture which is nice for focusing in dim light and long range flash work. However, not a true macro, 1:4 life size. However, it deliver's extremely good results!

 

The third edition was made by Komine, and like the first two, is very well built. It is a 2.8-4 variable aperture lens, and the sharpest of the bunch. It has 1:2.5 life size macro from 100-210mm's, with a working distance of about two feet. Which can be quite useful,too prevent your own shadow from falling onto the subject, or when shooting fractious crittures. (Rattlesnakes) Been there, done that. Can you see a discernible difference in slides taken with either one of them? Probably not! Don't get caught up in bench tests. Any of the first three editions will give you professional-publishable images. I really like this lens, and in time, may become my favorite.

 

Personally, I recommend the second or third edition of the line. I have and use all three of the first editions, and can highly recommend any one of them. Superb optics and construction.

 

Also, the Kiron 70-210 f/4, is an excellent performer that deliver's professional caliber results.

 

 

Obede, the very good Nikon E 75-150, was made by Kiron, for Nikon, per Nikon's specs. The Kiron and Vivitar versions are also very good.

 

K

[Brian Carter]

As I have none of them in front of me, how does one tell the difference between the 3rd edition 2.8-4 (2.8-3.8?) and the subsequent 2 editions? Are the makers names on them somewhere?

Thnak you/Brian

[xwxobs]

You can check here for the manufacturer. I haven't seen any direct comparisons between the different subcontractors versions...

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/VivLensManuf.htm

 

Kevin