[hinman]

I used to like the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 version 2 from Tokina but as others have mentioned, not all people like it and I find it weakest among the three versions in closeup. Among the first three Vivitar Series 1, I like the v2 from Tokina for its sharpness and it is easier to handle than the other as it is lighter and with a smaller size. If you can afford more, the v3 from Komine with the 'A' aperture is a better model to pursue if 'A' aperture is important to you. If you are on FILM gear, I will stick with the cheaper one as many old FILM bodies work well with M lenses in Av mode without the need of extra step in stop-down metering as needed in digital.

There are many zoom lens to choose from, the Vivitar Series 1 is one of those with more people bidding as it is more talked about. I have sold all of my Vivitar Series 1 zooms and replaced with Tamron Adaptall-2 zoom lens. The negative goes into the extra fee for the adaptall-2 PK-A adapter and it is quite costly. And the adapter is usually a pain to mount and dismount. But in my opinion, the Tamron adaptall-2 zoom lenses are better built with less zoom creep, and has better IQ in general, and I especially like the focusing ring in Tamron adaptall-2 zooms. The tamron adaptall-2 are not immune to PF and you have to search around for Tamron 70-210mm f/3.5 adaptall-2 19AH, Tamron 75-250mm f/3.8-4.5 adaptall-2 104A, Tamron 80-210mm adaptall-2 103, Tamron 60-300mm adaptall-2, etc. in Adaptall-2.com

Thanks,
Hin

---

Last edited by hinman; 02-02-2010 at 06:22 PM.

[Jewelltrail]

Lowell Goudge: if you want it, there is a 200mm F3.3 for free (you pay shipping) in the market place right now.

I wouldn't mind scooping that up--can you provide the link--thanks.

[whojammyflip]

Thanks, I am still not sure whether any of these 3rd party zooms are going to be better than a simple M 80-200mm zoom. Particularly when flare is considered.

[bdery]

Thanks, I am still not sure whether any of these 3rd party zooms are going to be better than a simple M 80-200mm zoom. Particularly when flare is considered.

Flare has never been an issue with my Viv, and I never used a hood with it. It performed better than my current Pentax FA 100-300 (which is more recent, with Pentax design and coatings). The FA is better for PF, but the Viv was better for everything else. The wife will not use MF lenses, that's why it had to go.

Wo, I apologise for my rash statement and any offence caused. A quick scan reveals this is a sensitive topic!

No apologies needed, I just set the info straight.

[whojammyflip]

Thanks for all the advice, I am leaning towards my original suggestion, to collect the lenses in question and run some tests at f8 or f11 at a subject a decent distance (100m) away, on a good day. I guess this is different to what a lot of people will be interested in. I am not really fussed about low light capability, just look for a sharp contrasty lens. I will include the 135mm and 75-150mm in the test and see what they looked like cropped. I'll use some decent BW film and hope to report back in a month or so.

[bdery]

You will find that, at f8 or f11, all those lenses will perform pretty well. And you will also discover how hard it can be to handhold a lens with such a focal length at such a small aperture. A fast telephoto lens is not really about low light, it's about working without a tripod. Performances at wide apertures are much more important than you suggest.

[pdxbmw]

I have had the M80-200 4.5, the Viv S1 version 1 and a Super Takumar 200/4. The Tak is the only one I have left. The Viv's macro was really nice, the M 80-200 wasn't as sharp as the Tak wide open. The Tak is amazingly sharp. Plus, if your kinda lazy, you can use M42 lenses in Av mode.

[Jimfear]

I would consider the A series zoom too, but I guess I don't need the additional contacts and they cost more. Is the optical quality that different? I am using this on film too, so I am limited by the resolution of something like Reala.

I am beginning to think the Vivitar 200mm is a better idea than the zooms, but dislike the idea of the M42 mount. I am concerned by flare though, having looked at the discussion of the M versus the Vivitar, it looked to me like the Vivitar suffers from only having a single coating, whereas the SMC coating looks like the mutt's nuts, as usual.

I'm a happy owner of both the A70-210/4 and the Vivitar 200/3.5 (you can find this in K-mount btw if you're not interested in M42). And Both are very good lenses. I haven't tested them properly against each other so I can't give you any hard facts. However I haven't noticed that one would be far superior to the other in regular shooting, suggesting that they are quite equal regarding IQ. I get the feeling the Vivitar is a little sharper but that would have to be tested properly to say for sure.

SMC coating, well it's always good to have it. The Viv suffers from quite a lot of purple fringing when close to wide open.


Ps. I wouldn't say you're "limited" by your film... you're limited by your scanner...

[whojammyflip]

I have become the owner of the M 80-200mm (version 1). I will be shooting at around f11 as I am seeking greater depth of field, and if all the lenses have the same quality at this aperture, there is no point buying a heavier one (the M zoom is 555g). I would not consider one of the yoghurt pot plastic ones though as I don't like the rotating front element. Having said that, the F 70-210 gets a very good rating on photodo. The Tamron just pips the Vivitar on there, but it seems clear looking at the MTF charts, a prime is going to offer better performance at the long end.

I am uploading a photo of a windmill at sunset to my gallery...its still sharp. The weak link in the chain is my skill controlling the v300 scanner. Photo was taken at 150mm, f8 with ISO 100 film, giving a shutter speed of between 1/30 and 1/60. I use a Manfrotto 679 monopod, which I wedge or brace against things, which weighs 600g.

[whojammyflip]

So I have done a shoot of a resolution target and the result is very low lp/mm for the Vivitar Series 1 (version 2 I picked up on ebay), M 80-200 and M 75-150mm. All resolution figures peaked out at 30lp/mm. Its turns out this is the resolution limit for the scanner. Instead, measuring the contrast for a given line frequency gives an indication of relative sharpness.

I have measured the contrast at the 15 lp/mm point on all the photos, using (I1-I2)/(I1+I2) where I1 and I2 are the intensity at maxima and minima, as measured using Gimp. (You could normalise this, but the relative measurement is good enough for me). The results are that wide open, the Vivitar S1 and Pentax 80-200 M are soft at the long end of their range, and that the Pentax lenses are contrastier than the Vivitar at the short end. Numbers are beneath, rounded to the nearest percent, ranked in decreasing order of sharpness. At the long end, the Vivitar nudges ahead of the Pentax by a tad, but at the short end, the Pentax lenses have greater contrast. All results are equally handicapped by my scanning.

80mm
Wide open
16% Pentax 75/150
14% Pentax 80/200
12% Vivitar S1 version 2
f8
21% Pentax 75/150
17% Pentax 80/200
13% Vivitar S1 version 2

200mm
Wide open
9% Vivitar S1 version 2
6% Pentax 80/200
f8
15% Vivitar S1 version 2
12% Pentax 80/200

Having gone through the process, I can see reasons for disregarding someone else's MTF figures, and for testing lenses relative to each other for yourself. Its relatively easy to do. Measuring the maxima and minima of the intensity is dependent on method, here I have used Gimp and the sample width was quite wide (nearly the width of a line), so it has averaged the area rather than finding the minimum in the centre. I just swept horizontally across vertical lines, taking maxima and minima. Taking an average will involve less measurement error, but also reduce the contrast.

In conclusion, I am quite disappointed in the drop in performance at the long end, relative to what I have seen is possible at the short end. Hence, I am going to get a prime, probably a Vivitar 200mm prime per the advice on this thread. It also goes to show its worth testing a zoom, a contrast increase of a factor of 2 by stopping down to f8 is quite incredible for the M 80-200.

[whojammyflip]

EDIT: the testing below is limited to evaluating performance within the confines of the sensor resolution on the ist DS, which is 40lp/mm. The conclusion I have come to, now I own a 200mm prime, is that zooms are for practicality, not IQ....plus, the arithmetic looks wrong below. I think the lp/mm are obtained from the figures divided by 50. This whole thing is limited by the fact the target was illuminated by daylight and has a relatively low contrast.

It looks like the Viv S1 takes the lead, using a digital camera to take the photos. I've been shooting with the Vivitar S1 and the Viv 200mm f3.5 by Komine in K mount against the M 135mm and M 75-150mm zoom.

The distance was 6.6m to the target, using a tripod and 2s self timer. f5.6, sunny white balance and 1/3000s. When distance is taken into account, all the lenses achieve at least 90lpmm, with the 135mm reaching 100lpmm.

Converting the numbers on the photos into lp/mm is done by dividing by 6 for the 200mm, 4 for 135mm and 4.5 for 150mm. But its easier just to look at the photos. The Vivitar S1 appears the sharpest, beating even the 200mm prime, but it also has a strong blue colour, particularly noticeable when lined up against other lenses.

Vivitar S1 of A4 test target at 6.6m


Vivitar f3.5 200mm K mount by Komine


Pentax 75-150mm at 150mm


Pentax 135mm


I sold the M 80-200mm as I could not justify holding on to all these lenses.

[JP_Seattle]

I currently have 2 Vivitar's Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 lenses (v1 and v2) as well as the pre-series 1 (Kiron made) 75-205mm f/3.8 lens.

I also have the Pentax-A 70-210mm f/4, Pentax-F 70-210mm f/4-5.6, Pentax-DA 50-200mm, and Pentax-DA 55-300mm.

I know Tokina built version 2 of the Vivitar 70-210mm f/3.5 and they also released this lens badged as a Tokina. Excellent, sharp lens in my opinion and much lighter than the other Series 1 lenses. Only downside is the lack of aperture contacts.

I will be posting some comparison test shots of all these lenses that I have before deciding on which few to keep.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the Pentax-A and Pentax-F 70-210mm lenses were both nice alternatives that can be found fairly inexpensively.

I am interested to see how all of these lenses compare to the modern DA zoom lenses.

[whojammyflip]

I am interested to see your comparison, particularly your results from the A 70-210mm in comparison to the modern DA lenses. I imagine the A zoom is potentially a perfect combination of manual focus feel and electronic contacts. It also has 8 aperture blades over the Tokina's 6, which means the bokeh will be nicer, which has to be a consideration with a long lens if you are going to use it for portraits at all. A built in hood is also an advantage.

I struggled on my decision to put my Vivitar S1 by Tokina up for sale. Its mechanisms move like silk, as well as the very sharp optics. One of the big realisations for me was that the performance at the short end was more important for me, and that I did not need the 200+mm reach. The Tokina was not as sharp as the M 75-150mm at the short end. Another couple of practical issues with the Tokina are the cold colour cast and the focus ring turning in the opposite direction to Pentax.

One of the deciding features for me is portability, and the M 75-150mm is an OK compromise for me (I had one of the later Pentax yoghurt pot lenses, the A 80-200mm for a while, and found the feel of the lens to be awful in use, even though its a tad longer and lighter).