Around the neighborhood with my new old Vivi

Around the neighborhood with my new old Vivi · 07:30 AM

Bought this 22 years old lens (Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm, F/2.8-3.8) a week ago from a member of this forum (thank you!). Initially, I wasn't impressed, because I thought my 18-250 was much sharper, but later I realized I had made some mistakes in testing the Vivitar. Yesterday--a very overcast day--I took some pictures outside, and I must say I really liked the output, especially the color key. Although manual, the focus was quick; the zoom also has a nice macro function. These are my first pics posted here (light post-processing in lightroom). Let me know what you think.

daacon · 04-21-2009, 09:33 AM

Nice seires Stefen - the old glass has held up well. I like the street shots.

causey · 04-21-2009, 05:10 PM

Thank you, Dave.

sawtooth235 · 04-21-2009, 06:39 PM

Stefan,

If you want to see this lens really shine, put it on a film camera and take a roll or 2. The light coming in to the sensor at an angle effects the sharpness and contrast on a digital, but on film it is what was intended and this lens is very sharp and contrast is good too.

Ray

causey · 04-21-2009, 07:59 PM

Thanks for the piece of advice, Ray... I might buy a film camera. What you say explains my feeling that this lens is a real performer and, at the same time, that I should expect it to deliver a bit more. I think the sharpness is quite good--anyway, good enough for my purposes, but in my tests the contrast didn't compare well to that of my 18-250 (which initially gave me the impression it was less sharp that it in fact was). However, I think the real life results are better than my test photos, and I can restore the contrast in the post-processing phase. What I especially like about it is the unusual, oldish, very pleasant, overall color output. Modern lenses yield something of a standard color output...
Another thing: after seeing the photos just taken with the Vivitar and comparing them with the ones produced by its much younger siblings, I went outside again and, looking around, I thought reality--including some details that I considered--was a bit less punchy than contemporary lenses present it. I'm not an aesthetic realist; still, the observation made me think that technological performance created a need for contrasty notes. (The same thing happened to our need concerning precision of time measurement, for instance. Technology doesn't satisfy our needs, it catalyzes them, and changes in life get expressed in aesthetic changes. Apology for the digression.)

causey · 04-21-2009, 08:07 PM

Could anyone tell me why the city photos look so bad as attached images? (Needless to say, the originals look like normal dslr pics.)

Damn Brit · 04-21-2009, 10:33 PM

Stefan, nice series, I really like #1, my only reservation with it is the lamp in the top right corner. It would have been much better if the pole had been included or the lamp left out entirely.

causey · 04-22-2009, 03:46 AM

Gary, you're absolutely right: the lamp without its pole is annoying. I don't like to leave parts of things out of the picture--but if I cropped it to exclude the lamp, I would either half the car or ruin the proportion, and there was no way I could have included the whole lamp without bumping into other things. Anyway, these are not really ambitious photos--I was surprised how much I liked the lens, given my low initial impression. UPDATE: I managed to crop the photo and exclude the lamp. And I guess I could have chosen a different position to take the picture...

About the question I asked earlier--it's poorly formulated. Let me try again: why do the flower shots look much better than the city shots as attached images on pentaxforum?

gawan · 04-22-2009, 10:53 AM

I like the street scenes, very unique colour palette!

causey · 04-22-2009, 06:09 PM

Thank you, Georg.

Damn Brit · 04-22-2009, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by causey

Gary, you're absolutely right: the lamp without its pole is annoying. I don't like to leave parts of things out of the picture--but if I cropped it to exclude the lamp, I would either half the car or ruin the proportion, and there was no way I could have included the whole lamp without bumping into other things. Anyway, these are not really ambitious photos--I was surprised how much I liked the lens, given my low initial impression. UPDATE: I managed to crop the photo and exclude the lamp. And I guess I could have chosen a different position to take the picture...

About the question I asked earlier--it's poorly formulated. Let me try again: why do the flower shots look much better than the city shots as attached images on pentaxforum?

Could be due to compression when they get downloaded, there's a lot more going on in the street shots and they are larger.

graphicgr8s · 04-22-2009, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by causey

Gary, you're absolutely right: the lamp without its pole is annoying. I don't like to leave parts of things out of the picture--but if I cropped it to exclude the lamp, I would either half the car or ruin the proportion, and there was no way I could have included the whole lamp without bumping into other things. Anyway, these are not really ambitious photos--I was surprised how much I liked the lens, given my low initial impression. UPDATE: I managed to crop the photo and exclude the lamp. And I guess I could have chosen a different position to take the picture...

About the question I asked earlier--it's poorly formulated. Let me try again: why do the flower shots look much better than the city shots as attached images on pentaxforum?

Crop off the top. I just scrolled it off my screen and it looks good.

causey
	View full profile
	Contact via private message
	Find other posts by causey
	Find threads started by causey
	Find threads in which causey has posted

04-22-2009, 03:46 AM	#8
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757 Original Poster	Gary, you're absolutely right: the lamp without its pole is annoying. I don't like to leave parts of things out of the picture--but if I cropped it to exclude the lamp, I would either half the car or ruin the proportion, and there was no way I could have included the whole lamp without bumping into other things. Anyway, these are not really ambitious photos--I was surprised how much I liked the lens, given my low initial impression. UPDATE: I managed to crop the photo and exclude the lamp. And I guess I could have chosen a different position to take the picture... About the question I asked earlier--it's poorly formulated. Let me try again: why do the flower shots look much better than the city shots as attached images on pentaxforum? Last edited by causey; 04-22-2009 at 05:11 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Your neighborhood...	SteveM	General Talk	1	12-05-2009 09:04 AM
Some quickies with the Vivi 105...	Igilligan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	10-11-2009 12:59 PM
A walk around the neighborhood...	heatherslightbox	Post Your Photos!	5	06-11-2009 05:33 PM
Our Neighborhood cat	dws1117	Post Your Photos!	3	10-11-2008 03:54 AM
Neighborhood Hawk	Sherry	Monthly Photo Contests	0	03-05-2007 11:31 PM

04-21-2009, 09:33 AM	#2
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914	Nice seires Stefen - the old glass has held up well. I like the street shots.

04-21-2009, 05:10 PM	#3
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757 Original Poster	Thank you, Dave.

04-21-2009, 06:39 PM	#4
sawtooth235 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Orange Park, Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 884	Stefan, If you want to see this lens really shine, put it on a film camera and take a roll or 2. The light coming in to the sensor at an angle effects the sharpness and contrast on a digital, but on film it is what was intended and this lens is very sharp and contrast is good too. Ray

04-21-2009, 07:59 PM	#5
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757 Original Poster	Thanks for the piece of advice, Ray... I might buy a film camera. What you say explains my feeling that this lens is a real performer and, at the same time, that I should expect it to deliver a bit more. I think the sharpness is quite good--anyway, good enough for my purposes, but in my tests the contrast didn't compare well to that of my 18-250 (which initially gave me the impression it was less sharp that it in fact was). However, I think the real life results are better than my test photos, and I can restore the contrast in the post-processing phase. What I especially like about it is the unusual, oldish, very pleasant, overall color output. Modern lenses yield something of a standard color output... Another thing: after seeing the photos just taken with the Vivitar and comparing them with the ones produced by its much younger siblings, I went outside again and, looking around, I thought reality--including some details that I considered--was a bit less punchy than contemporary lenses present it. I'm not an aesthetic realist; still, the observation made me think that technological performance created a need for contrasty notes. (The same thing happened to our need concerning precision of time measurement, for instance. Technology doesn't satisfy our needs, it catalyzes them, and changes in life get expressed in aesthetic changes. Apology for the digression.)

04-21-2009, 08:07 PM	#6
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757 Original Poster	Could anyone tell me why the city photos look so bad as attached images? (Needless to say, the originals look like normal dslr pics.)

04-21-2009, 10:33 PM	#7
Damn Brit Guest	Stefan, nice series, I really like #1, my only reservation with it is the lamp in the top right corner. It would have been much better if the pole had been included or the lamp left out entirely.

04-22-2009, 10:53 AM	#9
gawan Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Helsinki Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,400	I like the street scenes, very unique colour palette!

04-22-2009, 06:09 PM	#10
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757 Original Poster	Thank you, Georg.

04-22-2009, 06:52 PM	#11
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by causey Gary, you're absolutely right: the lamp without its pole is annoying. I don't like to leave parts of things out of the picture--but if I cropped it to exclude the lamp, I would either half the car or ruin the proportion, and there was no way I could have included the whole lamp without bumping into other things. Anyway, these are not really ambitious photos--I was surprised how much I liked the lens, given my low initial impression. UPDATE: I managed to crop the photo and exclude the lamp. And I guess I could have chosen a different position to take the picture... About the question I asked earlier--it's poorly formulated. Let me try again: why do the flower shots look much better than the city shots as attached images on pentaxforum? Could be due to compression when they get downloaded, there's a lot more going on in the street shots and they are larger.

04-22-2009, 07:45 PM	#12
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by causey Gary, you're absolutely right: the lamp without its pole is annoying. I don't like to leave parts of things out of the picture--but if I cropped it to exclude the lamp, I would either half the car or ruin the proportion, and there was no way I could have included the whole lamp without bumping into other things. Anyway, these are not really ambitious photos--I was surprised how much I liked the lens, given my low initial impression. UPDATE: I managed to crop the photo and exclude the lamp. And I guess I could have chosen a different position to take the picture... About the question I asked earlier--it's poorly formulated. Let me try again: why do the flower shots look much better than the city shots as attached images on pentaxforum? Crop off the top. I just scrolled it off my screen and it looks good.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search