[gifthorse]

Vivitar 200mm f3.5 screw mount on a K5-ii

[Jonathan Mac]

I picked up a Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 yesterday. It's in great shape for a lens its age except for the usual slow aperture, which I might try to fix. The lens does work fine on my Fuji mirrorless camera (because the aperture isn't kept wide open by the camera) so I did some test shots. No hood because I didn't have one with me, which shows what a flare monster this thing is, though, like my SIgma 28/2.8, sometimes that can be used to good effect.

Wide open at 28mm it's nice and sharp with a very tiny amount of haze if you peek


DSCF2331a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

Wide open at 90mm it's much softer, but useable. It doesn't seem to really sharpen up at the long end until f/5.6


DSCF2332a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

28mm wide open again, it focuses very close indeed (this is not minimum focus distance)


DSCF2340a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

Flare galore


DSCF2347a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


DSCF2348a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


DSCF2346a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[niceshot]

I picked up a Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 yesterday. It's in great shape for a lens its age except for the usual slow aperture, which I might try to fix. The lens does work fine on my Fuji mirrorless camera (because the aperture isn't kept wide open by the camera) so I did some test shots. No hood because I didn't have one with me, which shows what a flare monster this thing is, though, like my SIgma 28/2.8, sometimes that can be used to good effect.

Wide open at 28mm it's nice and sharp with a very tiny amount of haze if you peek


DSCF2331a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

Wide open at 90mm it's much softer, but useable. It doesn't seem to really sharpen up at the long end until f/5.6


DSCF2332a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

28mm wide open again, it focuses very close indeed (this is not minimum focus distance)


DSCF2340a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

Flare galore


DSCF2347a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


DSCF2348a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


DSCF2346a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

Nice color rendition

[marcusBMG]

I have added test pics from the vivitar superzooms from the 1990's ie the kobori made 28-200mm and the cosina made 28-210mm, to my test pages:

Image comparison classic 70-210mm vintage lenses: vivitar series 1, tamron SP

Image comparison classic 70-210mm vintage lenses: vivitar series 1, tamron SP

These lenses, based on these images from these examples of the lenses, are good at the 200mm end, and decent at 70mm but with a tendency for the image to soften away from the optical axis. I think they both do better at closer focus at 70mm rather than infinity.
The most immediately noticeable difference between them is the warm rendering of the cosina vs the relatively cool rendering of the kobori. In resolution terms these lenses really are pretty similar.

---

Last edited by marcusBMG; 06-06-2017 at 03:06 PM.

[LittleKawaiiNeko]

I picked up a Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 yesterday.
Wide open at 90mm it's much softer, but useable. It doesn't seem to really sharpen up at the long end until f/5.6

Looks some sharper at 90, than his "younger brother" - Kiron-made 28-85. But more tending to CA. "Komine style"

And - some photos, taken with 28-85.

[gifthorse]

Rainy day foxglove





Vivitar 28mm f2 'close focusing' lens on a K5ii lit with a Yongnuo YN858EX and a Vello mini softbox

[gifthorse]

Still playing with the Vivitar 28mm f2 'close focusing'

[marcusBMG]

My recently acquired vivitar 17mm f3.5 - the tokina made one. .


Some pics - Pentax K5, all f8 or f11. Conwy Castle, N Wales: town walls, estuary, St Marys' Church.

[marcusBMG]

This is a set of test pics of the Viv 17mm, with a comparison against the DAL 18-55mm, again click on the image to pull up the full sized ones. There is little difference in the field of view between this lens and the DAL 18-55mm at 18mm. This lens has a slightly wider FoV but it looks less to me than I would expect 17mm vs 18mm. And the comparison tends to corroborate the notion that modern wide angle lenses typically outdo vintage ones. Certainly f3.5 vs f3.5 I have to hand it to the DAL: most specifically more consistent across the frame. Here is the comparison, click to pull up the full sized 4928x3000px, 3MB image.



These images of the castle illustrate the level of distortion, with again comparison against the DAL. Results are again similar, overall both results please with good resolution and detail. The Viv sharpens up a just bit more at f8 and f11 - the typical f stops to use with a wide angle - mainly off centre. One point on which the viv scores is it has less/less obvious fringing than the DAL.

[aslyfox]

here is an attempt using my K 3 and the Vivitar Series 1 2.8-4.0 70 - 210 mm macro zoom [1:25] ( ver. 3 ) (Kosine)

[gifthorse]

I still love this lens!







Vivitar 28mm f2 'close focusing' on a K5ii

[goatsNdonkey]

At f5.6 the 17mm looks sharper to me than the zoom, especially on the stonework of the towers.

This is a set of test pics of the Viv 17mm, with a comparison against the DAL 18-55mm, again click on the image to pull up the full sized ones. There is little difference in the field of view between this lens and the DAL 18-55mm at 18mm. This lens has a slightly wider FoV but it looks less to me than I would expect 17mm vs 18mm. And the comparison tends to corroborate the notion that modern wide angle lenses typically outdo vintage ones. Certainly f3.5 vs f3.5 I have to hand it to the DAL: most specifically more consistent across the frame. Here is the comparison, click to pull up the full sized 4928x3000px, 3MB image.



These images of the castle illustrate the level of distortion, with again comparison against the DAL. Results are again similar, overall both results please with good resolution and detail. The Viv sharpens up a just bit more at f8 and f11 - the typical f stops to use with a wide angle - mainly off centre. One point on which the viv scores is it has less/less obvious fringing than the DAL.

[marcusBMG]

At f5.6 the 17mm looks sharper to me than the zoom, especially on the stonework of the towers.

On the castle pics, yes centre frame I would tend to agree. But note also how the viv softens left frame - evidence of a bit of decentering/similar optical flaw.

[goatsNdonkey]

On the castle pics, yes centre frame I would tend to agree. But note also how the viv softens left frame - evidence of a bit of decentering/similar optical flaw.

I'll grant that I can see a little of that in the bush along the left edge, but it's a rather unimportant part of the image. I, personally, would trade for softness there to have the main subject as much more distinct as it is with the 17mm than with the other lens.

[onlineflyer]

Pulled out the Vivitar 1 90-180mm F4.5. Haven't used it in awhile, so I'm a little rusty nailing focus but I liked the result of these shots. These are jpg, taken directly from the camera. I really need to use this lens more often.