So I decided to write a review. I hope people find it useful. I acquired an almost "New" Vivitar series 1 version 3 not too long ago, and I've decided to do a comparative review verses the version 2 model that I've had for a number of years now. First off I'd like to "thank" Mark Roberts for his unfortunate encouragement in my making this purchase, not that he did anything directly, he just published his glowing description. The lens is almost everything he says it is. On the other hand with the new found popularity of Pentax cameras due to the introduction of the K10D almost any A class lens is now selling for much more than just a few years ago. I fear that I overpaid for the version 3 lens, however since I underpaid for the version 2 lens I guess things average out.
First anyone who would like photos of the various versions of Vivitars expression of this classic focal length zoom should look at Mark Roberts page dedicated to these lenses. He also has useful charts, including Modern Photographies test results for the first three versions resolution and contrast figures. I will try not to duplicate the information on that page. http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm Disclaimer. I haven't used the version 3 lens on film, I intend to do so and then I'll expand this to cover the S1 version 1, that I haven't used on digital, (which doesn't belong to me but a friend who has it in Konica mount). Impression/Build Quality. The two versions of this lens are quite similar cosmetically and in size . The version 2 lens is a bit longer, and a bit thinner in maximum diameter. It is also a bit lighter, noticeable so to me at least, however despite this, (and the fact that it evidences quite noticeable zoom creep), it feels quite a bit more substantial than the version 3. The helpful chart that Mark maintains on his site shows that the v.3 lens out weighs the v.2 by 150 grams. Additionally the v.3 lens has more comprehensive barrel markings including a DOF scale lacking on the v.2 lens, which only has an infrared index mark. Aside from the A setting both of the lenses have almost an identical feel to their f stop rings, a bit on the light side, with a somewhat more positive click stops on the v.2. The v.2 focuses and zooms, (both are one touch designs), with a buttery smooth action reminiscent of the best Pentax M and K mount lenses. The v.3 while it is smooth enough, evidences a bit of flex in the focus/zoom ring that makes me feel a bit less confident. The v.3 just feels looser, though the v.2 zoom creep will quickly move the zoom from 70mm to the 210mm position, or vice versa if the lens is oriented much out of the horizontal plane. The v.3 has no zoom creep at all. Over all the two lenses are of comparable build with a slight nod going to the v.2 for solidity, (as a aside, neither is as well built as the original S1 v.1 which was feels like a tank). Picture taking. I haven't done any scientific testing. I take pictures, (maybe not good ones, but that's why I have this stuff). So my impressions here will be subjective. In all I haven't found a lot of difference in the sharpness of the output of these two lenses. Under normal conditions with sufficient light both produce very good if not spectacular results, (the Monarch Butterfly gallery I posted here a while ago http://tinyurl.com/yvx7nn was was shot with the v.3 lens, I'll have to go through some past photos for examples taken with the v.2 lens). Both seem to prone to about the same amount of flare. I haven't noticed much difference between the from that standpoint. You have to treat them with the same care as using most any good quality non SMC lens. Distortion, was not noticeable with either lens under normal picture taking situations. Problems. Well yes, there was a noticeable problem with the v.3 lens. I've come to the conclusion that the aperture response may not be as linear as required by the Pentax specification. I noticed almost a half stop difference in exposure between what was required and delivered at the f2.8, (as recorded by the camera), setting and f4.0. This is true at all focal lengths. I did test this by the way, it was easy to compare since I just shot an evenly illuminated white surface and compared the resulting histograms. In every case the exposure was underexposed until f4.0 then exposures were identical for each stop to f22. (These f stops were controlled from the camera body. The green button was pretty much dead on every time). Foibles. The differences between the v.2 and v.3 made using the v.3 seem a bit strange at times. The v.2 is fixed aperture, the v.3 is variable aperture, most of us are used to this, since most modern consumer zooms are variable aperture, but the S1 v.3 being an A class lens, the aperture value displayed doesn't update as the lens is zoomed. The v.2 gives a constant minimum focus distance of 4 feet at all focal lengths. The v.3 has a cam setup to limit minimum focus distance at 70mm of 5 feet until 100mm after which it focuses to about 2 feet 6 inches. This takes a bit of getting used to. but works well enough. Conclusion. So was it worth the money? Well yes and no. Either lens has more than acceptable resolution and contrast, certainly they out preform a 6mp sensor. The A setting on v.3 lens is convenient, and in spite of the inherent inaccuracy, the probability of getting a good exposure using the meter in the *ist-D or Ds is much more likely in dim light. The ~1:2.5, (vs. 1:4 on the v.2), reproduction ratio on the v.3 at close focus, is very nice to have. The minimum focus distance of 5 feet at 70mm with the v.3 is a bit of a pain when trying to use the lens as an ad hoc portrait lens. Getting a similar lens in a more modern design at a reasonable price with equivalent capabilities will be much more expensive. Recommendation. If you're on a budget go for the v.2 You can still pick them up for under $90.00 and optically and mechanically, except for the zoom creep, they are gems. The v.3 is equally good optically, for digital shooting, but expect the average price for them to be 2 to 2 1/2 times that, and the flex in the focus/zoom ring can be disturbing. (The version 1 is not as good optically but is built much better and you could probably get one for even less). -- The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. -- P. J. O'Roark -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
