Paul, Fred,
The VS1 2.8-4.0 I have has a 62mm filter size. The reason I bought
it was because of the statements on Robert Monaghan`s site:
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
From: Steven Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Vivitar Series 1
Hi Robert,
A couple weeks ago I bought a Vivitar Series 1 70 -210 f3.5 (67mm). It is
widely regarded as a great lens. I shot with it, ran some tests, and was
very pleased with the results, except at 210, wide open. Last week, I was
talking with my uncle, who was an avid photographer for many years. He asked
me if I would like his old Nikon FG, 50mm, and Vivitar zoom. He only used
the zoom a few times as he found it too heavy. In the mid 80's, he switched
to autofocus. Of course, I said yes. It arrived on Friday.
The zoom, still in the box, with blank warranty cards, instructions, and
packing, is the 3rd of the Series 1, 70 - 210's. f2.8 - 4.0, 62mm Komine.
I wasn't expecting much from this lens, as I've only heard the first 2
versions referred to as legendary. I shot with it on Sunday, and with the
3.5 as well.
I was shocked to find, except at 70mm, the f2.8-4 yielded visably better
results than the f3.5, sometimes substantially. Sharper, with more contrast.
I decided to look for some tests in Modern Photography. At the L.A. Library,
I found tests for both versions.
Here are some of the results :
RESOLUTION L/mm
At 70mm
f3.5 f2.8-4
center corners center corners
f3.5 44 35 f2.8 49 39
f8 62 44 f8 69 62
At 210mm
f3.5 f2.8-4
f3.5 39 25 f4.0 45 40
f8 55 31 f8 56 45
CONTRAST at 30 L/mm
At 70mm
f3.5 f2.8-4
f3.5 43 28 f2.8 53 25
f8 58 32 f8 70 44
At 210mm
f3.5 f2.8-4
f3.5 27 16 f4.0 58 29
f8 52 27 f8 66 43
Wow ! these are some big differences. I don't have any other tests to
compare these results with, but some of the stats for the 3.5 seem *quite*
low, and are noted as low in the graphs. I know that in the 10 years between
the design of these 2 lenses, there were significant advances made. Maybe in
1974 when the 3.5 was first released it was a very good performer for it's
time, but the 2.8 - 4 is clearly a better lens ! I'd love to see the stats
for a Nikkor 80-200 f4.5, a lens from about the same era as the 3.5.
>From what I now know, I must conclude that the 3.5 is somewhat overrated,
and the 2.8-4 *way* underrated.
I thought this would be of interest to you. If you want me to make copies of
these articles and send them to you, just let me know.
Regards,
Steve
-------
Postscript:
Unfortunately, the pages for the test of the f3.5 aren't marked on the
bottom. I'm pretty sure it was sometime in late 1976.
The test for the 2.8-4 was March 1985. Both in Modern Photography. [END]
It`s a fine performer, IMO.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul F. Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: Vivitar Series 1 70-210 models
> Fred,
> I think come confusion has arisen about the number of variations that
> Vivitar offered. I assumed there were three:
>
> f/3.5, 67mm filter
> f/2.8 to 3.5, 62mm filter
> f/2.8 to 4, 58mm filter
>
> It appears, from this thread, that there was a fourth:
> f/3.5, 62mm filter, appearing just after the original f/3.5.
>
> So when I asked Gary "Who made the second?" or "Who made the third?"
> we were not counting the same.
>
> I wrote:
> > My source is Gary Schloss, a Nevada enthusiast/collector who is a
> > regular contributor to the Olympus discussion list. He knows more
> > about third-party lenses than anyone I know. Perhaps he was wrong
> > about this one, or perhaps I misunderstood him.
> Fred replied:
>
> Hmmm... I know and respect Gary, having dealt with him in the
> exchange of premium refractive glass previously, and I do know that
> he is primarily an OM kind of guy. On the other hand, Robert
> Monaghan certainly seems to know a lot about 3rd-party lenses, too.
> So, I guess I don't know what the story is. (I suspect that
> Vivitar, if contacted, wouldn't likely be willing or even able to
> straighten out this confusion, either - <g>.)
> Fred
>
>
> Paul Franklin Stregevsky
> 13 Selby Court
> Poolesville, Maryland 20837-2410
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> H (301) 349-5243
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
