Just picked up a Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 on ebay for $65. I think it has an AI mount, but I won't know until I get the lens in my hands (hopefully it is, then I won't need to worry about metering).

On my D300 it should work like a 200mm f/2.8, which will be quite handy. I've had some good experiences with Vivitar lenses in the past - I've got a 17mm f/3.5 for my Olly OM cameras that I love. So hopefully this one will be a success as well. I'll post some samples as soon as it arrives.

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? Everything i've found on the internet is rather vague, though I gather it's quite a close-focussing lens - which is always nice.

Mark, your note reminded me of a couple of Vivitar lenses I had tucked away, dug them out to peek. One's a 200 f3.5, the other is a 28 F2.8, however, both of mine need an adapter to put them on the Nikon mount, of which I only have one. The 200 is a heavy beast, too. Show some pics from it when you get it.

I bought several Vivitar Series 1 lenses back in the early/mid 70's. Based on the price I really liked them!

I ended up buying the Nikon 135 f3.5 (still use it) so I never had a chance to try the one that you bought. I'm betting that it will be sharp, but lacking contrast and will probably suffer from CA - but that's being picky!

If it's not AI, be sure that it won't damage your camera lens mount!

Well we've had our first rain in a LONG time down here, and I couldn't resist the chance to shoot some of it - this is first time I've really been able to have much of a play with the Vivitar 135mm, so I thought you guys might like to see the results.

Most of these were shot wide-open or close to it I think, between f/2.8 and f/4 - which is definitely not the lenses strong point, I think it performed pretty well considering. Chromatic Aberration is fairly intense on this lens until you stop down to f/5.6 or so - but I get the feeling that the D300 takes a lot of the edge of it, I'd be interested to see how some of the older DSLRs compared.

For $65, NFB! Those look nice, #3 is great (wet leaves). I'm going to look into picking one up.

did you need an adaptor?

drdrew wrote:
did you need an adaptor?

It's at least an F-mount. Maybe an AI mount. No adapter is needed in either case.

Mark, these are nice images. Is this the 52mm filter size 135/2.8, or the 62mm close focus version? I've been after the latter for over a year now with no success, not for a reasonable price anyway. I doubt you got that one for $65, but if you did, it's the steal of the year!

I'm about to do a review of the Series I 135mm f/2.3, which is actually an f/2.0. We just had an in-depth discussion about the original Vivitar Series I lineup somewhere else. When they made the decision to come up with a pro line of lenses to compete head-to-head with OEM lenses, Vivitar hired Opcon Associates to design the new lineup. They in turn came up with and patented the first effective floating element group that actually changed the focal length of the lens to facilitate closer focusing. A vari-focal design. So their normal tele lenses were capable of reaching 1:2 magnification without extending excessively like macro lenses. Kiron was then hired to actually produce the lenses. Anyway, this stuff can get boring as hell for those not into it, so I'll stop here

The 135/2.8 is a par-focal design. The close focusing version is actually a macro lens with front and rear extension. Neither has the design mentioned above.

Now that I think about it, there was also a 55mm filter size version made by Komine. If that's the one you got it should be very good. There was yet another 135mm that had a 58mm filter size, a Tokina made late version. But that one was an f/2.5, so not a possibility here. Anyway, it wasn't anything special.

The boke is very interesting and pleasant especially in 1 and 3. I like the colors too.

Cool find!

Elan II wrote:
drdrew wrote:
did you need an adaptor?

It's at least an F-mount. Maybe an AI mount. No adapter is needed in either case.

Mark, these are nice images. Is this the 52mm filter size 135/2.8, or the 62mm close focus version? I've been after the latter for over a year now with no success, not for a reasonable price anyway. I doubt you got that one for $65, but if you did, it's the steal of the year!

I'm about to do a review of the Series I 135mm f/2.3, which is actually an f/2.0. We just had an in-depth discussion about the original Vivitar Series I lineup somewhere else. When they made the decision to come up with a pro line of lenses to compete head-to-head with OEM lenses, Vivitar hired Opcon Associates to design the new lineup. They in turn came up with and patented the first effective floating element group that actually changed the focal length of the lens to facilitate closer focusing. A vari-focal design. So their normal tele lenses were capable of reaching 1:2 magnification without extending excessively like macro lenses. Kiron was then hired to actually produce the lenses. Anyway, this stuff can get boring as hell for those not into it, so I'll stop here

The 135/2.8 is a par-focal design. The close focusing version is actually a macro lens with front and rear extension. Neither has the design mentioned above.





That's actually interesting to me - I always wondered if Kiron or Tokina was making some of the Vivitar lenses that I bought way back when.

Marc

Actually the lens only cost me $50 - the other $15 was for shipping it from Canada! Not bad considering the glass is pristine.

Marc Kurth wrote:
That's actually interesting to me - I always wondered if Kiron or Tokina was making some of the Vivitar lenses that I bought way back when.

Marc


That's the easy part. Vivitar didn't make any of the lenses they branded. They were all made by other companies, even the ones where the design was commissioned by Vivitar. They did very conveniently code each lens to identify the actual manufacturer and assigned the first two digits of the serial number to that code. This is the known list:

06 - Olympus
09 - Cosina
13 - Schneider Optik
22 - Kiron (Kino Precision)
25 - Ozone Optical
28 - Komine
32 - Makinon
33 - Asanuma
37 - Tokina
42 - Bauer
44 - Perkin Elmer (US)
47 - Chinon
51 - Tokyo Trading
56 - Kyoe Schoji
75 - Hoya Optical
81 - Polar

There are a few others that have not been documented, 77 is one of those. I believe 77 is Cosina as well. So again, this is the easy part. The more difficult part is picking out the gems from the hundred plus lenses Vivitar branded. Kiron is the first brand people think of when gems come to mind, with lenses like the 24/2.0 and the 105/2.8 macro, which was also sold under their own brand as as Lester Dine. Tokina's major contribution is the 90/2.5 macro, the famous 'Bokina', as well as many other fine primes like the 17/3.5, and the amazing 35-105/3.5 vari-focal macro-zoom. But to me, the real standout is actually Komine, with lenses like the 200/3.0 (really a 2.8) and the 135/2.3 (again a 2.0) and some fine macro lenses like the 55/2.8 (1:1), 90/2.8 (1:1) and 135/2.8 (1:2).

Btw, to confuse things even further, other brands picked up Vivitar's idea and started to sell some of the same lenses under their name. So you can now find an Elicar, Panagor, or Spiratone lens that has a Vivitar twin and possibly the OEM version on top of that. Anyway, here I go again.. This gives you a decent overview, even though it's only scratching the surface. If you really want to get into it try to find publications by Robert Monaghan. He did more research on the subject that anyone else. His semi abandoned website is at this link:

http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html

Mark, that's a new one on me. Thanks for posting the pics! I actually have the 52mm version, but it's kind of a nothing lens and I have so many better 135's, so I never use it. This is the 135/2.8 close focusing lens I was speaking of (not my site):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/revlimit/2186765790/in/set-72157603550737696/

The good news is that your lens is also a Komine, obviously AI and very clean looking. This explains the nice pics you posted. I see a velvet lined slide out hood too. You'll need it to be sure. Coatings were not Komine's strong suit.

The Vivitar close-up lenses you have are junk, toss them. What is this Cozo Mirage 3P (3 power?) filter you got in that stack? It looks thick enough to be an achromat diopter. That would be good. The Olympus MCON-40 is a superb achromatic close-up lens with a 55mm thread that you should be able to find for less money than the Nikon/Canon versions.

Yep, velvet-lined - you don't see that much these days! Thanks for the advice, I'll look into that Olly close-up lens.

As for the Cozo Mirage 3P - it's the trippiest filter I've ever seen. Here's what the lights in my lounge room look like:

I still can't get over how beautiful this lens is. The Komine build is such a treat! I can imagine that when you picked it up at first it was much heavier than you expected for the compact size. Oh well, I guess I'll add it to my already stacked list of lenses to be on the lookout for..

That Mirage filter sure is useless

The MCON-40 is a a +2.5 diopter with a 55mm thread. That's very close to the discontinued Nikon 6T at +2.9 and 62mm thread. You'd be lucky to find a 6T for much less then $200, if you can even find one. The MCON-40 is well under $100 when found used.

Here's a somewhat over-processed pic of a little snake shot with the MCON-40 on a cheap, 70-210 zoomer. It was also shot through glass that was less than clean. You can see that the DOF is shallow enough, but not non-existing. This is at 210mm & f/13.

Haha! Very sharp result, but I don't think you'll find me taking Macro photos of snakes anytime soon! (though perhaps that has something to do with us having almost all of the world's most venomous snakes!)

It's an interesting concept though - buying a $100 filter for a $50 lens

Mark Kenfield wrote:
It's an interesting concept though - buying a $100 filter for a $50 lens


Ahhh, I see your point. The lens you got is probably more of a portrait lens anyway. I was inspired by your use of it with my suggestion. But if macro use is of interest, a cheap set of tubes will do the job just fine. A vintage, non-AI set can be had for all of $20 on ebay. I know a lot of folks think that you need the AI version to get metering and TTL flash, but that's not the case. Just set the aperture where you want it, enter the same data in the non-CPU setting and shoot away. You'll have full metering and TTL just like with an AI set.

Elan, thanks for that list, seems the two I have are both Tokina made if that list holds true for the mount I have, and after feeling inside the built in hood on the 200, it also has the velvet lining on it, never really felt inside it before.

And Mark, that's a heck of a stack of filters there,

very interesting thread, nice find and beautiful pictures...
the story about Vivitar is very interesting.
The only Vivitar lens I used was a zoom on my Canon camera...

Guy

NightOwl Cat wrote:
Elan, thanks for that list, seems the two I have are both Tokina made if that list holds true for the mount I have, and after feeling inside the built in hood on the 200, it also has the velvet lining on it, never really felt inside it before.

And Mark, that's a heck of a stack of filters there,


The codes hold true regardless of the mount. Only thing is, I don't think Tokina ever made a 200/3.5 prime. It sounds like what you actually have is the early Komine 200/3.5. If I'm right, the serial actually starts with 28 and the hood only extends out 3/4" or so. That lens had a more primitive design, with a laborious focus ring and a barrel that makes you feel like you're holding a steel pipe. I also felt that she meters more like a 4.0 than a 3.5. But the optics are very good and I think I also remember good flare resistance. 95% chance the mount is non-AI. Let me know if I'm right.

What is the filter thread size of the 28/2.8? I don't have that one, but the 24/2.8 Tokina I have is 58mm, so I'm wondering if it's the same.

Elan II wrote:
Ahhh, I see your point. The lens you got is probably more of a portrait lens anyway. I was inspired by your use of it with my suggestion. But if macro use is of interest, a cheap set of tubes will do the job just fine. A vintage, non-AI set can be had for all of $20 on ebay. I know a lot of folks think that you need the AI version to get metering and TTL flash, but that's not the case. Just set the aperture where you want it, enter the same data in the non-CPU setting and shoot away. You'll have full metering and TTL just like with an AI set.


I'm definitely going to look into picking up a cheap set of tubes, the lens gets very sharp around f/8-f/11 (so it should work out pretty well if metering and TTL are still going to work).

Thanks for all the info Elan - learnt a lot from this thread.

NightOwl Cat wrote:
And Mark, that's a heck of a stack of filters there,

That's why I got so excited when I realised the lens had 55mm threads!

Elan, The filter size on the 28 is 58mm, the 200 is 67mm. A collage of shots of different angles on them if it helps:

Mark, you're welcome.


NightOwl Cat, these pics are really helpful. Looks like I was off by a full era here. What you have there are TX/T4 mount lenses, a generation of lenses that preceded the more notorious Series 1. These had an interchangeable mount similar to the Tamron Adaptall system. With it, you can have one lens fit many different brands of SLR cameras by simply changing the inexpensive mount. Of course prevailing brand loyalty made these less useful that they might have otherwise been.

Your mount I think is the older T4, but the lenses are likely from the TX series. According to Rick Olson's excellent site, you can use a T4 mount on a TX lens, but not the other way around. The reason I think these are from the TX series is that they closely match the ones released along with the full series in 1976. The entire TX release was made by Tokina!

The history of the TX series is a subject of ongoing debate at a small manual focus forum I participate in. One member remembered that there was a test of the series by Modern Photography magazine in 1979 that gave them high acclamation, but no record of the article could be found on the web. Another member then bought a set of the 1979 issues on ebay, but when they arrived, the article was not in any of them. Finally, yet another member went to his main city library where they have 40 years of Modern Photography issues available. He found the article in the April 1976 issue. From the article we learned that the TX line was not a revamp of the T4 line, but rather an entire new release. The lenses tested, primes in the 24-200mm range, all scored well. Presumably on optical bench tests.

Several members have the 200/3.5 and the feedback is very good. I suspect the 24/2.8 is just as good, but more prone to flare. Your mount is non-AI. It's difficult to tell from the pic, but if the outer sleeve of the mount doesn't protrude beyond the rear (camera side) face of the mount, then it is safe to CAREFULLY mount it on your D300 to see if it mounts freely and without friction. There is no aperture release linkage with these, so you'll have to compose and then stop-down. Set the non-CPU data to what you're planning to stop down to. Don't assume that stopping down automatically nets more sharpness and contrast though. Read this excerpt from a Robert Monaghan article about 3rd party lenses, especially the last paragraph.


To my mind, the T-4 and TX series are more interesting third party lenses, precisely because you can use them on a variety of camera bodies simply by using the appropriate adapter. Consumer quality lenses in the 28mm to 300mm range were no great optical design challenge by the 1980s. So you can expect these lenses to perform reasonably well, although less brilliantly than their Series I cousins, especially when used wide open.

Still, these interchangeable T-4 and TX mount lenses are even less liked by today's consumers, so you can often buy them for as little as $25 US or even less! For $10-15 for a used adapter, you can convert all of these lenses to work on a different camera body (generally non-autofocus models obviously).

In a related case study of Vivitar TX lenses, we discovered that these lenses are full of surprises. For example, their highest ratings for sharpness are wide open rather than the expected middle f/stop settings. Their corner sharpness is generally rated as excellent or very good, while center sharpness varied more widely. The hardest to design 24mm lens was the best rated performer. Surprise! This case study highlights the need to actually test your lenses to learn about these surprising variations.

Thanks Elan for all that info, now my curiosity is really up on these lenses, and funny thing, I acquired them in my first deal here on FM, they were added in as a bonus. They do work on my D1h, no D300 here, yet... I'll have to give them a serious whirl one weekend.