I just picked up this gem from another FM'er (thanks Kiyoshi ) and took some initial shots with it on the 40D last weekend. When I saw it in the B&S forum it caught my eye right away as I had remembered seeing some image with very nice bokeh from the previous owner. What I really like about the lens aside from its speed and build quality is its close focus (3 ft) ability.
It probably performs better on a full frame body, but first results from the 40D don't look too shabby.
It's a very nice lens, and very sharp, but it has a lot of CA in high contrast situations.
At one time, I had a variety of 135's, and so I compared their USAF 1951 resolution and relative CA on a 20D, including: the Vivitar Series 1 135/2.5; Vivitar 135/2.8 CF (close focus, MFD = 1.9'); SMC Takumar 135/2.5; and, Carl Zeiss Jena MC Flektogon 135/3.5. All lenses had resolution slightly above 50 lpmm (a high res benchmark), with (IMO) severe CA for the Zeiss J (worst) and Series 1 (still bad), and acceptable CA for the others.
Incidentally, I also tested the Canon EF 80-200/2.8L at 135mm, at the same time. The 80-200L has higher resolution and lower CA than all of these highly regarded 135's - that's why it's called the Magic Drainpipe.
" The 80-200L has higher resolution and lower CA than all of these highly regarded 135's"
Although it beats them it's like comparing apples to oranges. There is like a 30-35 year difference in optical advances between them. You also need to compare the cost factor against them as well for the average users
The Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 came in two versions. I've seen no other mention of this, but I had both. There is the non-VMC, and the later VMC. Either version (in proper optical condition, and with a correct adapter) has has very little CA, less than a 80-200L zoom. The non-VMC has none of the blue fringing in high contrast situations, often seen with the VMC version. By looking at the slight yellowing of the glass on my non-VMC version, I'd say it has the old (radioactive or "banned" mineral glass).
Regardless of the version, these lenses have a corner to corner sharpness from wide open. At f/2.8 no Canon zoom can match it. And the colors, bokeh, and overall way it paints is way different from any Canon zoom. Much preferred in my book.
Screaminscott wrote:
Although it beats them it's like comparing apples to oranges.
True, but what's the point? Apples schmaples, they're all lenses - I think it's significant for a zoom to beat such highly regarded primes. It's usually the other way around.
Screaminscott wrote:
There is like a 30-35 year difference in optical advances between them. You also need to compare the cost factor against them as well for the average users
Not true. The 135/2.3 hit the market in 1977 and the 80-200L in 1989 - that's 12 years.
Actually, the 135/2.3 was announced in 1972 so presumably the design dates back that far. They were widely available as of 1975 at least. Just to be accurate...
I try to be accurate, too. According to the Monaghan Megasite brand listing, the Series 1 135/2.3 was released in 1977 - maybe that was the VMC version, and the non-VMC was 1972. In any case, it's still about 1/2 of the stated 30-35 year age difference between the 135/2.3 and 80-200L.
My reference is the modern photography test of this (from 1975) at www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/ where they mention it was announced in 1972. at the time, there was no difference/designation of the VMC / non VMC version. VMC = their name for multicoating, so likely only a coating change in any case.
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I have a Vivitar 135mm 2.3 lens from my old days shooting film many years ago. Right now, I have an XSI. I'm shocked to read that someone is using this lens on a digital camera (40D). What kind of adapter would I need to use it on my XSI? I'd love to dust mine off and use it again. thanks.
Cadaver wrote:
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I have a Vivitar 135mm 2.3 lens from my old days shooting film many years ago. Right now, I have an XSI. I'm shocked to read that someone is using this lens on a digital camera (40D). What kind of adapter would I need to use it on my XSI? I'd love to dust mine off and use it again. thanks.
I have a Fotodiox Pro OM to EOS with focus confirm chip on my VMC copy. The focus confirm doesn't appear to work on my 1D Mark II body though. It does on my 40D though. These adapters run about $80 new whereas the ones without focus confirm are a lot less. With Liveview on the XSi, you may not need the AF confirm depending on your shooting style. You might look for a used adapter here in the B&S if you just want to experiment with the lens first.
Here's some of my samples I'm very happy with this lens. Sometimes the older the better . These are f/2.3, except for the close focus macro type shot.
First day: http://www.imaginenature.com/vivitar135_test.jpg
Cadaver wrote:
Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I have a Vivitar 135mm 2.3 lens from my old days shooting film many years ago. Right now, I have an XSI. I'm shocked to read that someone is using this lens on a digital camera (40D). What kind of adapter would I need to use it on my XSI? I'd love to dust mine off and use it again. thanks.
It depends on what system you used for film. Some film mounts are not adaptable (Canon FD, Minolta SR/MC/MD, Konica AX), SOme are (Nikon F, Contax/Yashica, Olympus OM, Pentax screwmount) and some are adaptable only to crop bodies like the XSi (Pentax K)
The 2 Canon film camera's I used the Vivitar 135mm on were the AE-1 and the EF (an offshoot of the old F 1). These I believe are FD mounts. I looked on the Fotodiox website (Sirfishalot suggested) and I dont see an adapter from FD to EOS. Would this mean I'm out of luck as far as fitting this to an XSI, or is there some other way to do it?
Cadaver wrote:
The 2 Canon film camera's I used the Vivitar 135mm on were the AE-1 and the EF (an offshoot of the old F 1). These I believe are FD mounts. I looked on the Fotodiox website (Sirfishalot suggested) and I dont see an adapter from FD to EOS. Would this mean I'm out of luck as far as fitting this to an XSI, or is there some other way to do it?
FD mount is not adaptable to EF mount(Confusingly, EF mount is the mount for the EOS cameras, not the old EF body), you'd have to do a total mount conversion to EF mount to use the lens.
I use a no-name FD-to-EOS adaptor that has optional corrector glass to allow infinity (i.e. long-range) focus on Canon DSLR bodies.
For macros I take the glass out, maximising sharpness. For portraits the glass stays in to allow the long-range focus. The corrector glass does a pretty decent job of keeping the sharpness, tho' it does lose out once you start zooming in on the finished file, but definitely good enough for A4 prints and monitor views.
I have the same as Cadaver the FD-mount 2.3/135 Series 1 (Komine-built). I'll do some pics using the 10D as host and update this thread some more.
My 10D has its own strange issue, which I can't quite figure out. That is here by the way:
There's enough registration spacing from the rear element to the mount to likely allow for Canon FD to EOS conversion w/o much trouble in this lens. I converted a Viv S1 28/1.9 Canon FD to EOS, and wides usually have a lot less tolerance for spacing issues. I would expect the 135 could be converted no problem. SInce these were designed to be used on multiple mounts, I think the design incorporated generous spacing from rear element to mount plane, for the most part. (Vivitar series 1)
. These are f/2.3, except for the close focus macro type shot.