A friend of mine has offered to sell me a Vivitar Series 1 28-90 MM 2.8 -
3.5 macro lens.<
(Greetings, Zuiks - I'm new to the list so pardon moi SVP if I stray from
format or protocol until I've been beaten into submission.)
I missed who posted the original query about the Vivitar, but I got one with
my recently acquired OM-1 MD and will offer a bit of a critical look at it.
I offer this while keeping in mind Gary Reese's precautions to not count on
obtaining best performance from a lens that's been dinged, as mine has - a
fair doink right at the leading edge of the filter rim area.
My first roll, Kodak Gold 200 (yes, I know, it's not slide film but it's
what I had with me at the time and I figured I could read the negs with a
loupe if necessary), was pretty revealing.
The first three shots, at 28, 50 and 90mm, tripod mounted, were of one of my
favorite "test" spots - a neighbor's dock on our lakefront. He has a
winsome statue of a little boy fishing on the dock. The number of fine
vertical, horizontal and diagonal lines of the dock, plus the contrast range
between the sky, water and foreground make for fairly good overall tests of
lens, film and photographer. All were exposed at 1/125 with the aperture
ring set to f/8 and all were with about 1/2 stop of each other on the negs.
The next 9 shots were of a clear blue sky to determine vignetting. The same
exposure settings were used for each focal length (using the 28mm, 50mm and
90mm marks on the barrel) - f/2.8 at 1/1000, f/5.6 at 1/250 and f/16 at
1/30. These might have been tripod mounted, I didn't make a note of it, but
it's not really relevant for this test.
All 9 negatives were uniformly exposed, within 1/2 stop of each other so I
was relieved to see no apparent problems existed with either the lens or
body. (It was rather comical to look at the prints, which were fairly
uniform, but I wondered what the tech thought was going on.)
At 28mm wide open vignetting was, shall we say, SIGNIFICANT!!! It looked
like I had the wrong lens hood on when in fact I wasn't using one at all.
Vignetting remained significant (notice the lower case letters) at f/5.6 and
was barely apparent at f/16, but only in the upper corners.
At 50mm wide open vignetting approximately equalled that of the 28mm setting
at f/5.6, but with more defined corners. And at 50/5.6 it was nearly as
well controlled as 28/16, with discernable corner smudges at the top only.
At 50/16 vignetting was practically gone but for the tiniest, barely
discernable corner smudge at the upper right hand corner.
And performance continued in pretty much this fashion at 90mm, with
vignetting apparent only in the upper corners wide open - and just barely -
down to the tiniest discernable smudge in the upper right hand corner at
f/5.6 (keep in mind I'm going by what's marked on the aperture ring, not
actual effective aperture), and gone completely at f/16.
That pretty well matched everything I'd heard and read about this lens
regarding vignetting, so it was a passing grade so far.
The next 4 shots were of the inside of a notebook computer to evaluate how
the lens behaved at minimum focusing range for each focal length. I also
wanted an idea of how the lens handled things like specular highlights
(solder joints and other shiny bits) and contrast in general. All were shot
at f/11 with shutter speeds varying from 1/4 second to 1 second 'cause I was
in open shade but losing daylight.
At 90mm and minimum focusing distance coverage was approximately 12"x8".
Not quite macro, but still close enough to be versatile. This test would
reveal only gross barrel or pincushion distortion and I saw neither at this
focal length and range. What I at first assumed to be edge softness turned
out to be PPP - piss poor printing. Lettering on the IC chips was crisp and
readable throughout the image on the negative.
At 50mm coverage was roughly 9"x6" (I can't find my proper ruler and the
little 6" transparent thingie I'm using tonight is hard to see). Getting
closer to close up range. Again, lettering and circuitry were crisply
defined from edge to edge. A bit of barrel distortion began to become
apparent, but wasn't distracting in this subject.
I took two shots at 28mm, one at minimum focus/maximum magnification, the
other at a distance to approximate the maximum magnification obtainable at
90mm. At this second distance sharpness was at least equal to the lens at
90mm - possible a bit sharper - but with obvious barrel distortion.
At maximum magnification coverage was approximately 6.5"x4". Center
sharpness was excellent but edge sharpness was definitely hindered by
distortion. Interestingly, the "short" edges suffered more than the "long"
edges. Perhaps there's a term for this and it's a common phenomenon, I
don't know.
The rest of the roll was a mix of snapshots using flash and available light.
The lens is bright and made it easy to track our recent litter of kittens
as they bounced around. Refocusing as I changed focal lengths really didn't
seem to be a problem - I typically fine focus constantly anyway, so my
approach was the same.
Between 50mm-90mm using a T20 flash or an old Canon AB46 flash and apertures
around f/8-f/16, snapshots were extremely crisp and contrasty. Enlargements
to 8x10 should be no problem.
It occurs to me only now that after two rolls I shot very little at 28mm.
Odd, because I usually favor wide angles. If I find anything noteworthy in
long term use of this lens at 28mm I'll mention it here.
But after all this testing hoo-hah, what it really boiled down to was how
the lens performed in the kinds of photos that are important to me. And
that ain't blue skies and circuit boards.
I was actually on the verge of trading the Vivitar 'cause it's so dang heavy
for the OM body. It wouldn't bother me having the same glass hanging off my
Canon FTbn (bOAT AnCHOR?) or even T70 bodies. But it's practically an
abomination on the petite OM-1. Hell, I bought the thing for access to the
tiny 50/3.5 macro and probably a couple of the smaller primes. It just
happened to have come with the Series 1 tank buster attached.
But when I got back some pix I'd taken wide open at 90mm, I knew there was
no way I was letting go of this lens. The bokeh is gorgeous. While this
glass is accurate to the point of cruelty at f/11, it produces incredible
people pix wide open. A shot of my admittedly beautiful grandson, taken
over my shoulder while he was sitting in his car seat, reveals that
indefinable quality of fineness of detail where needed to satisfy the viewer
that the image is in focus - sharp eyelashes, etc. - while all else softly
and gradually recedes.
Another shot, an impromptu still life at my mom's place, handheld at 1/15th
and wide open at 90mm, is more akin to what appeals to me in photographic
and other artistic images. As a painter of impressionistic watercolors and
a photographer I don't expect or desire either form to replace or mimic the
other. But there are undeniable influences on my perceptions. One is great
bokeh. I don't care how terrific a lens has been proven to be in testing.
If the out of focus elements are harsh or reveal obvious optical
characterstics that I find intrusive it's difficult for me to enjoy the
image on any other merits.
But I digress.
It's an excellent lens, the best zoom I've owned (including some Canon FDs).
The coverage is nearly perfect. A touch more on the tele end would be
nice, but not if it meant giving up a single other quality this one already
has. My sample is very well made, the one-touch mechanism doesn't float
around loosely (one of my pet peeves and a reason I'll often choose an
inferior two-touch model), and the aperture detents are well regulated, not
always one of Vivitar's strong points. It's weight is ridiculous on an OM
body, but a winder or motor drive would help balance things out. And how
much do 67mm filters cost nowadays?
OTOH, I used it to photograph a public meeting tonight and felt quite
discrete compared with the local newspaper photog using a pair of A2 bodies
with big L glass. Two OM bodies, one with a 28/2.8 and one with a 100/2.8,
could have covered everything in her arsenal at less than 1/4 the size and
weight. Hmm...
Lex
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|