Opinions: Vivitar 28-105 f2.8-3.8 OR Canon 35-105 f3.5..?

[mrmacmusic]

Looking for opinions please...

I currently have a nice Canon FD 70-210 f/4 (with Macro) lens, that works well on my GH1, and I've been thinking about getting a similar, shorter lens.

Currently, I'm eyeing up two options: the Canon FD 35-105 f/3.5 with macro (72mm filter thread), and the Vivitar 28-105 f/2.8-3.8 Series 1 (67mm).

I'd really appreciate some input as to whether or not one is appreciably better than the other. From what I've read, Vivitar is generally well respected, but build quality can be variable, although image quality is generally very good. I think there are also different versions of the 28-105 - my searching reveals some have rubber 'Series 1' embossed grips, others don't.... not sure what difference this makes.

Help!

--
Alisdair

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrmacmusic/

 

[hindesite]

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that with Vivitar, including Series 1, you really have to research who made the specific lens you are looking at, by serial number. There are a couple of websites that cover this.

I have a 1980-ish Vivitar 70-210 FD (non Series 1) in absolutely mint condition, and it is truly, unbelievably awful compared to other lenses I have from that era.

May not help with your specific model, but for example:

http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm

 

[mrmacmusic]

Thanks for that.... somewhat useful

Some Googling reveals that of the various 28-105 Series 1 lenses available, the 67mm thread one (with the rubber grip) is by far the best of the bunch....... The serial number research was inconclusive. It starts 09 (so possibly Cosina?) but the next three digits - 860 - don't tie up, since there is no week 60!

I may just have to bite the bullet if I get a bargain price, and see how it goes.

--
Alisdair

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrmacmusic/

 

[MikeK5117]

I have had the New FD 35-105 f3.5 since 1985 and it was my goto lens (actually the only zoom I owned) during the time I shot my film cameras up to 2005. I always had it fitted to one body and it was often the combo I grabbed first. And now I have started using it on my Pen E-P2 with great success. It was always a highly regarded lens in the FD lineup, very sharp and contrasty. Two features I appreciate a lot are the constant aperture (even though f3.5) and the 2-touch zoom which on a heavy lens can make handling much easier than with a 1-touch.

Series 1 lenses were also well thought of. I have never owned one so I can't give first-hand opinion. It is nice that it is 2.8 at the wide end but think about the FL range you will most often use the lens in and see if that will be a significant factor or not.

I would really urge you to think about the handling with the Vivitar. The Canon is a large lens and I imagine the Vivitar is as well, and with my E-P2 you more mount the camera on the lens than visa versa. The 2-touch zoom is easy to operate under these conditions without accidentally shifting zoom or focus, the 1-touch might not be as easy to use under the same conditions (I always found 1-touch to be less convenient even on large camera bodies). The Canon is also an internal zoom so it does not change length during zooming and only less than half an inch during focus so it is much easier to handle in that regard as well.

Hope this helps.

 

[mrmacmusic]

I have had the New FD 35-105 f3.5 since 1985 and it was my goto lens (actually the only zoom I owned) during the time I shot my film cameras up to 2005. I always had it fitted to one body and it was often the combo I grabbed first. And now I have started using it on my Pen E-P2 with great success. It was always a highly regarded lens in the FD lineup, very sharp and contrasty. Two features I appreciate a lot are the constant aperture (even though f3.5) and the 2-touch zoom which on a heavy lens can make handling much easier than with a 1-touch.

Series 1 lenses were also well thought of. I have never owned one so I can't give first-hand opinion. It is nice that it is 2.8 at the wide end but think about the FL range you will most often use the lens in and see if that will be a significant factor or not.

I would really urge you to think about the handling with the Vivitar. The Canon is a large lens and I imagine the Vivitar is as well, and with my E-P2 you more mount the camera on the lens than visa versa. The 2-touch zoom is easy to operate under these conditions without accidentally shifting zoom or focus, the 1-touch might not be as easy to use under the same conditions (I always found 1-touch to be less convenient even on large camera bodies). The Canon is also an internal zoom so it does not change length during zooming and only less than half an inch during focus so it is much easier to handle in that regard as well.

Hope this helps.

Thanks Mike... very helpful.

I very much like the results from my FD 70-210 f4 on my GH1 - very sharp and contrasty. The lens became extra versatile after I discovered the macro feature (D'oh!), and it also works surprisingly well with my bargain 2x macro-focusing teleconverter (Vivitar), essentially giving me a 420mm f8 lens (840mm in 35mm terms) for very little outlay. Need to use a tripod for that of course, since my GH1 doesn't have IBIS

I had initially been looking at the Canon 35-105 f3.5 as it appears to be a very similar proposition - one touch, constant aperture, internal zooming, 'hidden' macro capability etc., as it would provide a potentially more serviceable everyday range, with a faster aperture than my kit lens. However, I would seem to be able to pick up the Vivitar 28-105 for a fraction of the cost of the Canon, given the currently 'buoyant' second-hand lens market, and it might just be worth a try if I can bag a bargain.....

Maybe at the end of the day, I'm barking up the wrong tree..? Perhaps I should concentrate my limited resources on some fast primes instead (I currently have the 20mm f1.7 and an FD 50mm f1.8)...?

--
Alisdair

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrmacmusic/

 

[Gato Amarillo]

I used Canon FD for essentially all of my professional career. During that time I tried several Vivitar Series 1 lenses -- and never kept any of them. I always went back and bought a Canon, even in the early days when I really didn't have the money. I am quite confident the Canon will be a better buy.

Gato

--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com

 

[hindesite]

Actually, I'd add another comment about my FD Vivitars: apart from the image quality, the handling has one major failing.

Some rocket scientist decided the lenses should have aperture rings that are immediately adjacent too, and feel exactly the same as, the breech-lock ring. I suppose you'd get used to it, and probably never unmount the lens accidentally, but why would you have to even think about this?

 

[mrmacmusic]

Thanks folks.... again, useful advice (really don't fancy un-mounting a lens by mistake!)

At the end of the day, I reckon I'd prefer then Canon - especially considering the experiences I've already had with their FD lenses. I'll just need to see how the bargain hunting goes

--
Alisdair

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrmacmusic/

 

[shutter2533]

Looking for opinions please...

I currently have a nice Canon FD 70-210 f/4 (with Macro) lens, that works well on my GH1, and I've been thinking about getting a similar, shorter lens.

The 70-210mm zooms from the mid 80s were quite good by today's standards as they had evolved through the 70s.

The 28-105mm zooms, however, were in their infancy. While they produced very good results on film, they are not so good on digital. Corner softness and light fall off at the wide angle end was a problem and still is with the cropped APS-C sensors. Sharpness at the long end was not as good. The 35-105mm zooms were better.

The designs from the late 80s and early 90s were an improvement but the Canon designs were all AF and you have no aperture control when mounting on an adapter. The alternative is to look for the Nikon and Minolta MD zooms in that focal length range.

They won't come as cheap as the Vivitars, but I think you will find better image quality from these later zooms. Not as fast, the f3.5-4.5 designs are optically superior to the early zooms.

Nikon's AF 28-105mm does 1:2 macro.

Cheaper alternatives would be the Tamron SPs and Tokina AT-Xs.

Trevor