IMO Everyone Should Own a Vivitar 1 Series 70-210 (with examples why)

[NLLV]

I purchased this lens from eBay and it’s one of the most versatile I own.

3.5 all the way through. 70-210mm. Heavy and built like a tank.

if you do purchase one there are many variants. You should know the first few versions are generally better being made by better optical companies.

Vivitar never made their own lenses, they started as an import company and saw a lack of support for zoom lenses in the late 1970s.

they contracted their products out to various companies and badged them Vivitar Series 1.

When buying be sure to sort out the serial numbers to know which version, you can see everything about them at this link:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-series-1-70-210-line.html

dont buy the lens if you cannot see the serial number on the listing

don’t be out off that it’s a Pentax page, these were made for Minolta, canon, and M42.

anyway when you buy be sure that the macro switch works and also that you know what to use it.

macro is engaged by putting the lens at 210mm, pressing the button and turning the ring. Doing it otherwise will break the lens making it almost useless.

this lens is incredibly sharp at 5.6 and although the slide to focus macro can be a pain when it does focus you get wonderfully sharp results.

i shot these on a Lumix G9. These were run through Lightroom and cleaned up with Topaz Sharpen and Topaz Denoise.




Beer park at the Paris hotel Las Vegas


Springs preserve Las Vegas


Springs preserve Las Vegas


Brahman shrine at Caesars Palace Las Vegas

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

Well, what you said is only true for Version 1. To many people the Version 3 (Komine version) can even be better. The later Cosina version (Version 4) is not so great and the last Apochromatic version is not very apochromatic at all.

CK

 

[Tons o Glass]

Thanks for commenting about the Cosina versions, espectially APO-designated one, I won't be tempted to check them out unless they pop up very cheaply. Can't say I've even seen any of the Cosinas pop up locally yet.

I only have experience with the Tokina f/3.5 version (v2) and the Komine f/2.8-4 version (v3). I'm actually surprised with myself that I haven't tried the first version as samples have popped up plenty of times at my local swap meet, and I've picked up a few too many of the v3.

When it comes to choosing between the two it would depend on your priorities. I'd probably stick with the Tokina.

I find the Tokina to be very nice as a stop-it-down landscape zoom, but up close, wide-open, and zoomed in, SA is very under-corrected (which admittedly makes for nice background bokeh, but contrast takes a big dip). I find the Komine to be very nice for close-ups where it is sharper/contrastier across the frame, but I feel like LoCA is pretty strong throughout the focal range at any distance and my Tokina seems to fare better at far distances.

 

[vivaldibow]

Thanks for commenting about the Cosina versions, espectially APO-designated one, I won't be tempted to check them out unless they pop up very cheaply. Can't say I've even seen any of the Cosinas pop up locally yet.

I only have experience with the Tokina f/3.5 version (v2) and the Komine f/2.8-4 version (v3). I'm actually surprised with myself that I haven't tried the first version as samples have popped up plenty of times at my local swap meet, and I've picked up a few too many of the v3.

When it comes to choosing between the two it would depend on your priorities. I'd probably stick with the Tokina.

I find the Tokina to be very nice as a stop-it-down landscape zoom, but up close, wide-open, and zoomed in, SA is very under-corrected (which admittedly makes for nice background bokeh, but contrast takes a big dip). I find the Komine to be very nice for close-ups where it is sharper/contrastier across the frame, but I feel like LoCA is pretty strong throughout the focal range at any distance and my Tokina seems to fare better at far distances.

Same here. The v2 is my first Vivitar zoom and later I had the v3. Only until recently, did I get a v1 version from ebay. People say Cosina version is not great; I have yet to try it. Will get one someday.

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

Cosina version has at least one variation that has not been talked about: the QDOS version for shooting 3D images. Inside the lens there is a splitting disc one side of which is green and the other side is red. This version came with a 3D glasses. Quality-wise it is not great. IMO, about average like the other Cosina versions. I still prefer the Koine version.

CK

 

[FrancoD]

Not all that relevant now but the original version was also available in Olympus OM and Konica AR mounts.

 

[ProfHankD]

Cosina version has at least one variation that has not been talked about: the QDOS version for shooting 3D images. Inside the lens there is a splitting disc one side of which is green and the other side is red. This version came with a 3D glasses. Quality-wise it is not great. IMO, about average like the other Cosina versions. I still prefer the Koine version.

I have one of the QDOS (as well as several others) and -- as long as you don't engage the QDOS feature -- it's excellent. It's trash with the QDOS filters engaged because the split creates a line of optical badness down the middle and the thickness of the filter glass doesn't seem to be compensated either.

My favorite is actually an extra-chunky-build Kiron-branded version that's f/4 , although I like the original f/3.5 Vivitars quite a bit.

However, these are heavy lenses and manual zooms are a pain relative to IBIS settings. For those reasons, I rarely bring any of these lenses on any significant trips and cannot strongly recommend any of them.

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

However, these are heavy lenses and manual zooms are a pain relative to IBIS settings. For those reasons, I rarely bring any of these lenses on any significant trips and cannot strongly recommend any of them.

Well, I normally used the Nikon 80-200mm 1:4.5, in particular the later version, due to its size, weight and sharpness, even though I have the better 80-200mm 1:4. For a non-driving significant trips nowadays, I would really bring my Nikon V2 with a couple lenses with me. The only down side is this system has no micro lens. The good size is that a wonderful 32mm 1:1.2, a reasonably good 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6, and a very convenient 10-100mm 1:4.0-5.6. Moreover, the 6.7-13mm 1:3.5-5.6 is also a convenient super-wide to wide.

In the film days, I normally carried two or three lenses: Nikon AIS 25-50mm 1:4, AIS 80-200mm 1:4.5 and a 55mm 1:2.8 Micro (in fact, the AF 55mm 1:2.8 1:1 capable one can be better).

I would not recommend any versions of the Vivitar S1 70-210mm lenses due to their weight and image quality.

CK

 

[Volker G]

While I agree from a collector's point of view (the first Vivitar S 170-210 mm f/3.5 was a milestone in zoom lens design due to its luminosity and macro setting...), I certainly wouldn't recommend the lens and its successors to photographers looking for a high-performance zoom. Personally, I've had the Q-Dos and I still have the "historic milestone" made by Kiron. I've found that most of my equivalent focal range first-party zoom lenses (Canon FD, Nikkor AI/AI-S, Minolta MD, Olympus OM, Pentax K/A, Konica UD, etc.) offer better performances, especially at the longer focal lengths. Furthermore, most of these lenses can be bought quite cheaply. So why bother with the Vivitars ?

 

[ProfHankD]

However, these are heavy lenses and manual zooms are a pain relative to IBIS settings. For those reasons, I rarely bring any of these lenses on any significant trips and cannot strongly recommend any of them.

Well, I normally used the Nikon 80-200mm 1:4.5, in particular the later version, due to its size, weight and sharpness, even though I have the better 80-200mm 1:4. For a non-driving significant trips nowadays, I would really bring my Nikon V2 with a couple lenses with me. The only down side is this system has no micro lens. The good size is that a wonderful 32mm 1:1.2, a reasonably good 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6, and a very convenient 10-100mm 1:4.0-5.6. Moreover, the 6.7-13mm 1:3.5-5.6 is also a convenient super-wide to wide.

It's surprising how happy I was shooting a lot of stuff on a Sigma 28-200mm -- and I now have an FE Tamron 28-200mm that's way better (although also notably larger).

In the film days, I normally carried two or three lenses: Nikon AIS 25-50mm 1:4, AIS 80-200mm 1:4.5 and a 55mm 1:2.8 Micro (in fact, the AF 55mm 1:2.8 1:1 capable one can be better).

Way back, I used to do commercial photography with a Minolta XK and/or SRT-101 and Rokkor 28mm f/2.5, 50mm f/1.7, and 135mm f/3.5 lenses plus a set of extension tubes, and I had a lot of work published that was shot with that modest kit. I almost never shot wide open either; it was usually at the optimal aperture and on films around ISO25.

I would not recommend any versions of the Vivitar S1 70-210mm lenses due to their weight and image quality.

I think the IQ is pretty good, although I wouldn't have considered it acceptable for commercial photography back in the 1970s-80s. Still, long manual zooms just are not that compelling. My mediocre Minolta AF 70-300mm still goes more places than the Vivitar Series I lenses do.

 

[Erichimedes]

I have this lens, and I agree it has fantastic image quality for it's time period. I tested it against some other zooms in the same range and it came up tops most times. The only one that has beaten it at similar apertures is the Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 Lambda-II. But of course that lens is a bit slower, especially at the long end.

Anyway, I've got the Vivitar V1 in Pentax mount in great condition if anyone wants to buy it. Was planning on ebaying it soon.

 

[NLLV]

Not sure what you mean as in “high performance,” this is partly due to my newness to vintage lenses and partly because my results have been stellar and working in post have even amplified them. Example.





Can you please reach me what a lens needs to be deemed high performance in terms of vintage gear? Sometimes I see listings for lenses that are north of $100 and wonder there must be a reason they sell so high, 40+ years later.

 

[smith-jones]

Personally I think ANY of the old manual ,focus zooms CAN be good but only if you get a good copy and how they have been treated also makes a huge difference.

I work at a charity store and we get a lot of these old lenses in and some of them are mint or nearly so but others are trash.

Years ago in the 6mp digital days I looked for some of the usual suspects (Tamron 19ah, Vivitar series 1, Tokina 60-120 2.8 still a favourite and I found a nice one finally ETC).

They do not sell well at the charity store and I often buy them after a while and sometimes just toss them since they are not all that special these days in most cases.

I still have a few but hardly use them.

Just saying that because they MIGHT have been good lenses once, there was a lot of copy variation for many when they were new but many have long since been new.

 

[Murrayatuptown]

I have three lenses left that are V.S.O.

Both 70-210's are stuck wide open due to the silicone oil migrating into the iris diaphragm.

Another 28/2 is still adjustable but slow to respond.

I had one Kiron-labeled zoom I think had the zoom lock which was a very nice feature for the unpleasant (to me) slide mechanism.

Other than the recycled Kino for Olan Mills lens I'm monkeying with, I am done with the dice rolling...I got too many 'zeroes'. Luckily, most were inexpensive or gifts.

But I have none of the other-vendor V.S.O.'s.

--
Murray

 

[Eggplantt]

The 70-210mm f2.8-4 version was designed as and written up as a notable advancement over the 70-210mm f3.5- not really just a body change/tweak.

See https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/02093/02093.pdf

At 300dpi (the scan resolution):

Even if some of this is PR, they're still pulling out the academic references.

 

[ProfHankD]

The 70-210mm f2.8-4 version was designed as and written up as a notable advancement over the 70-210mm f3.5- not really just a body change/tweak.

That's correct.

The long-time standard reference for the versions is https://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm , and you'll see MTF data there from Modern Photography. The center performance is fairly similar across the first three versions, but the corners get steadily better. Contrast on the first version is also very low at 210mm @ f/3.5... although it gets better fast as you stop down and significantly beats the second version by f/8.

I was just looking on eBay, and it's shocking how many sellers are blatantly falsely claiming their f/3.5 is the f/2.8-4.0 version! Perhaps this is wishful thinking from nieve sellers, but when the lens is clearly marked as f/3.5, it sure sounds like fraud to me...

BTW, I'll just add that there are a ton of decent f/4 zooms in this range that are also cheap. For example, the famous AF Minolta "beercan" 70-210mm f/4 is often under $30 these days, and it does AF pretty well on Sony LA-EA4, although it does so with rather loud clunky noises. ;-)

 

[Eggplantt]

The 70-210mm f2.8-4 version was designed as and written up as a notable advancement over the 70-210mm f3.5- not really just a body change/tweak.

BTW, I'll just add that there are a ton of decent f/4 zooms in this range that are also cheap. For example, the famous AF Minolta "beercan" 70-210mm f/4 is often under $30 these days, and it does AF pretty well on Sony LA-EA4, although it does so with rather loud clunky noises. ;-)

True, although I am looking for the max aperture for depth of field effects and crossing my fingers the aberrations wide open lend themselves to some sort of interesting bokeh. f/4 might not cut it for me.

I say 'interesting' bokeh because to expect perfect smoothness in a zoom just trying to be sharp enough across the range not something you can expect - lenses I've tried have interesting soap bubble and slight vignetting.

What I will say compared to other vintage (often cheap) zooms in this range I've tried: the images my S1 70-210mm f3.5 produces images SOOC don't require any post-processing to bring the 'contrast' up- it looks relatively 'modern' this way.

The likely decent coatings is what's noticeable above all else in image making, as I've already priced in a lack of clinical sharpness to many of my lenses- something I'd think some of you also do.

(EDIT: note I am on a speedbooster though, on m43 with an empty adapter is a different story)

 

[ProfHankD]

What I will say compared to other vintage (often cheap) zooms in this range I've tried: the images my S1 70-210mm f3.5 produces images SOOC don't require any post-processing to bring the 'contrast' up- it looks relatively 'modern' this way.

I just did some quick tests of some of my zooms around 200-210mm max on my A7RII, all wide open. I just tried ones that are in my usual user rotation, not the ones I almost never use, so these are all probably better than average by most metrics. Here's a summary (without images) in order of oldest to newest:

Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 (Kiron; 1st version): A very consistent IQ lens, but everything is a bit soft (not great resolution and with low contrast -- just like the published measurements say). Very pleasing rendition with only a little PF (purple fringing), just not up to 42MP FF.

Soligor C/D Zoom+Macro 80-200mm f/4.5: I generally have been disappointed by Soligor lenses, but this one's small and behaves like what it is: Soligor's "computer-designed" answer to Vivitar Series 1. IQ is similar to the Vivitar above but slightly better... a lot like the Vivitar would behave if stopped down to f/4.5. I'd say this gives the 3rd-smoothest bokeh, although it's getting hard to rank because the rest are nearly as good.

Kiron (Kino Precision) 70-210mm f/4 macro 1:4: Really excellent with good color, contrast, and minimal fringing, but pretty heavy bokeh CA. Surprisingly, this is the 3rd-sharpest lens of this bunch. This is a similar, but significantly better, variant of the Vivitar Series 1 versions.

Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 (beercan): Very pleasing "Minolta colors" (yes, that's a thing) and the smoothest bokeh of this set, but an annoying level of PF and not bitingly sharp. This is one that looks way better on film than on a high-resolution sensor... but smallish prints would hide the defects. Aside from exceptionally pleasant colors and bokeh, the IQ of this lens is similar to more modern modestly-priced zooms.

Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 Macro D Aspherical IF: This Minolta AF lens cost me something like $10, but delivers surprisingly good IQ -- except for having slightly odd color rendering. It's easily the 2nd-sharpest of this set and honestly is closer to #1 than #3. Bokeh here is smaller than on the other lenses (even the Tamron which is also f/5.6), probably because the lens is a little slower and shorter than marked, but bokeh still has nice soft edges. NOTE: This lens is NOT typical of old-ish 28-200mm lenses; I have a bunch, and I avoid using the others because they really don't do well.

Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD Model A071: The sharpest and best IQ while still having good colors; the 2nd-smoothest bokeh too. This newly designed for FE lens really beats all the others in pretty much every metric and is a good example of what future tuned-for-mirrorless designs should be able to achieve.

 

[Eggplantt]

Strange, I probably test a lot of crap lenses then..

But yes, there is a general softness to the Viv 70-210mm f3.5, as the report says, that seems hidden if you don't look too close. But I was initially 'surprised'.

Soligor C/D Zoom+Macro 80-200mm f/4.5: I generally have been disappointed by Soligor lenses

Yes, putting C/D on their lenses was one of the better things they could've done for used value :-D I have found people generally a bit disappointed, maybe because they turn in a similar if not worse performance to the Tamron Adaptall-2 line whilst being more uncommon + higher price on used market today.

I agree with the rest of the conclusions, but can't remember if the beercan is optically identical to the MD 70-210mm f/4.

My mint optically Vivitar 70-210mm f2.8-4 awaits a Contax/Yashica -> EF adapter, then I will be able to give conclusions comparing it to the original. I had put it off.

Kiron (Kino Precision) 70-210mm f/4 macro 1:4: Really excellent with good color, contrast, and minimal fringing, but pretty heavy bokeh CA.

Incidentally another popular favourite lens worth mentioning, the Tamron 60-300mm SP, has in my experience very heavy bokeh CA (obvious at 60mm). I thought it was defective at first, then I got another sample which confirmed it. To be clear - it's not "broken", just I had heard rave reviews which were otherwise roughly met, just this was overlooked.

 

[ProfHankD]

Strange, I probably test a lot of crap lenses then..

Remember, I didn't quote performance on my bad ones. ;-)

But yes, there is a general softness to the Viv 70-210mm f3.5, as the report says, that seems hidden if you don't look too close. But I was initially 'surprised'.

Again, that Vivitar has a pleasant rendering and, in its day, I think it was really outstanding. After all, f/3.5 constant aperture was a darn fast zoom back then. For example, I think that lens does at least as well as its contemporary Vivitar 200mm f/3.5, which is not a lot smaller.

Soligor C/D Zoom+Macro 80-200mm f/4.5: I generally have been disappointed by Soligor lenses

Yes, putting C/D on their lenses was one of the better things they could've done for used value :-D I have found people generally a bit disappointed, maybe because they turn in a similar if not worse performance to the Tamron Adaptall-2 line whilst being more uncommon + higher price on used market today.

Soligor definitely seems to have made a lot of "also ran" lenses, often that look prettier than the images made with them. I think this C/D one is basically a less-ambitious competitor to the Vivitar Series 1 that actually hits its mark. However, unlike Soligor and Vivitar, Tamron is really a manufacturer, and I'd agree that the Tamron lenses overall have a MUCH better track record. In more recent times, Tamron was used by Minolta to fill in their lens production, which I believe led to the current close relationship with Sony and, in my opinion, a real lead in producing state-of-the-art long-ish zooms for Sony FE bodies. I honestly think Tamron's latest long-ish zoom FE lenses are even better overall than Sony, Nikon, and Canon offerings (pending those manufacturers making similarly new designs for their mirrorless bodies).

I agree with the rest of the conclusions, but can't remember if the beercan is optically identical to the MD 70-210mm f/4.

It is supposed to be, but I don't have the MD version to compare it with.

My mint optically Vivitar 70-210mm f2.8-4 awaits a Contax/Yashica -> EF adapter, then I will be able to give conclusions comparing it to the original. I had put it off.

Kiron (Kino Precision) 70-210mm f/4 macro 1:4: Really excellent with good color, contrast, and minimal fringing, but pretty heavy bokeh CA.

Incidentally another popular favourite lens worth mentioning, the Tamron 60-300mm SP, has in my experience very heavy bokeh CA (obvious at 60mm). I thought it was defective at first, then I got another sample which confirmed it. To be clear - it's not "broken", just I had heard rave reviews which were otherwise roughly met, just this was overlooked.

I have a Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-f/5.4 23A that cost me $50 (including an adapter worth $20). I'd say that optically it is pretty good, especially given that it's fast and 5X zoom range, but it's a bit of a monster and most are near impossible to get into macro mode (which is sad, because it's quite good in macro mode). I rate it a "B" in build quality whereas the others are all "A." Here's an old shot wide open with that Tamron:



It can have some glow and PF issues, but I'd say it is generally competitive with cheap modern zooms.

Among the reach-to-300mm zooms, my favorite is actually the Sigma Zoom Lambda II 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6, which cost me $8 and is shockingly good. It still has a little glow and PF, but nothing problematic. Here's a little old example on my A7:





Be warned that there seems to be a quality control issue with this Sigma, and at least one reviewer called it "sharp as a butter knife."