Review Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8

According provided by lens Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8 (for Nikon) many thanks to Maxim Kuhar.

Review Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8

Review Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8

Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8 was produced with different mounts for different systems, I came across an option with a Nikon F mount, PRE-AI type... This is an old lens for film cameras without autofocus, the 'Auto' prefix only denotes the presence of an auto iris mechanism. Taking the lens in hand, you immediately notice its huge front lens. Vivitar 20 / 3.8 uses 82mm filters.

20mm focal length, when used on full-format cameras, provides an amazingly large viewing angle. Usually, anything below 20mm is already assigned to the super-wide range. But on cropped cameras Nikon DX, EGF lens is 30mm, and all the charm of working with Vivitar 20 / 3.8 disappears. For wide-angle shooting on Nikon DX, it's better to use native Nikon 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6G VR AF-S SWM DX Nikkor.

Enlightenment of the front lens Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8

Enlightenment of the front lens Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8

Focusing on the lens is easy. The metal focus ring rotates 270 degrees, while the front lens remains virtually stationary (only the lens trunk is slightly lengthened). Vivitar 20 / 3.8 has a very small MDF - about 16 cm. With this MDF and wide angle, interesting 'games with perspective' can be created. The number of aperture blades is only 6 pieces.

Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8 Lens Side View

Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8 Lens Side View

Vivitar 20 / 3.8 can not boast of good aperture. The difference between F / 3.8 and F / 4.0 is only 11%. Standard full-time lenses 18-55 / 3.5-5.6 for cropped cameras even have the best aperture. The lens is made in Japan, assembly at a high level.

Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8

Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8 view on the ZK

A copy from the review came to me after repair and, apparently, they did something wrong with it, since the image quality is frankly terrible, and the diaphragm protrusion does not reach the diaphragm pusher in my Nikon D700

The parameters shown in the photo gallery:
Everything is filmed on Nikon D700. On camera JPEG L (compression 'optimum quality'), without processing. Functions: Control vignetting, ADL, noise reduction at slow shutter speeds, noise reduction at high ISO - were off. Everything was shot in SD (standard mode): contrast correction - 0, brightness - 0, saturation - 0, hue - 0, sharpness - position 5 of 10. Used white balance: 'Auto'. The size of the photos was reduced to 2 MP.

Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8

View Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8 on the ZK. Huge front lens size

If you have experience using Vivitar 20 / 3.8 in good condition, please unsubscribe in the comments.

Thank you for attention. Arkady Shapoval.

Add a comment: Sergey Zavarykin

 

 

Comments: 16, on the topic: Review Auto Vivitar Wide-Angle 20mm 1: 3.8

  • Andrei

    Klasnenky, I liked it! Now I want to esche and touch!

    • Denis

      Yes, in my phone the optics give a much better picture, there is clearly something wrong with this.

  • Radmir

    Arkady, keep it up! What you do is very important to us! It was you who prompted me to start shooting on manual optics. Thank you!:-)

  • Vasily

    Arkady, thanks! It is interesting to read, although I am an avid pentaxist, but I meet every review with great interest! Regards, Your grateful reader.

  • Kira

    Thanks for the reviews !!! They are very helpful in choosing! Thanks to you, I switched to Soviet optics and it turned out to be many times better than whale and sigma 30 :) now there is Jupiter 37a, 21m, Helios77m-4, Mir-1. Here, too, I really want to touch this vivitar, but there is nowhere to take something ... In general, I noticed that all the landscape painters suffer from light in the sun and display too coldly white, it's unpleasant, that's why I can't choose anything yet ... And on modern lenses, pink tree branches and low resolution are finished off, detailing something so-so, even lim.

  • nukemall

    It is not clear from the muddy resizes what is so “terrible” in the picture, but in general the “super-widths” of the 60s are extremely dull and merciless - “soap”, “soft”, daub around the edges of the frame. The level of development of technology (enlightenment, glass) and science did not allow doing something more decent.
    By the way, there was a long thread on the Pentaclub forum about a similar lens, they also wondered - initially, he draws so badly or someone did not dig deeper into it. :)

    • Arkady Shapoval

      These resizes clearly show the flaws of the lens, you should be a little careful. Perhaps it’s just enough to open the picture in the new onk 1 to 1, and not from the current page with auto-fitting to the display.

      • nukemall

        Yeah, that's right - the edges are soapy and there is no fountain in the center. In general, a typical "super-wide" mid-60s, I came across a couple of similar pieces, barely got rid of. The widths and super-widths of development earlier than the beginning of the 70s can be bought only for a collection or for spare parts ... well, at best, some 35 / 3.5 can be something good, other comparisons with kitozum do not stand up. However, any third-grade, nameless slag remained slag until the production was discontinued in the 90s, take at least the early Samyangov's work whose reviews on this site also with a note like “A copy from the review came to me after repair and, apparently, something was done with it not that". :)

        • Arkady Shapoval

          Thanks for the addition :) With cheap old widths it is really tight.

  • Sergey Zavarykin

    m42 I have a version on 5d mak ii used. Perhaps due to the peculiarities of the ef mount, it focuses from almost the first centimeters from the linz. there were no problems with him. only recently the back part has been shaken, it is necessary to carry in repair to replace the screws. my examples of photos from him:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zavarykin/7574412812/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zavarykin/5968118402/
    and even macro http://www.flickr.com/photos/zavarykin/5783637291/

  • Anton

    Having crouched to his own vіvіtar and zrozumіv sho that the very same copy of descriptions in tsiy stat

  • Igor_K

    I came across this lens in the late 80s. It was owned by my friend, who was engaged in the restoration and "artistic" repair of premises, and acquired it for interior photography. I can definitely say that if you don't close the diaphragm at least until “11”, you shouldn't expect a normal picture. I would even say that there was no question of "drawing" at all, my friend and I were trying at that time to simply get acceptable sharpness and uniform illumination of the frame with the help of a Soviet flash "Luch M" in the center and 2 "Fil" flashes with photo sensors - around the edges, I can imagine how ridiculous it looked. In any case, when I had a service “Zodiac 8 B” at my disposal, our efforts with this “Vivitar” ended successfully, and it was immediately sold to confection “tourists” who successfully shot landscapes for them for 2 years until they broke ... According to the drawing, this subject, even a new one, was much worse than the lenses of the Mir, Flektogon, Jupiter 12 and Vivitar 28 \ 2,5 series (I have such happiness). In any case, a modern superzoom type 18-200 with ED glass on a closed diaphragm will give a much more interesting result. Arkady is absolutely right in this matter!

  • Maximum

    And again it is he who is on sale on OLX ... Thanks for the review, otherwise I was already going to buy it! Saved)

  • Dmitriy

    But in fact the same Mir-20. Perhaps the soap is so strong around the edges for the same reasons that Mira wash - a skew of some of the lenses due to looseness.

  • anonym

    Industar-69 is better ... This lens is awful!

  • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

    Tested similar only Minolta 20 or 21mm / 2.8 - there is no sharpness at all. It then cost a lot of $ 400 and even now is not cheap at all, but the quality is absolutely bad at f / 3.5-5.6, it did not cover up to 11, although it may be in vain. I didn't even take it for $ 100. But Sigma 24 and 28 is a completely different matter, especially 24 is good. The difference from 20mm is not big, but the quality wins.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2013/11/auto-vivitar-wide-angle-20-mm-3-8/?replytocom=57791

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2013/11/auto-vivitar-wide-angle-20-mm-3-8/?replytocom=57791