Vivitar 135MM 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO review specifically for Radozhiva, prepared Alexey Ovoshchnikov.
Vivitar 135MM 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO
Hello everybody! Today, taking advantage of the good weather, I finished the material for an interesting lens called Vivitar 135 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO.
On the net, I looked for additional information about him and about the Vivitar company in general. I found that Vivitar produced many sub-versions at different manufacturers. You can find out where your Vivitar lens was manufactured by the serial number. Here is a list. The manufacturer of Vivitar optics is determined from the first digits of the serial number:
- 6 Olympos
- 9 cosina
- 13 Schneider Optik
- 22 Kino (aka Kiron)
- 25 Ozone Optical
- 28 Komine
- 32 makinon
- 33 asanuma
- 37 Tokina
- 42 bauer
- 44 Perkin Elmer (US)
- 47 chinon
- 51 Tokyo Trading
- 56 Kyoe Shoji
- 75 Hoya Optical
- 81 Polar
I easily found this information on penta-club.ru.
My lens is an ordinary version of Cosina production. The number 9 in the serial number, as well as this is indicated by a simple and recognizable design from Cosina.
Vivitar 135MM 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO
Vivitar 135MM 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO
By design, this is primarily a good old portrait. It easily outperforms the modern 50mm F1.8. Still, technically, a portrait is a decent focus + aperture and distortion is minimized. However, 135 mm can successfully shoot landscapes and distant objects. With such optics, you can easily throw out all that is superfluous from the frame. To shoot something on the street and not to hook people into the frame is much easier. The lens shows good sharpness with an open, but there is a small coma (aspherical aberration). Already with F / 4, everything is much better and on F / 5.6 you get excellent sharpness, the main thing is to get into it!
Vivitar 135MM 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO
Yes, it’s not easy to focus on such a focus. I liked the fact that the focus ring is wide, covered with an anti-slip rubber pad and has a smooth ride. In general, a 135mm fixed lens is very good! If you have not tried, then try and you will like it. Even this simple and old lens caused a lot of positive emotions in my first use.
Vivitar 135MM 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO
I got this lens about a year ago and after a couple of months I bought a second one on occasion. I remade the first one for use on Canon DSLRs, and the second remains for Pentax. The alteration is that you remove the mechanical aperture control lever and the lens does not cling to the mirror on full-frame Canon EOS. On cropped (APS-C) cameras can be used without rework. If something is not clear - ask in the comments.
Vivitar 135MM 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO
In the photos to the review, a redone version is presented and a simple Pentax PK adapter - Canon EOS - is installed on it. Such an adapter can be ordered at aliexpress and it costs less than $ 5. You can even order an advanced chip adapter with which photo focus confirmation will work. It is also on aliexpress. By the way, the lens itself is not much more expensive than the adapter. Now it’s hard to find a normal 135 for sale at a good price, but this is just the case.
Vivitar 135MM 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO
I did not find detailed technical information on this miracle of technology and I will write only the main points:
Brief technical specifications
Optical design: 4 elements in 4 groups.
Started production: 70s, no exact information
Enlightenment of lenses: no
Focal Length: 135mm
Maximum Aperture: f2.8-f22
Diaphragm design: of six not rounded petals
MDF: 1.35 meters
Lens type: telescopic retractable fixed hood
Diameter of the used filters: 52 mm
Weight: about 400 grams
Length: 82 mm
Vivitar 135MM 1: 2.8 MC TELEPHOTO
Photo. I shot on different cameras to transmit information as versatile as possible. Mostly on-camera jpeg.
Pentax Kx (APS-C matrix format):
In the photos in EXIF You may come across 50 mm 1.4 but this is due to the chip on adapters. In fact, this is the same 135 ka.
In Paris, a very cloudy winter, as always, and I am glad every sunny day.
Review prepared Alexey Ovoshchnikov.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Optical design like zonar?
Yes, apparently this is a simplified version of Zonnar.
Sonnar has front gluing and usually 2 groups of lenses, so most likely no than yes. 4 out of 4 are rather close to Ernostar
Thanks, for me these schemes are not very clear yet. here's the link there is an optical scheme.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-auto-telephoto.html
Apparently this is Ernostar
And the lenses are not massive enough for Sonnars.
Thank you good review
Misprint: “due to chip adapters”. Thanks for your review!
There are no 135 matches yet. For portraits, in ff. Will this lens be better than UPI-37a?
this with contrast seems to be worse than that of jupiter. Maybe the MS version of the latter is better, I have not tried it.
but he recently shot facial portraits under the softbox on the konica hexanon ar 135mm f / 3.2. that's where the wonderful lens is. and the picture is beautiful, and convenient to use (except, perhaps, the aperture ring, it is traditionally not very good on hexanones, but I shot it only on the open). however, in such a light, probably any lens will give a good picture in terms of color and contrast.
but it must be cautioned that the hexanon ar system lenses will not be mirrored. more precisely, they will, but there will be no infinity, there the working segment is short. but the mirrorless thing is for the same reason.
Thanks for the advice, take a look at Konica hexanon ar 135mm f / 3.2. On Sony A7 should become with preservation of all focusing distances.
all the same, I advise you to look for examples of photos from him in the internet. he is wonderful in terms of color reproduction, sharpness, aperture ratio is also nothing, but ...
there is a nuance of a subjective nature.
somehow there’s no zest in it. there are no such features of the picture that some will disgust, while others will make him fall in love (the latter happened to me, for example, with lenses of the olympus pen-f system on sony nex-6). here, for example, the jupiter has some kind of nice drawing, I really like the photo from it outdoors, when, of course, the backlight does not spoil.
and in the mentioned conic (as well as in 50 / 1.7, 28 / 3.5 and 200 / 3.5 of the same system that I have) this highlight is not observed. lenses aren’t bad at all. great lenses. for the studio are wonderful. and their prices are completely affordable. but here it is necessary to try how each specific user will come.
I have not shot Jupiter yet, but I would like to. If I see a good one on sale, I’m interested. In my opinion, this lens and Jupiter are rather similar lenses in the picture. Jupiter has a better diaphragm and this is a plus.
good afternoon Alex
you need to understand everything was filmed on an open aperture 2.8?
and so in my opinion technically all 135 are excellent
thanks for the review
No, in the open, not everything was filmed for this review. However, most of the portraits are open. Look for the shutter speed in each particular photo. A lens without electronics is hard to understand in any other way. Bokeh and depth of field also change.
"But there is a slight coma (aspherical aberration)"
There is no term “aspherical aberration”. From the well-known spherical ab. who is distinguished by the fact that it is a distortion of the incidence of inclined beams. Those. in fact, this is the same as SfA, but for oblique beams. But just one of the options for correcting a coma is the use of aspherical lenses / mirrors (typically parabolic mirrors of Newton's telescopes).
Still, most likely, Jupiter-37, especially the MC version, would have been better optically, albeit darker. It has less chromatism (it is a pity that there are almost no crop photos in the review under normal conditions - there HA can be seen great, and ff sometimes masks flaws), and the contrast (due to the 4/3 scheme) is higher. At least all 135 / 2.8 “Made in Japan / Korea” that I had were completely unimpressed with either optical quality or constructiveness.
Thanks for the clarification, really coma was not mentioned in the review. To whom the lens does not show and this is good. Only here is how I can’t imagine how a full frame masks aspheric aberrations. If they are, then they will be visible both at full frame and at aps-c at 100% magnification of the photo.
To nothing
And what can you say about pentakon 135 2.8 (15 petals), in comparison with Jupiter 37a, is it worth overpaying (2 times).
If you read the reviews of both lenses, you would be able to form your opinion.
From the phone it looked much more fun (((
on canon when you focus without a chip, is there any confirmation of focusing? (like a green dot on a nikon)
Thanks for the review, I respect the site ... I have my father's Soviet Gel 85 / 1.5 (and 58/2) on the speedbooster and micr (as well as the bombshell Panas 42,5 / 1.7), does it make sense to add such a lens for the “five”? not for portrait mode, but for sports reporting such as concerts / bars from afar
Good evening, for five this is for five thousand rubles? If so, then a little expensive for this particular model. can be more impressive 135 to find. I would be in your place the same Gel 135 mm would buy. It should be no worse in quality.
Interesting that for gel 135
Perhaps Monsieur meant Telezenitar.
And how can it be adapted on the NIKON D5100 with sharpness to infinity?
There is such a production Komine. It works great, but something doesn’t stay in place, does anyone know how to treat this?
And the Pentax version of the lens - how can you close the aperture for Canon?
By manually turning the ring on the lens.
there is a Vivitar 135mm F 2.8 with enlightenment from Komine compared it head-on with Jupiter 37A, it is sharper over the entire range, but this is the main thing for me that its picture is generally more interesting, but in general very close. But the mechanics and the joyful feeling from the lens cannot be compared, although this may not always be possible. main criterion.