Test with some measurements

Big note - it is individual old lens review, and it looks like not best sample.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/vivitar-28-200mm-f-3-5-5-3-macro-focusing-zoom-vintage-lens-review-33955

Not sure why that guy is so surprised. There have been about a bazillion really sharp ~50mm f/2 lenses over the years and a lot of them are cheap now. The Pentax SMC series were also really good and my Konica hexanon was also pretty great!

Depends which ones you mean. Most of those are 2/3" format lenses, which don't cover Super 16. Others are 1" format, but impossible to mount to Micro Four Thirds. The old Cosmicar 1" vidicon lenses are quite nice.

Took this first shot in fading autumn light of one of my vine leaves; Sigma SD1, $25 Hidden Gem lens Industar N61, ISO 200, F4.0. (Set to 1 meter, for all the good that'll do it)

Notice how it really is Macro only; part of the vine leaf is still out-of focus so from now on it's bright light and macro shots of flowers for me on the SIgma camera, ordinary pics (like shot 2) will come from the GH2 :-)

When have you ever known VK to back down from his original statement? Resistance is futile.

That lens is for a Leica M39 screw mount. It has a much smaller flange distance than any SLR, so it can't fit a Sigma SA mount without correctional optical elements. Or it will be a macro without being meant to be one.

MFT has a much smaller flange distance and the lens can be adapted correctly, reaching infinity. If you want macro, you'll need extra distance rings.

wow, didn't intend to kick off such a discussion, hope you guys are still enjoying yourselves! thanks for the insight though, balazer! you wrote that the soligor and the tokina are basically the same design, yet you don't own them as far as I understand? have you had a chance to try them? and, as I heard many good things about the push/pull contax zooms (apart from being push/pull): do you have an idea on how they compare/mix/match?

thanks again!

Vitaliy, this seems to be a language problem. Parfocal doesn't mean perfectly parfocal. There are degrees of parfocal-ness, just like there are degrees of sharpness. Even if a lens isn't perfectly sharp, it was still designed to be sharp (usually). How sharp is another question entirely that has to do with the design, the manufacturing, the physical condition, and the focusing. Zoom lenses are designed to be parfocal. How parfocal is another question entirely that has to do with the design, the manufacturing, the physical condition, and the back focusing.

Variable focal length lenses can all be classified cleanly into "zoom" or "varifocal", according to their designs, with the vast majority being zoom lenses. The degree of parfocalness is a matter of lens performance. Just like everything else about a lens, some perform well and some perform poorly. I test at 1080p, not 4k, and only a few of my old zoom lenses are very close to being parfocal near their widest aperture settings. (and I've tested way more than 20) It depends very very much on the back focus. If you don't have an integrated back focus adjustment, a helicoid adapter, or do careful shimming of the lens, you will find the vast majority to be not very close to parfocal, due to the lens itself not having a perfect flange focal distance, or more often due to the adapter having the wrong flange focal distance. But they are still parfocal lenses by design. Fix the back focus and set the aperture somewhat smaller, and the vast majority of those old zoom lenses become fairly close to being perfectly parfocal.

If you are interested trying some old zoom lenses and seeing how parfocal the lenses are, you absolutely need a way to adjust the back focus.

I have more lenses than I can list. If it's manual focus, two-touch, and constant aperture in Minolta SR mount or C-mount, I probably have it, so go ahead and ask me. I don't have that Soligor, but I do have its little brother, the 45-150 f/3.5 C/D. It's made by Tokina in 1976, and it's a beautiful lens.

The Soligor 70-210 f/3.5 C/D is the same as the Tokina RMC 70-210 f/3.5, from about 1977. Constant aperture photographic zoom lenses become less common starting around 1980, due to the appearance of automatic through-the-lens "final check" metering.

An example of a focus-by-wire that is only electronically parfocal is the Lumux G Vario 14-140 f/4.0.

The vast majority of photographic zoom lenses are parfocal. I have seen only a small number of varifocal photographic lenses, and an even smaller number of photographic varifocal lenses with the term "zoom" misapplied. Yes, I am talking about old still lenses.

You will know when you have found a varifocal lens. The focus shifts hugely as you zoom in or out, and the focus distance scale markings indicate a shift over the range of focal lengths. The Makinon/Hanimex 28-80 f/3.5 is one example of a varifocal photographic lens that comes to mind.

I think you have simply encountered a number of lenses for which the back focus wasn't adjusted quite right, or that were less than perfectly parfocal due to mechanical imprecision of the movement. But they are still zoom lenses and they're still parfocal. Zoom lenses are not zoom lenses by accident. The design of a zoom lens has an extra group movement. If you leave that movement out, you get a lens that is very very far from being parfocal.

In the modern focus-by-wire zoom lens, there are some designs which are parfocal only eletronically: they lose focus briefly as you zoom in or out, and then regain focus when the focus motor refocuses (with no action on your part, and even in manual focus mode). They are still parfocal and still zoom lenses, but in a less desirable sense than the mechanically parfocal zoom lens.

It is a correct statement. A non-parfocal "zoom" lens is not a zoom lens at all. That's a varifocal lens.

Zoom lenses are parfocal, by definition. The back focus just needs to be adjusted precisely to ensure parfocal operation. (something which can be difficult to do, depending on the lens and the adapter)

Those are old lenses. They're fine, but they'll be a bit hazy at their widest aperture settings. At f/5.6 they'll be pretty good. Just don't expect miracles from old zoom lenses. Most of them are flare-prone. You need to shade them from the sun.

As a rule, constant aperture two-touch zoom lenses do not extend while zooming. I'm pretty sure the Soligor and the Tokina don't extend while zooming by the looks of them. Not so sure about the Angenieux, but probably, since it's so long.

disregard my entry as under a more detailed analysis (monkey with sugar spoon dancing the moonlight) the low end of the range showed focus deviation; so not consistently parfocal throughout the range. Sorry for any inconvenience, coffins' not for free :P

Jezus de mi alma y mi corazón!!! That last photo of the moon was developed by I retarded blind bat :P

Very interesting lens, the Vivitar 28-200 f3.5-5.3, lot of pros and cons... still need further acquaintance.
3 pics, ranging from the "wide" side, to 200mm, and macro. All handheld, settings I really can't remember.

BTW, considering how cheap they sell - 2 for each donut - would the experienced board of the elderly (:P) say
minolta MD 50mm f2 (49 filter thread) is a hidden gem? + lot's of samples WO, mounted on a nex though - here

@belfryman later I found that with that lens the minimum focus distance is quite big, more than 1m if I recall right.

Do you find an adapter which changed the minimum focal distance? That's peculiar. Does it focus to infinity?

BTW I bought another similar Vivitar, the 28-90 1:2.8-1:3.5 Series 1 which is really good as well. It also has a macro mode and you can get as close 2cm

@flablo the wider it is the longer the distance has to be to the subject to be able to focus on mine. About 55 mm is about 15' at about 30mm it's about 30'. Have you found a solution? Sorry, this is a bit off topic.

Hmm, looks like I got a bad one - the few test images I've taken are quite hazy and when you hold it up to the light, although the front & bck elements look clean enough, if you angle it slightly it's quite 'milky'. The adapter has a bit of radial play in it too, so all in all, not a great day's eBaying!

Thanks. I've ordered one on eBay that looks to be the same as the Bigis one - I think a lot of these Chinese parts are the same but branded under many different names - certainly if they're anything like Chinese motorcycle parts, they are! The Cosmicar 75mm I've got is f1.9 - see below. The one in the picture above is a Pentax branded 25mm, which is f1.4

@TheLoneRoger
Just check eBay. It's full of the adapters. I've ordered often directly from Hong Kong for just a few $ and they were all really well-done.

Just bought a Vivitar 28-200 (777) on eBay with M42 mount; can anyone recommend a suitable Micro 4/3 adapter? Cheers. Agree with the comments about the 25mm and 75mm Cosmicar lenses - great lenses for the price, even if the 25mm looks ridiculous on an AF101!

Does anybody know if Soligor 28-200 3.5-5.3 (no.99...) is the same construction as Vivitar/Kobori? Thanks!

I've got a Soligor 35-70mm f2.5~3.5, declicked w/ 8 aperture blades, and does macro pretty well.

@apefos yes, I have it, it is correct behavior, as FD 20mm f/2.8 just isn't top class lens. It is just good, nothing exceptional. It is not a gem and it is also not hidden :-)

I wonder why nobody has mentioned the KMZ TAIR 11A 2.8/135mm (M42) yet. 20 Aperture Blades: can you spell BOKEHHHH ! ;) Rare to get one in very good condition, needs a good tripod but absolutly beautiful in terms of IQ/color rendition and the creamiest bokeh of all russian glass.

Still looking for a good one myself, only had the chance to borrow it from a friend of mine till now (he got a rare one with a leading zero in the serial no. ) :(

Canon FD lenses are indeed very famous in this moment.
But one of the very best FD's is not popular at all.... it's real hidden gem: the 50mm f/3.5 Macro!

I own set of 14 FD primes in all focal lengths between 17mm and 200mm. I don't know if I am just lucky to own especially good copy this lens, but it kind of outperforms almost all other FDs I have. I find it just indispensable.

Nobody wants 50mm f/3.5 lenses today, so one can buy it for next to nothing, if just a bit lucky. Straight from maximal aperture onwards great IQ: no flare, no ghosting, no CA, razor sharp all over, good colors rendition. Its optical elements are as small as Panny 20mm/1.7's
This is the one:

I haven't shot any real footage with it yet, but I find the Tamron Adaptall 80-210mm f/3.8-4 a fabulous performer in the bargain basement range when shooting stills. I've compared it to a 70-210mm 19AH SP Adaptall-2 in some not-very-controlled comparison tests on my Pentax k100d Super for stills, and it performs quite admirably in comparison- and it's so much lighter and easier handling.

Used it in some closeup work on a quick and dirty test when first got my hands on a gh2, and footage matched up very nicely with that shot with a Pentax M 50mm f/1.4.

I've seen it in the $10-$35 range depending on condition/seller: Mine came in a job lot with some other fantastic lenses for 80 bucks, so I'd have to say I paid ~$25.00, but it wasn't why I grabbed the job lot, believe me! (Pentax K 55mm f/1.8 and M 35mm f/2.8 were the big attraction).

Details here: http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/103A.html

I'm sure you are right, that it is the first two digits, I just happen to have two that start with triple 777 for some reason. What I mean by my comment is that I have tested quite a few of these legacy zooms, and I have found the Koburi to have better color and sharpness, for lenses that cover a similar range. None of them is as sharp as something like a Leicasonic, but they have a big range and are cheap.

@DrDave

In fact, if you look at first page, serial begins with 77, and it is first two digits that show manufacturer, not three.

So, I still do not understand remark.

The Kobori 28-200/3.5 is a much better lens for this particular range

What do you mean under it.

As Vivitar is just brand name, so it can be exactly same lens.

@vicharris

I tested two copies of Soligor 35-140mm. One is parfocal from 35 to 105 and the other is not. I just don't know why.

Anyone know of any gems in terms of a wide angle that will match the image type of my Lomos (50mm & 28mm)? Thinking something between around 14-16mm, but maybe more or less. I Don't want a Lomo as the wide ones are soft. My main goal is to get a wide that has the same image type of my other Lomos so they match when editing footage shot with the different lenses. Any gems?

Ha, talking about great russian lenses almost forgot this one: Helios-103 (53mm f/1,8). Comparing its price with performance, it's a real hidden gem.

The only two drawbacks are:
1. I never saw yet an adapter for MFT, the only mount this lens was made for is the old Kiev/Contax bayonet, I think. I bought from some russian guy via eBay his hand-made adapter which works great
2. this lens has no multi-coating which makes it prone to flare and ghosting. With hood it performs like champion.

@apefos Thanks! I just bought the Soligor 35-140. Like the idea of parfocul! Does that Vivitar zoom keep focus through the zoom as well?

I have a channel on vimeo showing shoots with different vintage lenses:

https://vimeo.com/channels/lenstest

ok Vitaliy will do!

The Navitar 75mm f1.3 CCTV lens is a hidden gem. I had one, shot quite a few films with it, but eventually sold it cos I thought it was a 1 inch lens, and not future proof. I could be wrong, seeing that C mount could some day make a comeback, especially now with contraptions like Digital Bolex looming on the horizon. Those who are able to locate one should try it. Luminous lens that yields hairline sharpness, and yet the images are filmic.

@LaserGuidedTaco i have tried everything and i cant focus that lens , maybe we got a faulty adapter , but why would oit focus correctly at 200mm if that was the case

Carl Zeiss C/Y 135mm 2.8 a rarely mentioned lens which works perfectly with the M4/3. For the performance the price is very affordable. Very usable for portraits, for nature/wildlife w. ETC and 720P and with macrorings great for insects etc. small example on my youtube:

@sammy @laserguidedtaco I should be receiving the vivitar 28-200mm fd mount shortly. I will verify if there is a focusing problem, etc...

just got the vivitar 28-200mm from ebay in fd mount .im not sure its the fd adapter to m43 this one http://www.amazon.com/Fotga-Adapter-Canon-Mount-Micro/dp/B00870R1D4 but i cant seem to be able to focus this lens at all unless its set on 200mm ,anything below i get a blurry focus on all the ranges of the focus gear .. is the macro function on this lens only available at 200mm? it seems like its locked (the 1:4 macro option) once the lens is set to anything below 200mm, maybe i have a defective lens, im not sure its the lens or the adapter

@nomad @aki_hartikainen Yes, I've noticed quite a variation in adapter quality - and it has nothing to do with price. I bought a mid-priced MD-m4/3 that was very loose and the lens was slapping about all over the place (even after I tried to adjust the locking pin on it) and then I bought a cheap £11 one that was perfect, so it doesn't surprise me that they can also be slightly different lengths too (which would also affect infinity focus). Certainly my Tokina 28-85 is parfocal on the GH2, so you may have ended up with a dodgy one, or as we said the adapter might be at fault.

Technically, you are right.

But this is the MD version of the Tokina, and the Minolta 35-70mm is parfocal on the same adapter. Nevertheless it's a nice lens and it uses a similar mechanism to keep the aperture constant, just like the Rokkor.

I wish we could have this in the 12-35mm Panny lens instead of the stepping aperture motor…

Yashica ML 35-70 f3.5-4.8 appears to be nearly perfect zoom on the GH1 and focuses close also. Lens body is plastic but otherwise well made. This lens renders nothing but beautiful and zeiss-like images. Anything that is not in the sharp focus is rendered nicely. I can not say the same for all lenses. Perhaps not a hidden gem, but a gem nonetheless. Also, contrast is slightly less than the very contrasty ML prime lenses, perfect on digital with a little less dynamic range.

I went through a box where I had put 'junk maybe gem' lenses, that I acquired from ebay and local stores just before I bought my GH2. I was still tossing up between canon and panasonic.

I think I may have found one, it's a 'Soligor Auto Zoom 75-260mm f4.5' it is a T4 mount, and was according to research manufactured by Tokina in about 1969, also branded as Vivitar.

The front element rotates when focusing.
The barrel lengthens slightly when zooming.
It has a rotating tripod mount.
I haven't shot charts yet - it's looks really sharp at f8 on my DP6
It's parfocal .. I assume that is what they mean by 'Auto Zoom'

Here is a wiki entry:
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Vivitar_T-4_75-260mm_f/4.5_Tele-Zoom

Search for 'soligor auto zoom 75-260 review' and you'll find some write ups and sample stills.

The T4 mount adapter are problematic because of scarcity.
Mine came with a Nikon adapter, and I scoured the planet and purchased both a Canon adapter and a Minolta MD adapter.

I don't know enough about Nikon and Canon mounts to identify what mount they are. I think they are FD canon and F Nikon.

I'll add this .. If anybody is Nikon based and want's to try T4 lenses I'll sell the Nikon for $20 plus postage

More recommendations...

M42 screwmount SLR lenses:

• Helios 44-2, Russian 58mm/f2 M42, can be found on flea markets for $10-20. Renders beautiful images, a cult lens.

• Pentacon 200mm/f4 (=Meyer Görlitz 200mm/f4). Excellent super tele lens that can be found cheaply second hand.

C-mount lenses:

• Cosmicar (=Pentax) 25mm/f1.4, the ultra-cheap alternative to the Panasonic 20mm or 25mm lenses. Hardly vignettes on the GH2. Even better, but more expensive: Schneider Cine-Xenon 25mm/1.4, delivers beautiful images, reaches infinity focus.

• Fujian 35mm/f1.7, this Chinese c-mount lens can be had on Ebay new for $20 and even covers the APS-C-size sensors (also available with SLR Magic rebranding for more than $100), reaches infinity focus;

• more from Cosmicar: 75mm/f1.4, the $100 Ebay alternative to the $700 Olympus 75mm/1.8. Sharp, no vignetting, good contrast, reaches infinity focus.

• Cosmicar 22.5-90mm/f1.5 zoom, least vignetting of a c-mount zoom on GH1/GH2 without ETC, reaches infinity focus, example on

• Ernitec 6.5mm/f1.8, vignettes but still beautiful as an extreme wide angle lens - fantastic sharp images with gorgeous colorful flares [used for most of this video:

  ]

C-mount lenses to be used in ETC mode:

• Tamron 4.0-12mm/f1.2 [equivalent to a 10-30mm Micro Four Thirds lens], excellent super wide angle zoom, costs ca. $120; infinity focus with thin adapters.

• Cosmicar 8-48mm/f1.0-1.2 [equiv. to 20-120mm M4/3rds], fastest zoom lens ever, can be found cheaply for around $120.

(Second the opinion on the Jupiter-3 50mm/f1.5. Great lens for the GH2 because of its compact size and stepless aperture. The Jupiter-9 85mm/f2 is great, too, and has a stepless aperture ring as well.)

Try to get a Jupiter 3 these days! It's not a hidden gem any more, you pay premium for any decent sample.

Plus, BTW, I wouldn't call it "stealing", it was openly taken as compensation for war damage. Russian mathematicians improved on German formulas and even at the height of the cold war Soviet lenses won a grand price at Brussels world expo.

Unfortunately, quality control was lacking. For some lenses you need to buy (=hunt down) 3 or 4 samples to get one that's fine. BTW, beware of any early nineties samples. After the end of SU, quality control got too bad. Some lenses are still in production today and got back on track again.

I owned the Kiron version which was a rebranded Vivitar.

Yep, just in reverse, as I know.
Vivitar never made lenses themselfs, they even did not make designs for most lenses.

I just bought a Hexanon 80-200/3.5 .. I have found one available adapter, a kipon (bower). Is anybody aware of any others before I purchase?

The Pentacon 30 mm f3.5 could be, though. I was aware of the filmic quality of the Pentacon 135 mm f2.8, so I was not surprised to get very fine images from it. But I did not know about the Meyer Lydith design 30 mm being so highly regarded by many. And it can be had for a few tenners.

Supposedly the Pentacon 50 mm is not in the same league.

Pentacon lenses were made in East Germany in the lens factories that remained on that side of the border using often the same tools and designs that they had used originally.

@MattRobertson that sounds unusual, because I have been delighted to find that all Tokinas I have used have had good sharpness even at aperture wide open. These include several manual AT-X zoom lenses, as well as RMC 17, 24 and 28 prime lenses. All are good, if not great, aperture wide open but contrast is improved using as tight hood as the angle permits and with reflection absorbing padding on the inside.

Edit: actually, I have to mention a Tokina built Vivitar 35-105 f3.5 close focusing zoom lens that is a bit soft at full aperture. But there are reports on the Internet that the same design branded as Tokina is a newer and improved version with decent sharpness even at aperture wide open. This is a rather heavy lens with internal zoom.

@vicharris There were a number of variants of the Tokina 28-70mm ATX Pro. The one I have looks exactly like the f2.6-2.8 with the screw-on 77mm hood, except that it's labeled f2.8. Here's the best write-up I've found on them:

http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2009/11/tokina-at-x-pro-28-70mm-f26-28.html

@aki_hartikainen Take a look at the Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 Japanese Version. The newer ones are not great but the older one that has that variable iris, seems to be the best. Honestly, I can't see the 2.6-2.8 shift when I zoom and it's an awesome lens. Internal zooming and I got one with a broken autofocus for nikon from Adarama for $150. I mixed it with Rokinon 35mm footage and it's dame close.

I'd like to second the opinions about Minolta MD 28 f2.8 posted earlier in this thread. It is very sharp and good contrast. The only thing that I do not always like about it is the somewhat harsh bokeh at full aperture. But for this there is inexpensive cure, Minolta MD 45 f2. One full aperture brighter image with similar sharpness and really nice and smooth bokeh. A cinematic lens.

If you wanted a lens that is sharp at wide open aperture, close focus lenses often behave like that. One macro lens was already mentioned in this topic, but I would add Minolta Macro Rokkor 50 mm f3.5, which can focus down to 1:2 ratio. With the supplied adapter goes to 1:1. It is very sharp at full aperture f3.5. These lenses are already a bit harder to come by.

And one more "sleeper" could be the Tokina 17 mm f3.5. It is an old design but the image is nicer and more "organic" than for example Lumix 14 mm. According to Ken Rockwell this lens has low contrast at full aperture, but I have found that using a proper hood helps. The front element is very close to the front edge of the lens and being extra wide gathers a lot of light from wide sector.

I can't find any of these with 1:3.5 here in Europe, while a very similar looking 1:4 is readily available (the 1:4.5 is completely different, being a one-touch). Does anybody know if they are comparable in quality and handling?

@vicharris where are you finding these deals? All I've been seeing on ebay are in the $75.00 up range. (Buy it now)

@vicharris @vapourtrail

Here's a demonstration of the Hexanon 80-200mm zooming across its range at f3.5. Sorry it's a little overexposed, I wanted to demonstrate its parfocal ability to hold focus while zooming at its narrowest DOF.

@johnnym

And most interesting is that Tokina and Vivitar are completely different lenses (while both are 28-200mm F3.5-5.3).

@vapourtrail

Perhaps I got a bad one. For $20 US worth a try.

Ya think? Yes, in this case, I'm afraid you've only shortchanged yourself. I tested my well-preserved copy of the Hexanon 80-200mm f3.5 using the AF100's focus peaking feature. Even at f3.5, the red fringes shimmered persistently throughout the full range of the lens' focal lengths. And it doesn't breathe much either.

@LPowell Do you have any examples of stuff shot on this lens? I see a few deals right now for it. I've been looking for a parfocul constant zoom for a bit now.

I'd Recommend Angenieux Mega Zoom Lenses, they're Parfocal, Infinity focus, de-clicked and cost $10,000 + when they were new...

@nomad

Tamron 90mm 1:2.5 SP Macro

This is not really hidden gem.

Konica Hexanon 80-200mm f3.5:

http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/Objektive/e80-200_35.html

Two-touch, constant-aperture, parfocal zoom with a built-in tripod collar mount

This is not only a hidden gem, it's one of my favorites on the GH2: SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7

http://www.kenrockwell.com/pentax/35mm/lenses/50mm-f17-smc-m.htm

And the 85mm 1.7 …

The Minolta MD 28-mm f/2.8 7/7. There are two similar versions of this lens, a 7/7 and a 5/5. The 7/7 is the better one, but you can only tell the difference by carefully inspecting the front element. Few people know this or bother to check, so it sells for next to nothing on eBay. http://home.kpn.nl/dielpeet/minolta/minolta-28mm-lenses.htm

Yes, 28-mm f/2.8 lenses are common and not terribly expensive, but most of them don't perform well or are more expensive than this one. This one is great even wide open, with good contrast and low flare. It was introduced in 1981 in the third revision of the MD line, so the coatings are good even by modern standards.

There are many different versions of the Minolta lenses, not all quite hidden gems, but with great deals to be had for f/2.8 and faster lenses at 28 mm, 35 mm, 45 mm, 50 mm, and 135 mm. The Celtic line is the budget line, but in many cases the Celtic lenses use the exact same optics as their Rokkor or MD cousins. The 24/2.8, 58/1.2 and 85/1.7 lenses are quite expensive and sought after - not hidden gems at all.

http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/body_li.html

http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Lens%20History.html

http://thesybersite.com/minolta/historical/Minolta_Lens_Chronology.htm

I just bought one of these on eBay and also bought a Pentax PK-M43 adapter. I thought with an adapter it would just work....??

You need to remove it if you plan to use in on Pentax. If not, it does not matter.