Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Pentax Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/pentax-lenses-87/)
-   -   Vivitar 24mm f/2 "M" (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/pentax-lenses-87/vivitar-24mm-f-2-m-149963/)

thkn777 Dec 13, 2008 5:50 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Hi,
today arrived an early christmas parcel containing a fully manual Vivitar 24mm f/2 lens and of course I had to take some test photos. I'll share these as this or a similar lens might be interesting for some of you, too ;)

The lens looks good with the slightest signs of normal usage, mounts and dismounts correctly to and from my DL2, serial number starts with 28 - so this is a Komine made lens afaik.

The photos were taken in RAW and converted with Raw Therapee, minimal luma noise reduction and a tad local contrast enhancement used - and of course some exposure compensation, but no other postprocessing to increase sharpness or detail. So these are almost 1:1 straight from the camera. I combined the downsized image and some 1:1 crops.

#1 - first ever shot with the lens, wide open

thkn777 Dec 13, 2008 5:57 AM

1 Attachment(s)
#2 - my cat (this was mainly a fun shot, but it shows a more "real life" situation) - again wide open.

thkn777 Dec 13, 2008 6:01 AM

1 Attachment(s)
#3 gingerbread castle with small figurines, upper left is wide open, upper right at f/2.8, the lower one at f/2.4 (the aperture has "half" settings, so I guess between f/2 and f/2.8 is f/2.4?)



thkn777 Dec 13, 2008 6:03 AM

1 Attachment(s)
#4 magazine shot, upper row is a 1:1 crop at f/2, f/2.4, f/2.8



thkn777 Dec 13, 2008 6:05 AM

1 Attachment(s)
#5 washing agent bottle, upper row: at f/2 and f/2.8



thkn777 Dec 13, 2008 6:13 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Overall feeling so far:

- wide open shots are soft and miss some contrast, but there are already a lot of details available
- things start to get much better even when stopping down just to f/2.4, images are tack sharp and contrasty at f/2.8

One of the best things is, how I won this lens - it was VERY close to say the least, here is how the bidding went. And yes - 52.52 was my high bid :G:blah:!!

So far I am happy! :D

Regards,
Th.

P.S. I almost cleared my lens wishlist with this, I'll sort the tele end in the near future (selling some stuff and trying to get a decent/affordable 200mm and/or 300mm prime in 2009 or 2010) and if I stumble across a real wide fisheye lens I'd be tempted to try it. As most of my lenses are manual by that time I'll have to sort out the "fully automatic, family-ready, walkaround zoom" thingie and the flash problem and I am set. After that I can start to save for a better body ;) sounds good, doesn't it?

thkn777 Dec 13, 2008 8:10 AM

1 Attachment(s)
With some basic postprocessing the cat looks like this, which isn't bad at all for a f/2 wide open shot. I'll try to do some cat shots with f/2.8-f/4 to show the differences later.

mtngal Dec 13, 2008 9:48 AM

The lens at 2.8 is very good - even 2.0 is useable in a pinch. You can deal with the lack of contrast through pp easily and the softness isn't as bad as some lenses I've seen. It looks like an excellent buy.

[email protected] Dec 13, 2008 11:31 AM

As a (Bargain)LBA I am SO jealous.

I am awaiting a Tamron 24mm/2.5 I paid more for! Ouch.

thkn777 Dec 13, 2008 11:57 AM

mtngal wrote:
Quote:

The lens at 2.8 is very good - even 2.0 is useable in a pinch. You can deal with the lack of contrast through pp easily and the softness isn't as bad as some lenses I've seen. It looks like an excellent buy.
@mtngal
Yes, that's exactly what I thought when I saw the first results. As someone that doesn't use the in-camera flash very often, I like fast lenses. The shortest prime I've got so far was the Pentax-A 28/2.8, but I was looking for something wider. I am a bit concerned about these "halo"-like effects wide open, but I'll see where this really hurts and where not.

The f/2.8 performance is exactly what I was looking for - as a first guess I'll use the lens mostly in that range: f/2.8...f/4 and that means it is already stopped down twice as a minimum!

My only complaint: a 52mm filter thread... I mounted a spare UV-Filter already, but have no polarizer and I bet this lens could give me some nice architecture and landscape shots...

Quote:

As a (Bargain)LBA I am SO jealous.
I am awaiting a Tamron 24mm/2.5 I paid more for! Ouch.
@dmartin
Well - I lost most of my bids in ebay in 2008, the only exception being a Viv 90mm f/2.8 1:1 macro lens and the above one. What bothered me most, is that I had to let go some Tamron Adaptall "A" adapters as the asked price or the bids were insane... but I've got time... no Tamron lens in my collection so far, I managed to bid "around" this ;)

As for the 24/2.5 Tamron - that one and one of the tele primes (200mm, 300mm) are what the adapter would have been for - so I think you'll get a fine lens! For me the f/2 adds just a special something to that lens as I seldom use flash and then every tiny bit makes a difference.

Best regards,
Th.

bigdawg Dec 13, 2008 12:36 PM

Looks like a nice acquisition TH.

Dawg

NonEntity1 Dec 14, 2008 9:16 AM

Looks good Th. I have the Viv 28mm f/2 and it seems to be a similarly good performer. Between the two, though, I am sure the extra 4mm on the wide end pays off.

Tim

thkn777 Dec 14, 2008 11:40 AM

NonEntity1 wrote:
Quote:

Looks good Th. I have the Viv 28mm f/2 and it seems to be a similarly good performer. Between the two, though, I am sure the extra 4mm on the wide end pays off.

Tim
Yeah,
since I have a Pentax-A 28/2.8 I really tried to get something wider, so at the moment I got a small, yet fine collection of primes:

- Vivitar "M" 24/2
- Pentax A 28/2.8
- Pentax M 40/2.8
- Pentax A 50/1.7
- Pentax M 85/2
- Pentax K 135/2.5
- Pentax M 200/4

That's something for every occasion I'd say. I am still toying with the idea to replace the 200/4 with something faster and get a 300mm prime, but I've got time to wait for a good chance here. Also a real wide lens is missing, I've got 18mm from the kit lens at max here.

@Dawg,
aye - I took some more shots today and so far these look good to me. I found it a tad harder to focus correctly with wide lenses, maybe that has something to do with the AF system indicating focus in a f/4 range (iirc that is... someone posted that somewhere, I am pretty sure) or with my eyes... who knows.

I am really toying with the idea to order a focussing screen (that microprism thingie older cameras had, you know what I mean).

Regards,
Th.

rparmar Dec 22, 2008 5:40 PM

I confirm your observations after significant testing of various Vivitar MF lenses, most of them 28mm. I have the Vivi 28 f/2 made by Komine which I tested on [color="#0000a0"]http://noisetheatre.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-test-vivitar-28mm-120-close-focus.html]my blog

I also have the Viv 24mm f/2 made by Komine in the KA mount. The extra stop of light is useful when focusing but for sharp shots I start at f/2.8, as you have determined. I won't tell you what I got mine for, since it was the deal of the century. :-)


thkn777 Dec 23, 2008 3:35 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Yeah,
I took quite a lot of photos with that lense in the past days, here's another 1:1 crop. My cat laying on the sofa. Taken at f/4 with a selfmade bouncer, close distance shot. I just extracted the JPEG from the RAW, cropped the 900x1200 area, applied some adaptive blur in the L-channel to help bringing down image size for posting (still had to go down to 80% JPEG quality), otherwise no postprocessing. Taken with my DL2.

I am happy with my purchase. :D

robar Dec 25, 2008 3:43 PM

i had one of these under the kiron name.. it was so soft at f2 that i sold it.. i think it's the only kiron that i've disliked

roy

thkn777 Dec 26, 2008 3:43 AM

robar wrote:
Quote:

i had one of these under the kiron name.. it was so soft at f2 that i sold it.. i think it's the only kiron that i've disliked

roy
Yes, at f/2 it is really VERY soft, but after reading some articles I was expecting this. At f/2.8 performance is very good and to be honest I like the idea of stopping down twice to get f/2.8 better than using f/2.8 wide open (as I do on my Pentax-A 28/2.8). The difference is notable!

rparmar Dec 26, 2008 7:36 AM

I agree completely. This lens is decisively better than the Pentax equivalent at f/2.8. As I have no doubt said before, I treat it like an excellent f/2.8 that just happens to let in more light for extreme cases. I cannot imagine ever selling it. (Except maybe I have two.)

robar Dec 26, 2008 10:26 AM

i maybe had a bad copy as my M28/2.8 was sharper across the range. i will recommend the tamron 28/2.5.. just got one and it's a nice performer even wide open..

roy


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:49 PM.