Vivitar lens

[E. von Hoegh]

Canon FD breechlock. On the bezel, "Vivitar 28mm 1:2.8 WIDE ANGLE MC NO. XXXXXXXX 49MM". Marked on the aperture ring bottom "PATENTS PENDING C/FD" and painted over, but readable, " "TAIWAN ROC". I find only one mention so far, and that was arrant nonsense. The lens appears to be muticoated on the front surface only.
Anyone know this lens? it came with an Ftb with 50/1.4, all clean and unmarked, with an accurate meter. Impulse purchase, it's my only Canon slr. First version 1971, and it's really very nice. I think of it as Canon's reply to the Nikkormat, which I like for most of the same reasons. both having everything one needs and nothing one doesn't.

 

[Don_ih]

Before you use the Ftb, check the light seal at the hinge - it probably needs to be replaced.

I have yet to find a 28mm lens of that vintage that's bad. My bet is, it'll be quite good. Older Vivitar sourced their stuff well, for the most part.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Before you use the Ftb, check the light seal at the hinge - it probably needs to be replaced.

I have yet to find a 28mm lens of that vintage that's bad. My bet is, it'll be quite good. Older Vivitar sourced their stuff well, for the most part.

It's hard to say how old it is. It's dedicated FD mount (not T mount) and the focus and aperture rings' finish mimics those on the Canon 50.
The focus is very smooth, no slop. My main 35 outfit is Nikon pre Ai, so I'll compare it to the Nikkor H 28/3.5

The light seal was black crumbs, so it and the mirror buffer got replaced. O/w the camera is very clean, and was spotless inside when I got it. Probably hasn't seen two dozen rolls.

 

[xkaes]

What are the first two numbers of the serial #? Since it is an FD lens marked Taiwan, the lens is probably not as old as the camera.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

What are the first two numbers of the serial #? Since it is an FD lens marked Taiwan, the lens is probably not as old as the camera.

Serial begins with "42". I suspect it's newer, too.

 

[xkaes]

"42" lenses were sold by Vivitar but came from BAUER. I am not familiar with them at all -- other than to say the owner of the rights to the name "Bauer" is/was the Robert Bosch GmbH company, which probably had a "lens maker" in Taiwan produce some lenses -- and had them marketed by Vivitar. There are lots of lens makers in Taiwan, but that lens could have been made in South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, or even China -- Samyang, Seagull, Phoenix, who knows?

 

[gone]

I don't know about the lens, but yes, the camera could be called a Japanese Leicaflex. You have the best of both worlds w/ those cameras! The FD 85 1.8 is an outstanding lens, and the Leica....well, there are no bad R lenses. They're all great. The op gets a HUGE and bright viewfinder for the Leica, and a very different viewfinder for the Canon w/ much less magnification.

 

[Paul Howell]

The 28 is likely a later model dating from the 80s, could be pretty good, or not, only way to know for sure is shoot a few frames.

 

[ags2mikon]

One thing to look for in the FTb cameras is the shutter. Sometimes owners would lock up the mirror and lay ir down and the sun would burn a hole in the curtain. Other than that I think they are as good as you can get for an "amateur" camera. I have 3 of them and they all work very well with the FL lenses and the SSC lenses. Canon made some nice stuff. Enjoy using it.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had a T90 along with a few FD lens, the lens were as good as Nikon MF, the first generation L glass was likely better than Nikon glass of the time. The early Vivitar Series 1 lens were almost as good as L lens, later editions were not as good. Thinking about it, when Canon jumped to EOS and EF mount 3rd party lens makers still offered FD lens, your 28mm might be from the 90s.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

One thing to look for in the FTb cameras is the shutter. Sometimes owners would lock up the mirror and lay ir down and the sun would burn a hole in the curtain. Other than that I think they are as good as you can get for an "amateur" camera. I have 3 of them and they all work very well with the FL lenses and the SSC lenses. Canon made some nice stuff. Enjoy using it.

The curtains are fine. Yeah, that's an issue particularly with the 1.4 lens. The shutter is even pretty accurate except for 1/1000, I'll cla it after finishing the roll that's in it. I'd put it roughly on par with a Nikkormat FTn. Either would be an excellent beginner camera, you'd go a very long way before you needed anything fancier. I have another, a FTb(n), but it's cosmetically poor & the battery cover looks like it was removed with a pipe wrench, a driver's license # 'engraved' in the baseplate, etc..

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Got pics back, the 28 is a pretty decent lens. Also, the FD 50/1.4 is rather good. I'm not a fan of fast 50s from that era, the SMC Takumar is the only one I really like. This is the first Canon SLR I've had, I have a couple of screwmount RFs and a Canonet 19. The Ftb is one of the 4 nicest SLRs I've yet had, the other three being Nikons F/F2 and Nikkormats. The Canon's controls are exceptionally well thought out, and the overall construction and finish is as good as any "pro" camera and maybe a shade nicer cosmetically than the F/Nikkormats. The meter is accurate, and the 12% central metering area is very easy to use in backlit situations and other scenes with wide illuminace range. The self timer-preview-MLU all in one spot is really slick. You can lock the mirror up and still use the timer, if you've forgotten your cable release. It's a large heavy (especially with the 1.4 lens) thing & easy to hold steady, there is very little vibration from the mirror/shutter. The main problem I have with it, I'm thinking a 80-100mm lens would make a nice basic 3 lens outfit, and then the F1 is really nice too, and the EF is intriguing and....

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I had a T90 along with a few FD lens, the lens were as good as Nikon MF, the first generation L glass was likely better than Nikon glass of the time. The early Vivitar Series 1 lens were almost as good as L lens, later editions were not as good. Thinking about it, when Canon jumped to EOS and EF mount 3rd party lens makers still offered FD lens, your 28mm might be from the 90s.

I think late 80s - 90s is about right. All the markings are painted, no engraving anywhere. It's a uniform matte black, no chrome. It's competently made and pretty decent optically. Light, too, too light for that body, but about right for an A- series.

 

[tokam]

I have a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 Serial no. begins 22xxx which were apparently made by Komine in Japan. Bought it in 1981. Later I bought an nFD 28mm f2.8 and recently did a comparison shoot on the same body, T90, on single roll of film. Allowing for the fact that all shots were handheld the Canon only narrowly edged out the Vivitar and I will keep and use both lenses as I have several FD bodies. Different filter threads, 52mm on the Canon and 49mm on the Vivitar and I have a bunch of filters in both sizes so this may be an influence on which lens I will use in a given situation.

Regarding the FD 50mm f1.4 SSC, in its day it was a benchmark lens against which others were compared in the photographic press at the time. I still think a Nikkor 50mm f2.0 I used once was the best 50mm during the mid '70s period. Basically none of the top 5 Japanese manufacturers made a dud 50mm. I'm thinking of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta and Olympus in no particular order.

 

[xkaes]

Regarding the FD 50mm f1.4 SSC, in its day it was a benchmark lens against which others were compared in the photographic press at the time. I still think a Nikkor 50mm f2.0 I used once was the best 50mm during the mid '70s period. Basically none of the top 5 Japanese manufacturers made a dud 50mm. I'm thinking of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta and Olympus in no particular order.

And the slower 50/55mm lenses often outperformed the faster, more expensive lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 Serial no. begins 22xxx which were apparently made by Komine in Japan. Bought it in 1981. Later I bought an nFD 28mm f2.8 and recently did a comparison shoot on the same body, T90, on single roll of film. Allowing for the fact that all shots were handheld the Canon only narrowly edged out the Vivitar and I will keep and use both lenses as I have several FD bodies. Different filter threads, 52mm on the Canon and 49mm on the Vivitar and I have a bunch of filters in both sizes so this may be an influence on which lens I will use in a given situation.

Regarding the FD 50mm f1.4 SSC, in its day it was a benchmark lens against which others were compared in the photographic press at the time. I still think a Nikkor 50mm f2.0 I used once was the best 50mm during the mid '70s period. Basically none of the top 5 Japanese manufacturers made a dud 50mm. I'm thinking of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta and Olympus in no particular order.

Maybe 10 or 12 years ago I used the last of my microfiche film and tested a brace of 35mm lens, I did not have Leica, tested Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Yaschia, Konica, Minolta, Miranda, Pentax, M42 and K, Petri, Kowa, Topcon UV. All could resolve Tmax 100, the best of the lot was the Konica 57 1.7, not it would matter unless I was shooting microfiche. I was suprised how well Miranda, Petri and Kowa and Topcon did. Petri made crappy cameras but their lens are pretty good for a bottom feeder brand.

 

[xkaes]

Petri made crappy cameras but their lens are pretty good for a bottom feeder brand.

To give credit where credit is due, Petri made some great cameras like the Color 35 (an improved Rollei 35), and the half-frame Junior (AKA, Compact, Half & Dejur).

https://www.cameraquest.com/petri35.htm

 

[Paul Howell]

That is true, their rangefinders had much better quality than the SLRs.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 Serial no. begins 22xxx which were apparently made by Komine in Japan. Bought it in 1981. Later I bought an nFD 28mm f2.8 and recently did a comparison shoot on the same body, T90, on single roll of film. Allowing for the fact that all shots were handheld the Canon only narrowly edged out the Vivitar and I will keep and use both lenses as I have several FD bodies. Different filter threads, 52mm on the Canon and 49mm on the Vivitar and I have a bunch of filters in both sizes so this may be an influence on which lens I will use in a given situation.

Regarding the FD 50mm f1.4 SSC, in its day it was a benchmark lens against which others were compared in the photographic press at the time. I still think a Nikkor 50mm f2.0 I used once was the best 50mm during the mid '70s period. Basically none of the top 5 Japanese manufacturers made a dud 50mm. I'm thinking of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta and Olympus in no particular order.

The FD 50/1.4 I have is the first version, chrome bayonet/filter ring on the front, no markings regarding coatings, so likely single-coated? One of the better fast 50s I've seen, for 1971 I can see why folks were impressed. IIRC the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 was still a couple years off.

If you mean the 50/2 Nikkor H, I agree. I have 5 pre-AI Nikon bodies, and 5 50/2 Nikkors - one AI'd & muticoated - IMO one of the very best 50/55 standards from that era. The Nikkor H is better at f:2 (wide open) than the contemporary Nikkor-S 50 1.4 at f:2, and the -H has few apologies to make to a Summicron-R - a wee bit of barrel distortion is about it.


xkaes: "And the slower 50/55mm lenses often outperformed the faster, more expensive lenses."

Yes, I have Pentax, Yashica, Mamiya Sekor f:1.8-f:2.2 lenses, they're all very good to excellent. Even Leitz remarked that the 70s 50/1.4 Summilux needed "to be stopped down for best definition".
The one problem I see with the FTb body is the shutter shades a little at 1/1000, as if the second curtain is getting a sluggish start. That's pretty damn good, for a 51 year old camera that's never been maintained. Modern synthetic watch and clock oils & greases work very well in these older mechanical cameras, as long as you first remove all the old lubricants.

 

[Autonerd]

I have a Vivitar 28mm (KA-mount) but I believe it's a Cosina (s/n 9) so I don't know if my experience applies... but it's been great. I bought the lens new in 1990 or so, first new lens I bought myself and all I could afford. It's very durable and I'm still using it to this day, though I finally got a Pentax 28/2.8.

 

[gone]

FD lenses are great, but some are more great. The 85 1.8 is a stellar lens, especially for portraits. F 1.8 was purposely made to be a little soft, and you can see the viewfinder image sharpen right up when going to F 2.8. The FD 135 2.5 "beer can" is also a fantastic lens. It makes beautiful portraits, and stopped down it's difficult to tell the Canon negs from my Leica negs.

I liked the FD 50 1.4 and 1.8 lenses too, but they're not Leica R lenses, which has always been my gripe about the FD cameras. The R lenses go on a Nikon w/ an adapter (it's actually a different lens mount) like they were made for it. Leica R glass is the best, in my opinion. But a photographer that works w/ the Canon FD glass for a while will make images that are plenty good enough.

 

[eli griggs]

As I recall, the Vivitar 28mm f2.8(?) FD, has a very good reputation among Canon FD shooters.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

FD lenses are great, but some are more great. The 85 1.8 is a stellar lens, especially for portraits. F 1.8 was purposely made to be a little soft, and you can see the viewfinder image sharpen right up when going to F 2.8. The FD 135 2.5 "beer can" is also a fantastic lens. It makes beautiful portraits, and stopped down it's difficult to tell the Canon negs from my Leica negs.

I liked the FD 50 1.4 and 1.8 lenses too, but they're not Leica R lenses, which has always been my gripe about the FD cameras. The R lenses go on a Nikon w/ an adapter (it's actually a different lens mount) like they were made for it. Leica R glass is the best, in my opinion. But a photographer that works w/ the Canon FD glass for a while will make images that are plenty good enough.

That's funny, an 85-100mm FD lens is on my 'keep an eye open list'.
I did not know that Leitz R lenses will fit with an adaptor. Some of the early R lenses are (or were last I checked) relative bargains. My Canon IIb RF is fitted with a Summitar, so.... I mostly bought the FTb because I liked the control arrangement and general fine construction. The f1.4 FD was a pleasant surprise, I was thinking maybe to sell/trade it for a 1.8 50, but then again it's probably the original lens to that body. What's the 85/1.8 like around f:4-f:8?
As for the Vivitar 28, I found this - http://photografica.robinparmar.com/vivitar.html - mine seems to be late, say 80s-90s-, and it's an older design but quite useable, not too many bad habits. For a consumer-grade aftermarket lens it's more than satisfactory, with a decent shade.

 

[xkaes]

As I recall, the Vivitar 28mm f2.8(?) FD, has a very good reputation among Canon FD shooters.

Vivitar sold several 28mm f2.8 lenses with a Canon FD mount over the years. They were made by different lens manufacturers at different times and produce different results. Probably the best is the 28mm f2.5, made by Kiron with serial numbers starting with 22XXXX. It is larger and heavier than the others and has a 67mm filter thread.

 

[benjiboy]

I had a T90 along with a few FD lens, the lens were as good as Nikon MF, the first generation L glass was likely better than Nikon glass of the time. The early Vivitar Series 1 lens were almost as good as L lens, later editions were not as good. Thinking about it, when Canon jumped to EOS and EF mount 3rd party lens makers still offered FD lens, your 28mm might be from the 90s.

I agree with you Paul, I currently own three FD " L" lenses that at the time they were manufactured about forty years ago I couldn't afford, but I remember in those days they were at the cutting edge of lens technology, that was way ahead of all the other major leading lens manufacturers, and even Nikon made nothing like them.