Zoom...today vs yesterday

Alan Gales · Jul 31, 2016

benjiboy said:
Kiron and Tokina actually made Vivitar 70 - 210 zoom lenses, Vivitar only comissoned and marketed them

I read somewhere that Kiron made the original Vivitar Series One 70-210 lens. I wasn't sure if that was true. Thanks for the information!

benjiboy · Jul 31, 2016

MattKing said:
The difference between most 40 year old zoom lenses and most modern zoom lenses comes down to computers - computer aided design and computer aided manufacture. The computer made it possible to design and manufacture at much higher quality, for reasonable cost.

Older zoom lenses tended to be lower in contrast, but as they were often used with slide films and projection (inherently higher in contrast) the reduction in contrast wasn't as important.

Older zoom lenses were more likely to have "sweet spots" - a smaller range of focal lengths where the performance was better compared to the larger total range available from the lens. If you got to know your lens well, you could adapt to that.

I still like my 1970s 75-150mm Zuiko two touch zoom, but only under particular circumstances.

The Vivitar Series 1 lenses were commissioned to be designed by the Opticon Company of Stamford Connecticut who computer designed the Skylab telescope for N.A.S.A and were manufactured in Japan to that specification by various manufacturers. The first Series 1 70-210 f3.5 Zooms put shock waves through the photographic industry because they gave the big five marque lens manufacturers Nikon , Canon, Minolta etc. a real run for their money, not necessarily because they weren't significantly cheaper than their products, because of the image quality they could produce. I have one that I admit I don't use often because I find it heavy and I prefer the way prime lenses handle, but considering how cheaply these lenses (that can produce pro. quality results) can be bought in good condition these days on auction sites it's a no brainer.

Les Sarile · Jul 31, 2016

Poisson Du Jour said:
I still have the 70-200 f2.8L, joined a couple of years later by a 17-40 f4L and both of these are on a par with, or better than, prime lenses.

I have the 70-200 f2.8 L and 16-35 f2.8 L and they are both exceptional. In less then absolutely critical situations, it is not likely I can discern any differences in results from my primes in those ranges.

Alan Gales · Jul 31, 2016

Ricardo Miranda said:
I hope you can see the sorry state of affairs when even members of the small film community also use Digi when they could be using film.
There's simply no excuse.
"If you don't use if, you'll loose it".
Simple as that.

I know what you are saying but for me it wouldn't have made a difference. I was the assistant manager and unofficial team photographer. I shot a lot of pictures of the team for the girls and their parents. By shooting digital it didn't cost me anything. I couldn't have afforded all that 35mm film. I guess you could say that I could have taken the money that I paid for the digital camera and paid for the film. I was involved in eBay sales of film cameras, lenses and other equipment. That digital camera enabled me to post my images to Ebay and sell a lot of equipment over the years. The profit I made funded most of my film camera gear and also all the film I shot.

Without shooting digital I could never have afforded medium and large format film cameras. I also couldn't have afforded all the film I have shot.

Alan Gales · Jul 31, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Of course it is, because it does not require any photographic timing skill that film photography does. Just as relieving oneself on a fence with a stream rather than one shot. Jus' saying'

I used to shoot sports with a 35mm camera so I do know how to do it. With sports I am just trying to catch the action. I'm not trying to produce art or anything. I save that for my film cameras.

Paul Howell · Jul 31, 2016

Zoomar (sp?) made decent zooms in the 60s and 70s, but were still short of a good set of primes. I have a Petri 85 to 210 4.8 that is very good for the day, better than my Nikon AI 80 to 200, the other sleeper was the Soligar 90 to 230 F4.5 CD I have one in Miranda Mount along with a 35 to 70 .3.5 in Konica Mount. The Soligar CD lens were competitors of the Vivitar S1 line up. By the 80s even kit zooms had improved to the point that short zooms replaced 50mm primes. Some may differ but, even the best zooms are not up the best primes, Canon L, Minolta G, Pentax Limited Edition and Sigma Art primes are sharper with much better contrast, distortion free.

CMoore · Jul 31, 2016

Thanks for all the info...this has been an education for me...!!
I should add.....I have nothing against Digital Cameras or Zooms. As others have said, they are all tools, you use what works.
I started this thread because i was relocating my lens case and noticed i have a few Zooms, but have never used them, until recently, and that has been just ONE Zoom i have tried.
Perhaps a list.?
I got most of these because they were bundled with something else i bought. Some of them seem to be barely worth the cost of shipping. Have no idea what they sold for new.
This is what i have:
Canon:
The three different 35-70 that i asked about in this post (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
100-300 f5.6
100-200 f5.6
80-200 f4.0
70-210 f4.0
70-150 f4.5
35-105 f3.5 Macro (... that seems like a cool lens)
28-85 f4.0

Nikon:
80-200 f4.5
35-200 f3.5
35-135 f3.5
35-105 f3.5
43-86 f3.5
28-80 Mcro f3.5
35-70 f3.5/4.5

... these are just sitting in a cabinet and storing dust. This is when i wish i had a digital SLR and could do a bunch of lens testing.
... i guess most/some of these are not worth much money anymore. Sometimes it is not worth the Cost/Hassle/Shipping to sell an item.
Some of these numbers seem to over-lap pretty closely.? .....Like the 35/105 and 35/135.

ciniframe · Jul 31, 2016

Of all my lenses I have only two zooms, one came with a body I wanted and the other was so cheap I just had to get it. The 'other' is a Olympus 50~90 f3.5 for my Pen F and since there are precious few lenses made for that mount I thought at $25 it was worth a try. It's a heavy and large beast with a constant f3.5 aperture. I don't usually carry it in a kit and only use it when I cannot stand where I need to to frame the shot, usually it is on a tripod at that point. With only 18X24mm to work with you crop in camera, not in the darkroom. Seems ok stopped down a bit for a reasonable 8X enlargement, I print 6X8 on 8X10 paper or 4.5X6 on 5X7 paper. Otherwise, even if the quality is acceptable it is just too big and heavy to haul around in a small kit that at max is four Pen primes, 20mm f3.5, 25mm f4, 38mm f1.8, and 100mm f3.5

AgX · Jul 31, 2016

Paul Howell said:
Zoomar (sp?) made decent zooms in the 60s and 70s,...

The manufacturer was Kilfitt Optical Works, but Zoomar was not only a tradename for their zoom-lenses but also used in the name of a trading company, likely linked to the Kilfitt Works.

Ricardo Miranda · Jul 31, 2016

fstop said:
Ferrania backer? hahahah KS is a ripoff. kiss your money goodbye

I'll reserve the right to be the last to laugh... or not.

RalphLambrecht · Jul 31, 2016

blockend said:
Today's kit zooms are better than most old upmarket versions, and the professional varieties better than almost all old primes lenses. The optical maths are available at the click of a mouse, and manufacturing processes have removed the technical barriers. I still prefer prime lenses because I like the consistent viewpoint they provide.

In my opinion lens manufacturers should explore the option of vary-focus lenses more.They are not true zooms but potentially better performers with almost identical flexibility;Leica seems to like them.

cliveh · Jul 31, 2016

Zoom lenses! Why would you ever wish to own one, let alone use it. They may make good door stops.

AgX · Jul 31, 2016

Think of photographing people in situations where you neither have time to change lenses or much choice in positioning yourself.

Ricardo Miranda · Jul 31, 2016

Alan Johnson said:
Nearly all the time I use AF zooms.Most use AF, that is why MF zooms on ebay are so cheap IMO.
In reply to Ricardo, some subjects like sports photography and model photography would be very expensive to shoot on film and I don't use film for these.

fstop said:
There are situations where you just can't beat the capabilities of a DSLR. Sports and wildlife especially.

No.
I don't remember Professional photographers in the 90s working with Nikon F4 and F5 and the Sports photographers with EOS1 ever complaining about "not getting the shot".

In fact, I gave myself the trouble to read some of the manuals for the latest Leica M Digital cameras and I wasn't impressed at all: thicker than the M film cameras, heavier and still need 1 lousy second to wake up after turning them on.
You pick up a M3. press the shutter and that's it.

In the same way my OM-1 or OM-2 you just need to press the shutter. No waiting for AF, no waiting for lousy digi delays and you don't even need to turn them on in the first place.

I was using today my "oldie" Nikon F80. Its AF is still very good. If not, there's always the F5.

No need to defend your preference for Digi. That's what you like and it would always look better in your eyes.
But facts are facts.
Don't come and tell me that someone with sound technical skills, a 300mm, fast film and an old Nikon F or F2 couldn't do sports photography.
Many professional photographers in the 60s and 70s in this country that's about all they had.
And I do remember some professional photographer using a Large Format camera in the last 2012 London Olympics.
I don't remember anyone saying: "you can't do sports photography with that".

Ricardo Miranda · Jul 31, 2016

Paul Howell said:
I have a Petri 85 to 210 4.8 that is very good for the day, better than my Nikon AI 80 to 200,

That brings me so many good memories.
I had that lens and a complete outfit around a Petri FT that belonged to my father.
Unfortunately all were stolen from me a month after my father passed away.
Passed more than 20 years I still can't see a Petri FT without my eyes getting misted.

Les Sarile · Jul 31, 2016

CMoore said:
Are Zooms of today "better" made than a zoom made circa 1975.?
Do you guys use a Zoom very often with your Film SLR.?
Thank You

Of course a very general question and if you are talking about used equipment you can never be sure until you have tested it.

To that point after a few rolls testing I can say without reservation that this Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f2.8-3.5 I picked up used is a very good manual focus zoom.

Sirius Glass · Jul 31, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Of course it is, because it does not require any photographic timing skill that film photography does. Just as relieving oneself on a fence with a stream rather than one shot. Jus' sayin'

Vilk said:
you mean i've been doing it wrong all those years??

No, but learning to pick the decisive moment is a skill worth developing.

Sirius Glass · Jul 31, 2016

cliveh said:
Zoom lenses! Why would you ever wish to own one, let alone use it. They may make good door stops.

Zooms are for 35mm, allowing choices of focal length for each photograph while retaining quality indistinguishable from primes.

I use primes for MF and LF photography.

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 31, 2016

Yes, that "quality indistinguishable from primes" is something many people don't understand or appreciate (or simply don't want to know about, preferring to hang on to ingrained experience from decades ago), but it is a fact. We've come an astonishing long way in three deecades.

I've noted that Canon's L-series lenses (also some Nikons) go through at least a second iteration e.g. with the 'II' on the end of the lens designation; there are several of these "white knights" now (with a corresponding price to match, but no beef there: you definitely get what you pay for). I don't have any series-II zooms because there is nothing more I wish in terms of optical quality, nor enough use of 35mm now to justify the cost. As an interesting side-note, neither of my Canon TS-E L-series tilt-shift lenses have anywhere near the sharpness of the 70-00 or 17-40 f4L zooms. But that never stopped me from using them, and I have never desired to upgrade to the II-series versions (bigger, bulkier, costlier...).

fstop · Jul 31, 2016

Ricardo Miranda said:
No.
I don't remember Professional photographers in the 90s working with Nikon F4 and F5 and the Sports photographers with EOS1 ever complaining about "not getting the shot".

In fact, I gave myself the trouble to read some of the manuals for the latest Leica M Digital cameras and I wasn't impressed at all: thicker than the M film cameras, heavier and still need 1 lousy second to wake up after turning them on.
You pick up a M3. press the shutter and that's it.

In the same way my OM-1 or OM-2 you just need to press the shutter. No waiting for AF, no waiting for lousy digi delays and you don't even need to turn them on in the first place.

I was using today my "oldie" Nikon F80. Its AF is still very good. If not, there's always the F5.

No need to defend your preference for Digi. That's what you like and it would always look better in your eyes.
But facts are facts.
Don't come and tell me that someone with sound technical skills, a 300mm, fast film and an old Nikon F or F2 couldn't do sports photography.
Many professional photographers in the 60s and 70s in this country that's about all they had.
And I do remember some professional photographer using a Large Format camera in the last 2012 London Olympics.
I don't remember anyone saying: "you can't do sports photography with that".

So what you are saying is with ASA 800 color film (about the limit of acceptable grain) and a max of 250 shots on a bulk film roll, with a motor drive that runs about 5 frames/sec is going to out perform a Nikon 810, yeaaah riiiight. if it could Nikon would still make the F3 and Kodunk would still make Kodachrome.Those are the facts.

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 31, 2016

Ricardo Miranda said:
No.
I don't remember Professional photographers in the 90s working with Nikon F4 and F5 and the Sports photographers with EOS1 ever complaining about "not getting the shot".

There is something you should know. The first generation EOS 1 was not up to the task of fast sports photography. That camera caused a backlash at Canon at a time when Nikon was making inroads into drive and AF speeds. Anecdotal feedback to Canon is what brought about ramped up research and design of the EOS 1N, with the higher frame rate and particularly the increased number of focusing points linked to a faster drive performance. It made a big difference, and from 1995 the 1N became the flagship, saturating the ranges of general media but especially sports photographers. The '1' is a quaint relict worthy of a touch and feel, but not really suited to high speed work. Improved zoom lenses (the L-series, designed around the performance of the EOS 1N and later EOS 1V) that progressively came out made the system very hard to beat. But today's digital toys can certainly outgun the best of the "old guard" analogue cameras, but it still and always will require that the photographer has the skill to be up to the task, rather than blithely putting faith in the camera to do everything for him -- irrespective of the camera being analogue or digital.

ColColt · Jul 31, 2016

The Nikon 43-86 was the worse zoom lens ever...probably Nikon's biggest dog of a lens. Next to that I had the Vivitar 75-150 which I found was not much better. The Series I 90 f2.5 was superb but no zoom. I'm not much into zoom lens but the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 IF ED lens is outstanding.

CMoore · Jul 31, 2016

ColColt said:
The Nikon 43-86 was the worse zoom lens ever...probably Nikon's biggest dog of a lens.....

Probably why i have Three Of Them.
If i remember correct.....i got One with a lens i bought and then one each came with an FM and then an F2.......

benjiboy · Jul 31, 2016

Tony-S said:
As did Komine (considered the best) and Cosina.

The second version of the Series 1 70 - 210 f3.5 lens that was manufactured by Tokina is the best one.

vsyrek1945 · Jul 31, 2016

ColColt said:
The Nikon 43-86 was the worse zoom lens ever...probably Nikon's biggest dog of a lens. Next to that I had the Vivitar 75-150 which I found was not much better. The Series I 90 f2.5 was superb but no zoom. I'm not much into zoom lens but the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 IF ED lens is outstanding.

There are later versions of the lens, identified as having the information ring outside of the filter threads that performs much better. According to a thread on photo.net, the factory AI and AI-s versions deliver good IQ from f/5.6 down. I recently got an AI version 43-86 in a Goodwill lot but haven't gotten to evaluate it yet.

As for the Vivitar 75-150, I sprung for the first (two-touch) version after reading the Modern Photography review. This was only the second zoom, after the Lentar 80-200, to score acceptable resolution results across its zoom and aperture ranges. My Canon FD version of the lens served me well for about 20 years, until it was stolen.

Zoom...today vs yesterday

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency