Oh yes, one other small difference, the v.2 lens has a slightly cooler lens cap...
P. J. Alling wrote: > So I decided to write a review. I hope people find it useful. > > I acquired an almost "New" Vivitar series 1 version 3 not too long ago, > and I've decided to do a comparative review verses the version 2 model > that I've had for a number of years now. First off I'd like to "thank" > Mark Roberts for his unfortunate encouragement in my making this > purchase, not that he did anything directly, he just published his > glowing description. The lens is almost everything he says it is. On > the other hand with the new found popularity of Pentax cameras due to > the introduction of the K10D almost any A class lens is now selling for > much more than just a few years ago. I fear that I overpaid for the > version 3 lens, however since I underpaid for the version 2 lens I guess > things average out. > > First anyone who would like photos of the various versions of Vivitars > expression of this classic focal length zoom should look at Mark Roberts > page dedicated to these lenses. He also has useful charts, including > Modern Photographies test results for the first three versions > resolution and contrast figures. I will try not to duplicate the > information on that page. http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm > > Disclaimer. I haven't used the version 3 lens on film, I intend to do > so and then I'll expand this to cover the S1 version 1, that I haven't > used on digital, (which doesn't belong to me but a friend who has it in > Konica mount). > > Impression/Build Quality. > > The two versions of this lens are quite similar cosmetically and in > size . The version 2 lens is a bit longer, and a bit thinner in > maximum diameter. It is also a bit lighter, noticeable so to me at > least, however despite this, (and the fact that it evidences quite > noticeable zoom creep), it feels quite a bit more substantial than the > version 3. The helpful chart that Mark maintains on his site shows that > the v.3 lens out weighs the v.2 by 150 grams. Additionally the v.3 > lens has more comprehensive barrel markings including a DOF scale > lacking on the v.2 lens, which only has an infrared index mark. Aside > from the A setting both of the lenses have almost an identical feel to > their f stop rings, a bit on the light side, with a somewhat more > positive click stops on the v.2. The v.2 focuses and zooms, (both are > one touch designs), with a buttery smooth action reminiscent of the > best Pentax M and K mount lenses. The v.3 while it is smooth enough, > evidences a bit of flex in the focus/zoom ring that makes me feel a bit > less confident. The v.3 just feels looser, though the v.2 zoom creep > will quickly move the zoom from 70mm to the 210mm position, or vice > versa if the lens is oriented much out of the horizontal plane. The v.3 > has no zoom creep at all. Over all the two lenses are of comparable > build with a slight nod going to the v.2 for solidity, (as a aside, > neither is as well built as the original S1 v.1 which was feels like a > tank). > > Picture taking. > > I haven't done any scientific testing. I take pictures, (maybe not good > ones, but that's why I have this stuff). So my impressions here will be > subjective. In all I haven't found a lot of difference in the sharpness > of the output of these two lenses. Under normal conditions with > sufficient light both produce very good if not spectacular results, (the > Monarch Butterfly gallery I posted here a while ago > http://tinyurl.com/yvx7nn was was shot with the v.3 lens, I'll have to > go through some past photos for examples taken with the v.2 lens). Both > seem to prone to about the same amount of flare. I haven't noticed much > difference between the from that standpoint. You have to treat them > with the same care as using most any good quality non SMC lens. > Distortion, was not noticeable with either lens under normal picture > taking situations. > > Problems. > > Well yes, there was a noticeable problem with the v.3 lens. I've come > to the conclusion that the aperture response may not be as linear as > required by the Pentax specification. I noticed almost a half stop > difference in exposure between what was required and delivered at the > f2.8, (as recorded by the camera), setting and f4.0. This is true at > all focal lengths. I did test this by the way, it was easy to compare > since I just shot an evenly illuminated white surface and compared the > resulting histograms. In every case the exposure was underexposed > until f4.0 then exposures were identical for each stop to f22. (These f > stops were controlled from the camera body. The green button was pretty > much dead on every time). > > Foibles. > > The differences between the v.2 and v.3 made using the v.3 seem a bit > strange at times. > > The v.2 is fixed aperture, the v.3 is variable aperture, most of us are > used to this, since most modern consumer zooms are variable aperture, > but the S1 v.3 being an A class lens, the aperture value displayed > doesn't update as the lens is zoomed. > > The v.2 gives a constant minimum focus distance of 4 feet at all focal > lengths. The v.3 has a cam setup to limit minimum focus distance at > 70mm of 5 feet until 100mm after which it focuses to about 2 feet 6 > inches. This takes a bit of getting used to. but works well enough. > > > Conclusion. > > So was it worth the money? Well yes and no. Either lens has more than > acceptable resolution and contrast, certainly they out preform a 6mp > sensor. The A setting on v.3 lens is convenient, and in spite of the > inherent inaccuracy, the probability of getting a good exposure using > the meter in the *ist-D or Ds is much more likely in dim light. The > ~1:2.5, (vs. 1:4 on the v.2), reproduction ratio on the v.3 at close > focus, is very nice to have. The minimum focus distance of 5 feet at > 70mm with the v.3 is a bit of a pain when trying to use the lens as an > ad hoc portrait lens. Getting a similar lens in a more modern design > at a reasonable price with equivalent capabilities will be much more > expensive. > > > Recommendation. > > If you're on a budget go for the v.2 You can still pick them up for > under $90.00 and optically and mechanically, except for the zoom creep, > they are gems. The v.3 is equally good optically, for digital shooting, > but expect the average price for them to be 2 to 2 1/2 times that, and > the flex in the focus/zoom ring can be disturbing. (The version 1 is > not as good optically but is built much better and you could probably > get one for even less). > > -- The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. -- P. J. O'Roark -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
