In the first part I looked at the wide-angle performance of four zoom lenses ranging in price (used) from about $50 (the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and the Kiron 28-105) to about $250 (the Nikon AFS 24-85). The fourth lens, the Nikon 28-85 AF, runs about $100-120. They’re all out of production so buying used is the only option. Adorama and eBay are likely sources.
Now for the tele-end of these four, with one of Nikon’s top primes, the 85mm f/1.8, thrown in for perspective.
Here’s the scene:
Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8 @5.6
I chose the lower left corner for the first set of comparisons at 100%:
Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f/2.8-4 @5.6 & 90mm
Nikon AFS 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 @5.6 & 85mm
Kiron 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 @5.6 & 85mm
Nikon 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 @f/5.6 & 85mm
Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8 @5.6
It’s no shock that the last one– the 85 prime– is the sharpest. But I think I see a trace of chromatic aberration in that one. To my eyes the 24-85 comes in second (with a bit more CA also) followed by the Kiron, the AF 28-85 and the Vivitar. But at 85, even in the corner, they all do fairly well.
My original mid-zoom comparison led me to believe the AFS was the worst of the lot. Later, when I realized that comparison only dealt with distant subjects, I started to pay more attention to performance closer to the subject. In the pictures above the railing was less than ten feet from the camera. Now look at the results with a subject farter away — the large tree just to the right of center in the full image. The patch of snow on the right side of the tree trunk was my focus point.
Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f/2.8-4 @5.6 & 90mm
Nikon AFS 24-85 f/3.5 - 4.5 @5.6 & 85
Kiron 28-105 f/3.2 - 4.5 @f/5.6 & 85mm
Nikon AF 28-85 f/3.5 - 4.5 @f/5.6 & 85mm
Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8 @f/5.6
My conclusion after my first try at comparing the mid-range zooms wasn’t a mistake. With a distant subject the 85 prime is clearly the sharpest, followed by the Kiron, the AF 28-85 and the Vivitar. But the AFS drops back to last place. It’s a frustrating limitation.
Some other thoughts on the off-brand lenses: Vivitar’s original Series 1 lenses earned a cult following in the ’70s and ’80s. The made some of the earliest high quality zooms, especially in the 70-200 range. The 28-90 is built rock-solid. It’s metal, and feels it. The aperture clicks snap in crisply. And it’s heavy. I had never heard of Kiron until going on this quest. Some Googling led me to the brand which was supposedly started by refugees from Nikon. It turns out they designed some excellent lenses. The 28-105 has the same feel as the Vivitar 28-90 and the aperture ring looks identical to the Vivitar, except for the font used for the numbers.
These are, of course, manual focus lenses so if you can’t live without AF these aren’t for you. But there are other tradeoffs as well. With modern zooms, when you focus at one focal length and then zoom to another length, the image should remain in focus without any help from you or the camera’s AF system. Not so with these old zooms — when you move from 28 to 105, for instance, you need to refocus a great deal. It takes getting used to but since the Kiron and Vivitar are one-ring zooms, the zoom push-pull is easily combined with the focus twist.
Variable aperture is also an issue with these old lenses. With Nikon’s D200, D300, and D700 (as well as the newer pro DSLRs) you can dial in settings for focal length and minimum aperture when you’re using lenses that don’t have chips in them that would otherwise communicate with the camera body. But what do you do when you zoom? You can dial in 28 f/3.3 but when you zoom you need to switch the “non-CPU lens setting” to the other extreme — 105 f/4.5.
I have also noticed that my D700 consistently underexposes the Kiron and Vivitar lenses relative to the Nikon lenses in this comparison. I don’t know why but it’s easy enough to dial in corrections when using them. And there’s color rendition as well. The Kiron and Vivitar seem to yield warmer images. I suppose I could also fix this by adjusting the camera’s white balance.
The Vivitar and Kiron also seem to show a bit more distortion at the wide end than the modern zooms.
As far as sharpness goes, the Kiron does quite well except in the corners on the wide end. The Vivitar is even less sharp in the corners and also shows more vignetting than any of the other lenses in this comparison.
Another compromise is a nuisance that has nothing to do with optical quality: Zoom creep. The push-pull ring on both these lenses will creep down when the lens is pointed down. So if you grab your camera after having it on your shoulder, expecting to get a quick shot at 28mm, you’ll be slowed down slightly by having to pull the zoom ring back into your range.
The Kiron has one interesting feature in its favor. At the wide end it can focus down to less than ten inches (maybe even five or six).
So which would I travel with? I think either the AFS or the Kiron. The Kiron has a bit more reach, has that close-focus ability and is built like a tank but suffers from the old zoom compromises. The AFS has auto everything on its side and goes all the way down to 24mm, which is important, but it loses points for plastic and the distant subject softness.
Adorama and eBay are likely sources if you’re in the market for any of these lenses.
