Full review of the Vivitar 85mm F/1.4 lens.
Side shot showing odd bulbous front element |
Back side, no contacts |
Recessed front element with plastic filter threads |
Samyang X-ray view |
General information and specifications.
Lens
|
|
Box contents
|
Front cap, rear cap, hood, carrying bag and users manual.
|
Cost
|
Approximately $269
|
Build quality
|
Ok to good.
|
Additional information
|
Introduced about 2009. Also may be marketed under the names; Falcon, Bowers, Samyang, Opteka, Rokinon, Walimex
|
Specifications below |
|
Optical configuration
|
9 elements in 7 groups
|
Angle of view
|
28.3˚ full frame, 18.8˚ APS-C
|
Aperture
|
8 blades, curved
|
Full frame and APS-C
|
Made for full frame, but works fine on APS-C cameras.
|
Depth of field and focus scales?
|
Aperture scale and focus distance scale.
|
Minimum focus, image plane to subject
|
About 46″ (1168mm)
|
Minimum focus, end of lens barrel to subject
|
About 41.5″ (1054mm)
|
Hard stop at infinity focus?
|
Goes just a hair past infinity, but focuses correctly at this position.
|
Length changes when focusing?
|
No.
|
Focus ring turns in AF?
|
N/A
|
Filter size
|
72mm.
|
Filter ring rotates?
|
No
|
Distance encoder?
|
No
|
Max magnification
|
Awful! About 0.08x or 1:12.5
|
Min. F/stop
|
F/22
|
Sony teleconverter compatible?
|
No
|
Length changes when zooming?
|
N/A
|
Dimensions WxL (my measurements)
|
3.07″ x 2.91″ 78mm x 74mm.
|
Maximum extended length (my measurements)
|
2.91″ (74mm)
|
Weight bare (my scale)
|
18.0oz (510g) bare, with hood and caps; 19.7oz (558g)
|
Flat! |
Distortion is not a problem with this lens.
Bokeh samples.
F/1.4
|
F/2
|
F/2.8
|
F/4
|
F/1.4 background blur
|
F/1.4 foreground blur
|
Bokeh looks pretty smooth at all apertures, but it does depend on focusing distance. The last row left crop shows background blur quality, the right shot shows foreground blur. Blur in front of the subject makes things look weird anyways, and the bokeh is poor, so try not to shoot in this way unless it’s for effect. I see some spherochromatism here, which means when the foreground is blurred, you’ll get red outlined highlights, with the background blurred, you’ll get green outlined highlights, (F/2 crop above), this usually goes away as you stop down, and is mostly noticeable on fast lenses when used wide open. You can expect “swirling” bokeh at F/1.4 in certain situations, like the sample image in the full frame section.
F/1.4
|
F/2
|
F/2.8
|
F/4
|
Light fall-off is very noticeable at F/1.4, but improves greatly at F/2.
Let’s check out the macro capabilities of this lens.
As close as you can get, F/5.6. |
_______________________________________________________________________
Full frame results using the Sony A900 below.
Check out the differences when using a film or full frame camera below. I’m only pointing out the noticeable issues as compared to the APS-C bodies, so if I don’t show it here, the results are not significantly different enough to warrant posting an additional set of images in this section.
Light fall-off
F/1.4
|
F/2
|
F/2.8
|
F/4
|
I see exposure altering light fall-off at F/1.4, to the tune of at least -0.50ev. However, by closing the aperture just one stop, the frame lightens up tremendously. In fact, you can almost use the same shutter speed at F/2 as you did from F/1.4. You really don’t notice this so much in normal shooting, but I do, because I need to keep track of apertures and shutter speeds for the testing procedures, and to make matters worse, the camera doesn’t record aperture data, only the shutter speed.
Full image below illustrating light fall-off from A900.
F/1.4, ISO 100, 1/3200sec. |
Detail from center of image above. |
Swirling bokeh and example of heavy off-center light fall-off. |
At the top we have a full scene of a huge and ancient Saguaro cactus (the holes are from birds) that shows actual-use light fall-off, It’s noticeable, with an almost over-exposed center, but correct mid-sections and corners. Be careful when using F/1.4, make sure the centers are not over-exposed! This bright daylight scene could have been shot around F/2, while still providing a blurred background, and light fall-off would be mostly gone. Data for the image is; F/1.4, 3200sec, ISO 100.
The middle shot is a 100% crop of the top image, taken from the center. It looks pretty good for F/1.4 in bright sun!
The boring bottom image shows basically the same thing as the top image, but with a clearly over-exposed middle, and what’s called “swirling” bokeh, formed by the background highlight blur being “lentil” shaped around the image periphery, which is quite common with large aperture lenses, go here for more info.
Flare and Ghosting.
Huge ghosting with sun out of shot.
|
Huge blobs with offset sun.
|
Small aperture with sun centered looks awful.
|
Small aperture with offset sun looks awful.
|
Almost flat on A900 |
I see almost no distortion with full frame coverage.
Bokeh and axial color fringing.
Detail from center of image. |
This shot shows another rendition of bokeh, this time close up at F/2.8. I see some axial color fringing too in the water, in this case the color compliments the flower color in the background! It’s not very strong, but shows up in shots like this.
Lateral color fringing.
Color fringing crop from far right side. F/8 |
This crop is from the last 700 pixels on the middle right side. I see a little magenta and green color fringing along the window and light fixture, but it’s controlled well, and not really noticeable unless viewed closely.
The inexpensive Vivitar 85mm F/1.4 turned in a darn good performance, making an medium telephoto 85mm F/1.4 accessible to cost-conscious people, as this wonderful lens is priced $1000 less than the Sony CZ 85/1.4 planar! How does the Vivitar stand up to the CZ, or Sony 85mm F/2.8 SAM? I don’t have the CZ 85mm with me, but if memory serves me correctly(!), I think the CZ is sharper with better contrast at F/1.4, although I’m not sure about the mid-sections and corners, other differences can be culled from the Sony CZ 85mm F/1.4 review. The Sony 85mm F/2.8 SAM is very similar to the Vivitar in sharpness, see the comparison crops in the bonus section at the bottom of this page, and check out that lens review for other info. Of course, the Sony lenses are fully automated with the camera, and don’t need to be hand focused and constantly adjusted to compensate for aperture and light changes. Camera metering on the Vivitar is only approximate, so you’ll need to review the image on the screen after each shot to see if you got the right exposure. It’s no big deal, but if you’re used to full auto operation, this will be pain in the behind until you get a feel for it. I don’t mind using full manual controls, as that’s what I use most of the time anyways.
The Vivitar 85mm F/1.4 is pretty sharp at all apertures, but lacks contrast at F/1.4, and needs to be stopped down to F/2 to get rid of the “veiling haze.” One thing I noticed with this lens is; light fall-off is so heavy at F/1.4 that you’ll probably need to drag the shutter at least half a stop for a correct exposure, so that means the light gathering ability is not really F/1.4, it’s more like F/1.8. Of course, depth of field is still the same, and backgrounds can be wiped out easily with this lens, just make sure you focus accurately.
Note; bright daytime use at F/1.4 will often result in having to use a shutter speed of 1/8000 at ISO 100. Most consumer grade cameras don’t have that shutter speed, (the pro bodied Sony A700/A850/A900 do) so you’ll need to use a neutral density filter to bring down the light value and get the proper exposure.
On the upside; distortion and color fringing are controlled well, and sharpness is high as mentioned above, but on the downside, flare and ghosting control is poor, and while the lens feels heavy and solid, build quality is just OK at best, with a flimsy plastic front filter ring and sloppy paint trim spoiling the otherwise good build quality. I guess that’s why the lens is so cheap!
I would highly recommend this lens if you’re familiar with using manual controls on your camera, and need this focal length and aperture. This lens is best used at F/1.4-2, if you don’t think you’ll need those apertures, get the much easier to use, and cheaper Sony 85/2.8 SAM.
Sample crops from the centers, mid-sections and corners.
Center
|
Mid-section
|
Corner
|
|
F/1.4
|
|||
F/2
|
|||
F/2.8
|
|||
F/4
|
|||
F/5.6
|
|||
F/8
|
|||
F/11
|
Clearly visible here are the soft, wide open results, mostly due to a lack of contrast, there’s pretty good detail though. When you stop down to F/2-2.8 the image sharpens up dramatically, and doesn’t get too much better by closing the aperture more. Diffraction is noticeable at F/16. Maximum performance seems to be around F2.8-4 in the centers, F/5.6 in the mid-sections, and the corners sharpen up slightly by stopping down to F/8-11, although not really noticeable in these crops. Exposure differences are from light fall-off.
Please check out the Vivitar 85mm F/1.4 at B&H Photo and help support the site!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bonus section.
I’ve worked up a direct comparison using the Vivitar 85/1.4 and Sony 85/2.8 lenses. The distance from camera to subject is 26′ (8.0m). The Sony A900 was used for this comparison, along with a tripod, remote shutter and 3200k hot lights. Bracketed manual focusing was used, with the resulting absolute sharpest shot used as the base for the entire set, at each length. Exposure differences are from light fall-off. All camera settings were the same for each lens. Centers
Very similar sharpness levels, although the Sony looks a hair sharper at F/4. Also notice the color differences, the Vivitar is not as “warm” as the Sony. All crops used the exact same camera settings.
Mid-sections
If you look really close, the Sony seems to be a bit sharper at all apertures here.
Corners
There might be a little difference in sharpness between the crops at F/4-5.6, but not something you’d normally notice unless viewed like this, side-by-side. The Vivitar shows less color fringing in these corner crops. |