Using The Vivitar 75-205 f/3.8 on an OMD E-M10

Conventional wisdom indicates that, when discussing the use of legacy lenses on modern cameras, it is generally best to avoid zoom lenses in favor of prime lenses.  However, I came into possession of  an elderly Vivitar 75-205 mm Zoom lens in a Canon FD mount that makes me question this 'wisdom'.  Note that I am talking about the ubiquitous, less expensive Vivitar "SuperZoom" lens and NOT the legendary Series 1 lens.

I found this lens to be sharp at all focal lengths and very sharp at the macro setting.

However, I doubt that I will use this lens very much on an Olympus OMD E-M10. It's just too big for the E-M10's body.  I found it extremely difficult to hand hold at the extreme level of magnification that the 4/3s sensor offer.  (A reminder, the 75-205 Vivitar is effectively a 150mm - 410mm lens when mounted on a camera that uses the 4/3s sensor size.).  

It seems that the "macro" setting uses a close-focusing enhancement of the 75 mm focal length.  Hand holding the E-M10 with the lens in Macro mode is extremely difficult, I think.   Below, is a hand-held macro shot,  it's better than most of the macro shots I got hand held, but if you look close, I think you can still see a bit of camera movement.

Macro mode, hand-held, 1/1600 sec f/5.6 ISO 200

Taken with a Samsung S5 Camera phone,
The ergonomics make it impossible to hold
steady.  Camera phones, UGH!

Using it on a tripod works relatively well though.  But I personally find that I don't enjoy using the E-M10 on a tripod.  To  me, the appeal of a camera this size is the ability to hand hold it for almost every shot.  And a tripod for macro shots, while essential with this lens would be GREATLY enhanced with some sort of focusing rail.  It was too hard to position the camera lens assembly by physically picking up the tripod and moving it a fraction of an inch.

I had an optional external grip installed on about half the shots, and without for the other half.  I was surprised to discover that using the grip didn't work any better than not using it.  One needs to support the camera/lens assembly by that non moving part of the lens barrel for maximum steadiness and support, so the 'grip-ability' of the body itself doesn't really factor into the way the camera and lens assembly is held and supported.

Hand held 205 mm 1/2000 sec f/5.6

This lens is prone to flare in situations where more modern lenses would not.  I have taken the photo above, several times with modern Olympus lenses at various times of day, and never saw this much flare in them.   I would recommend that a lens hood of some sort be purchased if you intend to use this lens with any regularity.

I have heard that Ponder & Best, the company that owned the Vivitar line back in the day, contracted out the manufacture of these lenses to other manufacturers, and the quality varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.

In my research, the common belief is that one can tell which manufacturer made the lens based on the first two digits of the serial number. I don't know if this is true, or not, but most of the internet web sites that deal with legacy lenses all seem to accept this as 'probably true'.

The most useful link I found that deals with Vivitar serial numbers was the Camera-Wiki.org page.  This web page also deals with the persistent rumor that Olympus made lenses for Vivitar.  Apparently, it did not, though my basic test of this particular lens indicates there would be no shame in such a move for Olympus.  My Vivitar 'superzoom' seems to be at the very least, a solid second tier lens of that era.

75 mm 1/640 sec f/5.6 iso 200

The serial number on my lens is 22713212 which indicates that it was made by Kiron.  In my serial number research, I found some legacy lens forum sites where users make the claim that the most desirable lenses were the ones made with the serial numbers of 22 - Kiron, 28 - Komine, and 37 - Tokina.  I have no way to verify these claims, so use that info at your own risk.

In summary, I think this is a fine legacy lens that is unfortunately prone to more flare than modern lenses.  It is worth seeking out and using on a fairly regular basis, but I question its value as a companion for very small camera bodies.

Legacy Lenses and the "Prime Shooting Style"

I'm having great luck using my ancient Canon FL series lenses on my E-M10. They offer a subtle difference in color and tonality that we don't see with modern lenses. The only drawback with m43s is that even my WA Canon primes are effectively normal lenses or longer.

I'm using focus peaking, and I shoot with the lens stopped down all the time even during framing and focusing. I get confused by having an open/close ring on the lens, and an open/close ring on the Fotasy adapter.

With these 'all manual' lenses I have the viewfinder set to automatically brighten to accommodate the stopped down state of the lens.

These lenses are fun to use and offer unique image qualities I don't think I'd get with the Zuiko lenses.

I'm also experimenting with 'one body', 'one lens' shooting as a result of using these lenses. I select one lens, attach it to the camera and, taking just that I go out and find some way to make that body/lens combination work to make a good photo. . . somehow. If I encounter something I simply CAN'T shoot with the gear I have, I come back another day, with a different lens. I think of this as a 'layered' approach to photography.

I enjoy this sort of shooting so much, I'm thinking of getting a couple of modern Zuiko primes to see how I like shooting wide in this way.

Below, a few examples of what my Canon FL lenses can do. Click on any to enlarge:

Above, taken with Canon FL 50mm f/1.8

To the left, taken with Canon FL 100mm f/3.5

To the right, and below, taken with Canon FL 50mm f/1.8

A Review of the Fotodiox Add-on Grip for the Olympus OMD Em10

I am always surprised by the tiny size of gear manufactured for m43s cameras. I don't know why, I know full well just how tiny the E-M10 is; it's just that catalogue photos always make things seem bigger somehow. The photos give them more "presence".

Why is a grip needed, you ask? Well, I don't think if you just use the kit lens that comes with the camera that an extra grip IS needed. But if you are like me, and you sometimes enjoy using bigger and heavier lenses, the built in grip just doesn't give enough 'grip' to make that tiny camera feel balanced enough with a big lens in your hand. This is where an additional add on grip comes in handy.

The Fotodiox pro grip for the E-M10 is no different. When I opened the box, I was surprised at just how small it is. About 4.5 inches long, it fits my camera like a glove. The claim that the user has easy access to the battery and media card port is true. But the A/V - HDMI port on the right side is also available with the grip attached. The Fotodiox grip adds 2.3 ounces to the total weight of the camera body, but it is not even noticeable to me.

The base plate portion of the grip assembly is designed so that the articulated view screen can move without restriction, and the base plate sits flat when attached to the camera. The camera sits flat and doesn't wobble with the grip attached.

The attachment screw uses the tripod mount socket that is placed right behind the lens, so another tripod mount is provided offset to the left. This won't cause any significant problems for most people; but if you like to do a lot of stitching to make panoramas, it is easier to get photos to match up if the tripod pivot point is directly behind the lens. So those who like to do panorama photos might want to remove the grip when shooting for them.

But the big question is, does it make the camera easier to hold? And the answer is yes, particularly when I have attached my favorite legacy lens, the Olympus/Zuiko 14-54 Mk I originally designed for the 4/3s DSLR cameras. Those telecentric lenses are a tad bit bigger and heavier than native m43s lenses and it makes using those lenses much easier to use. I'm not certain that the smaller m43s kit lens will benefit all that much from a grip like this. It is small enough and light enough that camera movement from a too heavy lens making the assembly out of balance is not much of an issue.

I've used the grip about 6 months now. and while I don't need the grip to use the camera with the kit lens, it is just too much trouble to take off when I'm not using the larger legacy lenses, so I leave the grip on all the time. I am starting to see some paint wear on the edges of the grip.  It is happening a bit earlier than I would have hoped considering how careful I am with my gear, 

I wish Fotodiox had raised the price a dollar or so, and had applied a better paint finish to the device. Considering how inexpensive it is, there should be plenty of room for that modest price increase and still remain significantly below the price of the Olympus  branded version without affecting sales.  I've not noticed any structural problems, so my objections so far have been cosmetic only.

I kind of wish the actual grip part was a tad bit more . . . bulbous, it would be an even more comfortable grip. But the size of the camera body itself might work against this, and would certainly be a bit uglier to boot. (gotta be pretty, if you want to sell a lot of them! LOL!) I think a bigger, fatter grip would either cause the grip to be so close to the lens that there wouldn't much room for your fingers between the lens and grip, or, the grip would be expanded around the right side, perhaps blocking access to the A/V - HDMI ports. On the whole though, I find the current design an acceptable compromise between comfort and usability.

I can't compare it to the Olympus brand grip, I've never used that grip. But I think I like the Fotodiox well enough that I have no curiosity about the Oly grip. As I write this, the Fotodiox is cheaper too. It's hard to argue about a product that is well designed and cheaper.