Vivitar 150 mm enlarging lens: fair or dog?

[Philippe Gauthier]

I'm the only member of my photo club who regularly shoots LF. Until recently, the Beseler 45 in the club's lab (we have a dozen enlargers, including two Beseler 23CI and the 45) was only fitted with a 50 mm enlrager lens and a 35 negative holder. On my insistance, the club reluctantly (and inexpensively) bought a negative holder stripped of its anti-Newton glass and a 150 mm Vivitar enlarger lens.

This enlarger lens, bought for about 30-35 US dollars, looks brand new. The trouble with Vivitar stuff is that you cannot be sure how good it is - they've marketed both the best and the worst during their long history. Does anyone know about this lens? I don't expect it to be as good as a Rodenstock or El-Nikkor, but is it considered to be decent?

My first trial with this new gear, yesterday, proved satisfactory, but I only enlarged my 4x5 negative to 8x10 - not much of a test, I'm afraid.

[Kevin Crisp]

Philippe: The only real answer is to try it for larger sizes and see what you think. My experience with the Vivitar enlarger lenses is limited to 50 mm and 28 mm lenses. The 50 was just awful and as a kid starting in the darkroom I made a lot of prints which which were just plain out of focus at the edges. I replaced it with the cheap El-Nikkor, the lowly f:4 version, and the improvement was like night and day. The 28 mm lens, on the other hand, was very useful and sharp for Minox negatives. (On the other hand, using it with Minox film, I was using just the middle of the image circle, so that one could have been horrible at the edges too.) Using the 150 on 4X5 you are probably avoiding using some of the edges of its coverage, which will help. There seem to be a glut of 135mm and 150mm enlarging lenses on the used market now, and prices for ones by the big 3 manufacturers are so reasonable, you might want to go that route.

[Ernest Purdum]

Why don't you try projecting a very large image 16" X 20" or larger, then putting a piece od smaller paper in one corner. If you pick a negative that has a lot of detail in that corner, you should be giving the lens a good trial. I hope it turns out to be a gem.

[Philippe Gauthier]

Ernest: That's a good idea. I should have tought of it myself. I'll do that easy test as soon as I have a chance.

Kevin: LF is a loooooow priority for my club, while I'm broke and in a desesperate need of a new tripod. Not to mention the price of film... The top notch enlarger lens will have to wait. Thanks for the info.

[John D Gerndt]

Keep an eye out for a Kodak Ektar of 162mm size. These can be had for $20.00 sometimes and are quite nice stopped down to f8 and below. Wollensaks too are much underrated.

Cheers,

[Kevin Crisp]

Good luck, maybe you've got a winner there. The suggestion to try an Ektar or a Wollensak makes sense.

[Bob Salomon]

When Vivitar was making their light pipe enlarger in the 70s they offered a set of lenses that were re-labeled Schneider Componon lenses. Does the lens say "Made in West Germany" or does it say Made in Japan? If Germany then it is a 70s era Componon.

[David G. Gagnon]

Philippe,

Mr. Salomon beat me to the Schneider possibility. I've got the Vivitar VHE 150mm f 5,6 lens, Made in W. Germany. It was sold to me as a Schneider lens. It is very sharp. If that's the same one you've got, it's a keeper. I am, however, a little envious of the price of your lens. Mine was over $100.00.

Good luck and have fun.

DG

[Philippe Gauthier]

Not sure about the manufacture place, didn't pay attention as I didn't bought the thing myself... I'll have a look as soon as I can, but I suspect it must be Japan. The max aperture is f/4.5, not 5.6, so I suppose it rules out the Componon hypothesis, alas.

Just another question: if the corners are tested weak, how do I know it's the enlarging lens and not the camera lens? After all, my lenses are old and presumably a bit soft in the corners, too. I have a Laack Anastigmat Pololyt 135/4.5 of 1920's vintage or older and an Ilex Paragon Anastigmat 7.5 inches f/4.5 of late 1940's vintage.

[Ernest Purdum]

The way to know whether your camera lens, or the enlarger lens, is causing soft corners, is to examine the negative with a loupe. If you don't have one, grab one of the club's shortest enlarger lenses and use it. It will be harder to use than a loupe because you can't set the focus, but it will work fine. Hold it close to your eye.



You probably will find that your camera lenses, particularly the 135mm, are somewhat soft in the corners. These are relatively fast lenses as large format lenses go, and the 135 is stretching itself to cover 4" X 5".



Whatever you find, remember that many fine photographs have been taken with less than the ideal equipment. Oftentimes a little softness in the corners detracts little from the image. Sometimes you may be able to compensate by planning in advance to crop. Stay out there, learn, and, if later on you are able to upgrade, you will be better able to get the most out of your new equipment.

[Philippe Gauthier]

I do have loupes (not the best, alas!) as they are useful for GG focusing and 35 mm slide reviewing. I'll have a close look at my negs, even though on first glance they look OK in the corners, particularly those made with the 7.5 inches lens.

That said, I'm no equipement freak and I'm very happy with my LF setup (a wooden field camera with lots of movements, two lenses and nine holders) that cost me a total of about 325 US dollars. For me, it was either LF on the cheap or no LF at all.

I've done mostly cyanotype and gumbichromate contacts so far and the quality of the optics is largely irrelevant. With silver gelatin enlargement, lens quality matters more, but so far the lack of grain and the incredibly smooth tonal transitions (compared to my earlier 35 mm work) compensate, at least in my eyes, for any possible loss of optical quality.

[Philippe Gauthier]

I don't know if it still matters, but I purchased a 135 mm Componon-S enlarging lens about a year ago. It allowed me to compare its results with the results I got with 150 mm Vivitar.

In short, the Vivitar sucks big time. On a 16x20 print enlarged from 4x5, the Schneider shows details in the corners (abd even some distance away fromthe corners) that you barely suspect with the Vivitar. The outer 15% of the picture also shows some ghosting with the Vivitar, about the same look as bad bokeh.

I haven't used the Vivitar since I've made this test. :)