A few shots from my Vivitar 135 2.8

I came across this unusual lens recently, and had a thread on it asking about the mount (turned out to be a T-mount)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here's some shots from it, and they are very weird. It's almost as if it's a meniscus lens or something. It exhibits very little resolving power, and seems to be well suited for portraits for that reason. If you zoom in and look at the people on the beach, there's almost no detail on their bodies. To me, they look like plastic figures on a miniature set. It also has an unusually shallow DOF, even for a 135 2.8. The flower shot is what got my attention though. Very different than any lens I have used, except for the first model Agfa Isola that I once owned, which had a meniscus lens.

This is my usual Arista EDU Ultra 100 souped in Mic-X stock solution. I had so-so results w/ my Chinese takee outee, homemade developing tank on the last roll, and switched to a Publix mushroom tray (8 oz Baby Bella). Much better! I simply thread the film on the reel in the darkroom, set it into the tray filled w/ chemicals, and agitate it at the usual intervals by swirling the reel around in the tank. The reel fits in the tank perfectly, so there's no wasted chemistry.

The detailless stick-figure look might be due to digital smoothing. Did you take pictures of prints with a digital camera? Or scan the negatives with software-smoothing enabled in the scanning software? Anyway, I'm a software geek, and I've implemented smoothing algorithms, so I recognise what it produces: smoothness that lacks detail.

BTW, do you recall what f-stops you used for those pictures?

Mark Overton

Best photographer friend in high school (70s) had one of those in screw mount for his Mamiya SLR. Even then, I recall mostly disappointing results.

Vivitar rebranded a number of 135 2.8, in T mount they also sold a 3.4 and 1.8. I believe the 2.8 T 2 was made my Tamron, it was a 4 element in 3 group design and was an average to above average performer. The 1.8 135mm T 2 was 7 elements in 4 groups, it was also sold under the Soligiar brand, not sure who made it, it is likely a better performer. If you drill on line you can find a data base of Vivitar lens and serial numbers linking the lens to the manufacturer. At one time I had the Vivitar 135 2.8 in a M42 mount, was not bad, but my Pentax 135 3.5 was so much better that I gave it to a friend.

I take you are scanning your negatives, you might want to use a loop to see if you see more detail in the negative.

Nope, that's straight from the neg scans. No editing or anything. I don't have any image editing software that would do that anyway. That's how the negs look on the light table too. Its the perfect lens for shooting older ladies! My lens on the Agfa Isola w/ the meniscus lens made stick figures at infinity too, but was sharp at other focal lengths. You're seeing a sort of grainless look because that's how Mic-X works if you get the exposure and development right. Great developer if you have a lot of sky in your shots.

If you want a normal sharp shot, then yes, the performance is dismal, but the flower shot is happening! It looks like a painting.

The pensive guy above was at f2.8 (and I blew the focus and got his watch in sharp), the flower was possibly f4 or f5.6, and the pier was f16.

Here's three more, the guy at f2.8, the tree at f11, and the clear cup of water at StarSucks at f2.8. These look normal except for the cup. I again missed focus on all but the tree. Very, very thin DOF at 2.8.

Sharpness looks ok stopped down some. But you say that Mic-X causes high smoothing? It might be interesting to develop in a more conventional dev such as Rodinal or D76 and see how it looks. But by then, you'll probably have sold the lens. Oh well.

Mark Overton

There is always the chance that your lens has been knocked about and is just a little out of focus, or just not a very good lens. If you go to Cameraquest you will find a listing of serial numbers linked to various lens makers.