Hasselblad mutar 2x versus vivitar 2x teleconverter
I did a basic test with my new zeiss mutar 2x converter and the vivitar 2x converter.
The difference after scanning is not that much that it is noticable after scanning. Maybe a 30x30cm print of a part of the image would show the difference at macro level.
My opinion is that the vivitar it's image has somewhat more overall contrast than the mutar shows. The images where on the same film and shot directly after each other.
Go half or one stop darker with Mutar. I think it would solve the problem. But I would expect more sharpness from Zeiss. My Rollei 35S does not attract the eye at normal exposure with its Sonnar 40 mm but when it goes 1 , 1 1/2 stop darker , it is very attractive.
If you want to go with Mutar , you better make more experiments with test strips.
Good luck ,
I used the 250mm cf lens.
The highlights of both negs are almost the same. Only the shadows are different. That would mean that the mutar get's more out of the shadow areas than the vivitar does.
This is no sciencetific test. Only a quick look to see the difference. I often see responses from people saying that their lens is the greatest, but no pics along to prove it. I was curious if the vivitar would be dramatic compaired to the mutar. But my first opinion is that it's not bad.
A second hand vivitar can be bought here for around 70 euro. A mutar from 245 euro.
I regularly use a Vivitar x2 with the 150mm Sonnar on my Hasselblad and I've found the results to be excellent in darkroom prints up to 16x16. I had a 250mm lens but sold it when I found the quality of the x2 combination performed just as well (to my eyes).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Has anyone compared the Mutar negative on a 100mm f3.5 Hassy to a non-Mutar negative with a crop to get the same size?
Hasselblad Mutar 2x compared to Vivitar 2x teleconverter for Hasselblad with Sonnar
I read all the comments about the Vivitar teleconverter for Hasselblad. I tested it in comparison with the Mutar 2x.
For testing I used EOS 5 D II as digital back. The results are practically similar with those on slide film.
The lens was the 250 mm 5.6 Sonnar. It is a very well corrected lens, with maximal performance wide open. Stopping down the lens does not improve the performance significantly.
The Mutar was clearly superior.
Vivitar : at 5.6 ( lens wide open) the image was sharp, but marred by visible stray light, which reduced the cotrast and the colour saturation.
at 8.0 the image improved in sharpness, there was still stray light present.
at 11.0 the sharpness decreased a little, but there was practically no straylight more, the contrast and saturation were much better.
at 16.0 same result
Mutar : at 5.6 the image was very sharp, no stray light, excellent contrast and color saturation, warmer rendition that the Vivitar.
at 8.0 maximal sharpness, all othe parameter identical
at 11 sharpness decresed slightly, all othe parameter identical.
at 16.0 same result
Impressive was the fact that all the images were identical in saturation of colour and contrast with the Mutar.
The Mutar is larger and heavier. IMO there must be some apochromatic correction present, because the color saturation and contrast were maintained at all apertures of the lens.
The lens itself performed better on the Mutar when it was stopped down one fstop. That means that the combination lens-Mutar works better at this f-stop.
I am still curious why the image was less sharp at 11 and 16, I suspect refraction, amplified by the converter. The lens itself ,used separately, has practically
no sharpness loss till f 22.( goes to 45.)
I must test the combination again using a heavier tripod ( i used a Gitzo 2.5 kg and an Arca Monobal as head). I hadpractical no vibration, but I did not use a mirror lock-up. The speed was 1/125 for f stop 5.6, 1/60 for 8.0 ( maximal sharpness9, 1/30 for 11.0 and 1/15 for 16.0. The last ones are considered to be
malignant speeds for telephotography. Therefore I should increase the film speed from 125 ASA to 400 ASA, so that when the lens is stopped down, the 11.0
would be coupled with 1/125 and 16.0 with 1/60.
My preliminary intention was testing the two teleconverters together.
The Mutar is IMO clearly better with the Sonnar 250. The othe lenses which the Mutar would be combined are the 150 mm Sonnar, the 80 mm Planar and
perhaps also the 120 mm S Macro Planar. The Sonnar comes as 4.0 and 2.8 (F lens), the Planar also as 5.6 and 4.0. There is also the Planar 110 mm 2.0
and more telelenses. The most important is the 500mm 5.6.
The Vivitar is a good choice for compact lenses ( 80 mm, 150 mm) when the stopping down 2 f-stops is possible and when the photographer does not wish to
invest 400-500 E in a converter , when for the money it is possible to get a 2 good lenses.
I remember a test of the Vivitar with the Sonnar 150 mm 4.0, and the result was good enough. I intend to test this myself some day, but it has no practical sense for me now, since the Sonnar 250 is such a fantastic lens.
if anything,the Vivitar seems to give more edge sharpness.the only thing it cannot give you is the fuzzy proud feeling of having used a Zeiss lensbut it would satisfy my demands.especially for portraits.
Originally Posted by Willie Jan