Kodak Ektar Lenses
by Robert Monaghan
Related Links:
In Praise Of Kodak Ektar Lenses Page by Chris Perez
Kodak Lens Guide (by Paul D. Cotnoir #20.02)
Large Format Lenses
LF 4x5 Lenses (by trade name, mfger, design)
Optical Glass Manufacturers
Radioactive Glass in Lenses (aero-Ektars..)
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 1998
Michael Liczbanski mliczbanski@email.msn.com wrote:
>Which Ektars and what vintage? They do differ considerably in quality and
>specs.
Actually, I don't think that's generally acknowledged to be the case.
All Ektars were Kodak's premium-priced lenses for professional use, and
though
new glass and better coatings gradually became available over time, the
basic designs changed very little. Most Ektars were Tessar formula lenses,
with a scattering of 4-element air spaced and dialyte lenses. The
"Commericial Ektar" lenses were corrected for minimal lateral color (like
a modern lens) and, as the last Ektars made, had the best coatings.
Kodak's quality control was reputedly better than that of any other
contemporary lens manufacturer and their designers while not enormously
innovative were certainly extremely competent.
This is some email from Tim Takahashi (who collects Kodak lenses) which I
saved a while ago (note it doesn't include most of the longer focal lengths):
| This is what I know....
|
| >from the "classic" era of Kodak lenses
|
| 50mm f/2.0 Ektar - 828 Kodak Bantam Special - 6-element Gauss
| 78mm f/3.5 Ektar - 620 Kodak Chevron - 4-element Tessar
| 80mm f/6.3 WF Ektar - 4-element W.A. Gauss
| 100mm f/6.3 WF Ektar - 4-element W.A. Gauss
| 100mm f/3.5 Ektar - 620 Kodak Medalist - 5-element Heliar
| 101mm f/4.5 Ektar - Tessar
| 105mm f/3.7 Ektar - Heliar
| 127mm f/4.7 Ektar - Tessar
| 135mm f/6.3 WF Ektar - 4-element W.A. Gauss
| 152mm f/4.5 Ektar - Tessar
| 178mm f/2.5 Aero Ektar - 7-element
| 190mm f/4.5 Ektar - Tessar
| 203mm f/7.7 Ektar - 4-element Dialyte
| ..
|
| I'm packing to move (new job), so I dont have my reference
| books handy. That's what I'm sure of off the top of my head.
|
|
| >Many of the earliest Ektars (non-commercial) were labled "Anastigmat"
|
| Not quite. K.A's were uncoated lenses... and when the Ektar series
| debuted in 1939, all had some form of anti-reflection treatment
| (though the early ones have soft coatings on the inner surfaces
| only).
|
| The high-end line continued to be marketed as "Anastigmat" and
| "Eastman Anastigmat" until after WW-II. Afterwords these were
| re-released (re-computed???!?!) as Commercial Ektars.
|
| -tim
|
| >I guess it's all dependant upon who Kodak bought from in the early
| >days.
|
|
| ps. Kodak made all lenses "in house" - Rochester has a large
| number of now defunct glassworks.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
tls@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Michael Liczbanski" mliczbanski@email.msn.com
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 1998
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote
>Michael Liczbanski mliczbanski@email.msn.com wrote:
>>Which Ektars and what vintage? They do differ considerably in quality and
>>specs.
>
>Actually, I don't think that's generally acknowledged to be the case.
Ah, but it is the case:
The quality varies depending on the vintage & purpose of Ektars...
I realize that the original post was most likely about the LF Ektars, but
many MF Ektars are on the market as well (sometimes sans their original
cameras so one cannot tell without testing whether or not they cover
4x5...) Here is a brief description of just a few Ektars:
Kodak Ektar 2/45 (for Bantam Special)
6 elements in 4 groups, covers 28x40mm negatives
Kodak Ektar 3.5/100 (for Kodak Medalist)
5 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (and 6.5x9 cm)
Kodak Ektar 3.7/105
4 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4
*** A very good lens, also used on the Precision enlarger. Sharp and
contrasty.
Kodak Ektar 4.5/101 and 4.7/127
4 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and 3 1/4 x 4 1/4
respectively
*** Also a great lens, esp. for 6x9
Eastman Ektar 6.3/8 1/2in; 6.3/10in; 6.3/12in; 6.3/14in
4 elements in 3 groups, these lenses cover 5x7 to 8x10in. The 14 inch
covers also 11x14 at f/16 and below, but without much room for movements.
*** Great, fully corrected lenses (coated!) Expensive, big and still very
useful
even today. All have a great circle of coverage and a very "sweet", "full
bodied" shadow detail. The minimum f stop is f/45, whereas I'd prefer f/64
or even smaller for 8x10.
Kodak Ektar 1.9/50; 3.5/50; 3.3/35; 3.5/90; 3.8/105; 4.5/135 (for Kodak
Ektra)
All cover (some barely) 24x36mm.
Come in a variety of designs (even a nice triplet at 3.5/90) and their
quality varies from lousy (1.9/50 esp. wide open) to superb 3.5/50, 3.3/35.
>
>Many of the earliest Ektars (non-commercial) were labled "Anastigmat"
>
Well, the Anastigmat was a separate line of lenses - essentially Tessars
with the exception of the 6.3/105, 6.3/130 and 7.7/8in.
Some notable Anastigmats were:
7.7/8in
Covers 5x7 "process" lens, well-corrected for close-up work. Quite nice
5 1/2in, 6 3/8in, 7 1/2in, 8 1/2in, 10in and 12in - all f/4.5
Cover from 3 1/4 x 4 /1/4 to 8x10 (with movements) depending on the focal
length. Fine lenses (great for architecture, as they don't display much
linear distortions of any kind.)
There were also Anastigmats for small format cameras (35mm, Bantams and
Vigilants)
Well after WWII, Kodak started tinkering with their lenses a lot, and the
distinctions between many lens lines blur in the 50s. (The summary above
describes the mid-to-late 40s status quo.)
Just my USD .02.
Michael
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Michael Liczbanski" mliczbanski@email.msn.com
Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 1998
OK, here are the numbers (actually in the Kodak catalogue, the numbers
precede the lens name:) All data come from Kodak Reference Handbook, 1946
(practically unchaged from 1940-1946.)
No. 31 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 5 1/2in (140mm)
No. 32 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 6 3/8in (161mm)
No. 33 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 7 1/2in (190mm)
No. 34 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 8 1/2in (216mm)
No. 35 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 10in (254mm)
No. 36 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 12in (304mm)
All appear to be Tessars (4 elements in 3 groups, 4 internal air surfaces)
No. 70 Kodak Anastigmat f/7.7 8in (203mm)
(Symmetrical, air-spaced, 4 elements in 4 groups, 6 internal air surfaces.)
BTW, that's the one I like on a 4x5 VC the best (it will cover 5x7, but with
4x5 you'll sooner run out of swings and titlts, than go beyond its circle of
coverage.)
Michael
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 1998
"Frank Filippone" red735i@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>So can I assume that lenses marked "Ektar" are identical to lenses marked
>"Commercial Ektar" except for manufacture date?.... the real question
>is.....There is no significant difference between these 2 brand names?
>
>Assume same FL and Max Aperture....
>--
>Please do not auto-respond. Please respond to address below.
>
>Frank Filippone
>red735i@worldnet.att.net
>
>> All Ektars were Kodak's premium-priced lenses for professional use,
>...........The
>> "Commericial Ektar" lenses were corrected for minimal lateral color (like
>> a modern lens) and, as the last Ektars made, had the best coatings.
The Commerical Ektar was a series of f/6.3 Tessar type lenses
intended for use on view cameras. Tessars have somewhat better
performance at f/6.3 than when faster.
_All_ lenses sold under the Ektar name were highly corrected for
color, especially for lateral color, which is sometimes known as
chromatic magnification. In other words, the size of the images from
different colors are the same size.
The Commerical Ektar series was sold as Eastman Ektars prior to
about 1946. The earlier version was soft coated on insided surfaces,
the Commercial Ektar is hard coated on all surfaces and bears the
"circle-L" mark for coating standing for Kodak's trade-mark
"Luminized".
Not all Ektars are coated. Most of the f/4.5 series, for use on
press cameras, etc., were not coated until after about 1946 (I don't
know the exact date Kodak started coating all its lenses).
Most Ektars for medium and large format are Tessar types, but Ektar
was used as a trade-mark for a quality level rather than a specific
design. For example, the f/1.9 lens for the Ektra and the Aero-Ektar
are both seven element Biotar types, the 45mm f/2 lens for the Bantam
Special is a six element Biotar. At least four other prototipical
designs were used for Ektar lenses.
Undoubtedly, the quality of the coatings varied over the fifteen or
so year period that Kodak continued to make lenses after coating was
adopted. Unfortunately, according to my contact at Kodak, the
historical material which would clarify this sort of issue has been
buried away somewhere and is not accessible.
My statement about the coating of Eastman Ektars is based on
statements made in a 1940 or 1941 Kodak lens handbook.
This states that this series and the also the lenses for the Ektra
camera were soft coated.
The Ektra was an ill-stared attempt by Kodak to produce a deluxe
35mm camera system. It had an advanced rangefinder combined with the
viewfinder, and automatic parallax compensation; interchangable backs;
single lever wind, and a group of really outstanding lenses. It was
put on the market just before the entry of the US in WW-2 and never
had a chance.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 1998
An additional note. Many prewar Kodak lenses were sold as Kodak
Anastigmat followed by a number. It would seem from catalogue data
that numbers in the "thirty" series, like K.A. No.33 are Tessars,
those begining with 70 seem to be dialytes (four element air spaced
type).
I wonder if anyone has more extensive older Kodak catalogues or lens
handbooks and can verify this.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Mon Jul 13 1998
From: Charles Steinmetz csteinmetz@nym.alias.net
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Michael Liczbanski mliczbanski@email.msn.com wrote:
> Kodak Ektar 3.7/105
> 4 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4
> *** A very good lens, also used on the Precision enlarger. Sharp and
> contrasty.
My information (from the Kodak Data Book _Kodak Lenses, Shutters, and
Portra Lenses_, 3rd ed. 1948, and several other sources) indicates that the
105mm f/3.7 Ektar is a 5-element, 3-group Heliar type like the 100mm f/3.5
Medalist II lens.
> Kodak Ektar 4.5/101 and 4.7/127
> 4 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and 3 1/4 x 4 1/4
> respectively
> *** Also a great lens, esp. for 6x9
Kodak lists the 152mm f/4.5 together with the 101/4.5 and the 127/4.7.
These three Tessar types do indeed perform very similarly (and very well)
on 6x9, 3x4, and 4x5.
Charles
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Thu Jul 16 1998
jones@spacelab.net jones@spacelab.net wrote:
>Michael Liczbanski
>mailto:***mliczbanski@email.msn.com wrote:
>>>>The quality varies depending on the vintage & purpose of Ektars...
>>>>I realize that the original post was most likely about the LF Ektars,
>but
>>>>many MF Ektars are on the market as well (sometimes sans their original
>>>>cameras so one cannot tell without testing whether or not they cover
>>>>4x5...) Here is a brief description of just a few Ektars:
>
>How come the 190 Ektar on my Super D Graflex isn't mentioned? At 5.6 It's
>a nice lens. . .
>
>
Well, I just forgot it. It wasn't part of the regular line and
doesn't show up in Kodak handbooks. Its a Tessar. They are excellent
lenses. My Super-D has an Optar on it, built by Wollensak. Turns out
to also be an excellent lens. All the automatic diaphragm assemblies
were built by Kodak and say Kodak on them. That sometimes confuses
people with Optars into thinkin the lens was also made by Kodak. The
Kodak ones say Kodak Ektar on the retaining ring.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998
>>> All Ektars were Kodak's premium-priced lenses for professional use,
>>...........The
>>> "Commericial Ektar" lenses were corrected for minimal lateral color (like
>>> a modern lens) and, as the last Ektars made, had the best coatings.
They are very good all right and seem to have very little zonal
aberrations of the sort which cause focus shift. Nonetheless, they
still have the inherant faults of all lenses and have some residual
coma in the corners which requires them to be stopped down if good
performance is required there. Optimum stop depends somewhat on FL
but will be around f/11 to f/16.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998
From: "R. Peters" torx@nwrain.net
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: thanks Re: Slide Projectors
Yeh, sources for the codes on various enlarger accessories are difficult to
crack. The unfortunate thing is that at camera shows, I have seen boxes of
new durst accessories, and no one knows what they fit....
One note on the 105mm f3.7 Ektar... It is easily confused with the 107mm
f3.7 Kodak Anastigmat which I believe was prewar, and I think it was a 4
element lens rather than a 5 element Heliar copy. Kodak put out a booklet
called, I believe, Kodak lenses & shutters or something like that. Showed
the formulas (formulae?) for most of the Ektars.
bob.
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998
From: "R. Peters" torx@nwrain.net
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: thanks Re: Slide Projectors
The booklet was published in different printings over many years. It would
be helpful to compile a prewar edition (say 1939 or so) with a postwar
edition, say about 1953. This way you'd pick up the Anastigmats along with
the Ektars. I think the only difference between some of the Ektars and
their Anastigmat counterparts was the "Lumenized" coating. And, According
to Richard Knoppow, not even all of the Ektars were coated (if I understood
him correctly).
bob
From: glosdl@email.uc.edu (David L. Glos)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aero Ektar (Was: Newton Photo Products LF Camera????)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998
> I've never had an Aero Ektar to play with so can't testify from
>personal experience. The explanation above doesn't quite make sense.
>Most lenses intended for use in ordinary photography are corrected at
>infinity. Generally they will have good performence down to some
>limit like 10x focal length beyond which they will need to be stopped
>down some. I don't know how the Aero Ektar could be different than
>this.
> I've also read suggestions that the color correction of this lens is
>optimised toward the red since aerial cameras are nearly always used
>with yellow filters and often used with IR material. If this is true
>thei lens might exhibit some blue fringing. Someone who has a properly
>mounted Aero Ektar might be able to say whether it does this.
> This lens was intended for use in aerial reconnaissance, often with
>hand-held cameras and for night flash photography where lens speed was
>more important than exact geometry as in lenses meant for aerial
>mapping. In other words, its design is more like an ordinary camera
>lens than the usual aerial survey lens. It will be interesting to
>hear from those who have practical experience.
> There was also BTW a 12" version of this lens. It is a very
>impressive piece of glass.
>---
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, Ca.
>dickburk@ix.netcom.com
FWIW, I was recently given a 24"/6.0 Aero Ektar that is very impressive in
girth and weight. One of the elements in the rear group is yellow/brown in
color and will peg the meter on a geiger counter, if placed within 6". Talked
with several sources, including a retired military nuclear engineer, and all
said not to worry too much as it was emiting alpa radiation from the
trace of
thorium (?) in the glass. I have yet to see how it will image as I don't have
a camera large enough to put it on........and that includes an 8x10. On the
barrel is an indication that it will cover 9x18. Current thoughts center
around a panorama camera from hell, but backlog of projects exceeds time
available to bring them to fruition. I have also thought about making a nice
telescope with the beast.
BTW, I even talked with the Kodak person in charge of their historical
archive. He knew of the 6" and 12", and had examples on their shelves,
but had
no record of the 24".
David Glos
Univ. of Cincinnati
513.558.6930
glosdl@email.uc.edu
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aero Ektar (Was: Newton Photo Products LF Camera????)
Date: 29 Oct 1998
David L. Glos glosdl@email.uc.edu wrote:
>
>FWIW, I was recently given a 24"/6.0 Aero Ektar that is very impressive in
>girth and weight. One of the elements in the rear group is yellow/brown in
>color and will peg the meter on a geiger counter, if placed within 6". Talked
>with several sources, including a retired military nuclear engineer, and all
>said not to worry too much as it was emiting alpa radiation from the trace of
>thorium (?) in the glass. I have yet to see how it will image as I don't have
>a camera large enough to put it on........and that includes an 8x10. On the
>barrel is an indication that it will cover 9x18. Current thoughts center
>around a panorama camera from hell, but backlog of projects exceeds time
>available to bring them to fruition. I have also thought about making a nice
>telescope with the beast.
>
>BTW, I even talked with the Kodak person in charge of their historical
>archive. He knew of the 6" and 12", and had examples on their shelves, but had
>no record of the 24".
>
I don't understand what the various Aero Ektars that are out there are,
either.
The two classic "radioactive" ones designed during WW II are discussed in
Kingslake; they're 7" and 12" and are supposed to be of the same design, a
7-element Gauss type similar to a Leitz Summar/Summarit/Summitar or many
modern SLR lenses.
I went out a few months ago trying to buy a 7" Aero Ektar and ended up
with a 6" Aero Ektar, which I didn't notice 'till I got home. It's marked
"4 1/4 x 4 1/4", which is the same size the 7" lens was supposed to cover,
and it's also f/2.5 -- but it appears to be multicoated, and according to
its serial number it was made in 1955! I've also heard vaguely of the 24"
lenses and some later 12" lenses which might be of a different design than
the original ones.
I was thinking I'd call the equipment collection people at Eastman House
sometime soon and see what they know. Kingslake aparrently still helps out
there from time to time and certainly he'd know what Kodak made when.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
tls@rek.tjls.com
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: [Rollei] Hasselblad Ektar Lenses
Stanley Yoder wrote:
> That said, the Ektar in question (as used in the original 'Blad) MAY
>be of Tessar design - I don't know.
Ha-RUMPH. Wasting perfectly good Rollei List bandwidth to discuss this
Rival Brand, and there is, for the all of it, a fine Hasselblad List as well!
Rick Nordin, in his superb HASSELBLAD SYSTEM COMPENDIUM, confirms that the
combination of close ties between Kodak and their Swedish agency, Victor
Hasselblad, coupled with the devastation of Zeiss caused by the War, led to
the use of Kodak lenses in the original 1600F/1000F Hasselblad camera.
Approximately 3641 of the 2.8/80 lenses and 1787 of the 3.5/135 design were
produced: most were marketed from the US and marked in feet, though some
were shipped to Sweden to be sold by Hasselblad directly, and these were
marked in meters. The 80mm lens was prodcued in 1948 to 1950, 1948 seeing
3280 being made, so that is the bonus year. The 135 lens was made in two
batches, 1512 in 1949 and a further 275 in 1957, after production had
shifted to the 500C camera body.
A 6.3/55 Widefield and 5.6/254 Tele were also produced, but in minute
quantities of one or two each.
<
Rick doesn't give the optical layout, but I will E-mail him and ask.
By 1952, Hasselblad had shifted to Zeiss lenses from Oberkochen, still
their primary source today.
Marc
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Commercial Ektar focals?
Date: Wed Jan 13 1999
luc@overland.net (Luc Novovitch) wrote:
>Hello All,
>Did Kodak make 'short' Commercial Ektar, in the range of 4" and 5"? Shorter?
>I have a 8 1/4 and 12 and I'd like to get shorter lenses of the same
>quality (the 8 1/ is better than my 210 Schneider S!) to be used on 4x5,
>most of the time with a 6x9 back.
>Thanks for reading.
>
>--
>mailto:luc@overland.net
Nope, the shortest of the Commercial Ektar series was 8-1/2", they
were also made in 10", 12", and 14" sizes.
Shorter lenses were made as Ektar and Wide Field Ektar. The former
are f/4.5 Tessars, the WF lenses are four element air-spaced Double
Gauss types. All were corrected for lateral color. The Commercial
Ektars were f/6.3 Tessars, they have somewhat larger image circles
than the f/4.5 versions. However the f/4.5 lenses are equally sharp.
f/4.5 Ektars were offered in 101mm, 127mm, 152mm and 12". The 127mm
was commonly used on 4x5 press cameras and is sharp to the corners at
f/16 or smaller.
The Wide Field Ektar was made in 80mm, 100mm, 135mm, 190mm and
250mm, all at f/6.3. Coverage is around 80deg at infinity and f/22.
There is also an f/3.7, 105mm Ektar which is a Heliar. It has
somwhat narrower coverage than a Tessar but is extrmemly sharp. It was
intended for 2x3 press and view cameras.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: bpotter@home.com (Bill Potter)
[1] Re: Kodak Ektar Lens Question
Date: Sun Feb 07 1999
TCNET058@ysub.ysu.edu wrote:
>Today at a Cleveland Photorama, I purchased an old Kodak Ektar press
>lens. Its a 127mm F4.7. My question is about strobe sync. This lens has
>a switch on the front labeled "M" and "F". Are both these for old-style
>flashbulbs only? If it can't strobe sync, I guess I haven't lost much since
>I paid $80 for it. Its in reasonable shape and seems to work ok. But it
>would be nice if it could sync a strobe. Thanks for any info on this
>lens.
>
> -Fred
>
>P.S. Going to use this lens on a 4x5 field camera.
>
Fred,
The F and M are the delay settings for fast and medium peak flash
bulbs. If this shutter is like the Supermatic on my Ektar 203, it has
a lever next to the sync setting that cocks the synchronizing timer.
This is used for flashbulbs and cocks to different depths depending on
whether F or M is selected.
The good news is this shutter also has full-time X sync, but through
a 10K ohm resistor. This prevents flashbulbs from firing, but allows
some strobes to fire. Connect your strobe, don't cock the sync timer
and fire the shutter. If the strobe fires, you are in luck. If not,
the 10K resistance is too much to allow it to fire. This was the case
with one of my Vivitar strobes, so I opened my shutter and replaced
the 1Ok resistor with a piece of wire. Now I have only X sync, but
that's all I will ever need.
You can easily test the sync by looking through the lens at the strobe
while tripping the shutter at a high speed. It will be obvious if the
sync is correct; you will get a flash in the eye :-)
Bill
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: catman1963@aol.com (Catman1963)
[1] Re: Ektar Filter Sizes
Date: Sat Mar 13 1999
I have an old Kodak publication titled "Camera Technique for Professional
Photographer" which contains the data for all the Ektars. Most of them
seen to use the Series-type adapters. If you could be specific as to what
lenses you are interested in, I can give you the data
Bob Kerr
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Pigs in Pokes - Commercial Ektars
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999
"dan edwards" strawberry9@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Today I was at a local camera store and picked up a Commerical Ektar (8.5")
>in Acme #3 shutter. Two quick questions, though:
> 1) The front element has a bubble in the glass not far from the edge -
>was this a common problem or did this one just get by the Kodak QC?
> 2) Can one tell the age from the serial #?
>
>BTW, I only paid $100 for it, and the shutter appears to be fine, and the
>rest of the glass is great (except for the ubiquitous very fine cleaning
>marks on the front element.) It was a consignment item, the dealer had a
>box of them. Apparently an old photog is on his deathbed and he is getting
>rid of his equipment. The lenses are going fast, as one could guess - there
>are some 8.5" and one 10" left. Email me if you want to know who to call.
>
>-dan
>strawberry9@worldnet.att.net
Occasional small bubbles are very common in dense barium crown glass,
which is what the front element is made of. It has no effect on
performance whatever. Beware of bubbles in the rear element, they may
actually be indications of problems with the cement.
The shutter is worth what you paid for the lens.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Koni Omega List:
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@lucent.com
Subject: RE: [KOML] OT: Telerollei
Eric wrote:
Another example are the Kodak Ektars found on many view cameras. These are
really outstanding executions of Tessar designs and in many ways outperform
the original. It can go the other way, however, and many formula copies
don't measure up (ie Raptars and some Xenars). In general, the KO glass has
an excellent reputation for medium contrast optics...
.....
Agreed. There are many junk copies of lenses. Incidentally, the Ektar
enlarging lenses are the 5-element Heliar design and well worth finding if
you do enlargements. I doubt you'd find a better lens, especially at the
price they sell for. An undiscovered Gem, like the Konis ;-)
Peter K
...
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dating Kodak lenses
"Elton Pope-Lance" elton@popelance.com wrote:
>Is there a code, system, or source for determining the date of manufacture
>of Kodak LF lenses?
>
>--
>Elton Pope-Lance
>www.popelance.com
Yup. Starting in 1939 or 1940 the serial numaber has a two letter
prefix. These stand for the last two digits of the year. The code word
is:
C A M E R O S I T Y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
For example, a lens with the letters ES was made in 1947, one marked
RC in 1951.
Older lenses have another system and I have no information about it.
Many of Kodak's cheaper lenses do not carry a serial number.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ektars,THE FINEST LENSES (RARE)
ad607@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose) wrote:
>Gee, Ektars and Commercial Ektars are not all that rare, nor are they
>all that spectacular... We aren't talking Gold Dot Artars here!
Its amazing how so many ads start out "Rare". Hardly any of the
stuff so called is rare. Generally it means the seller is looking for
a gullible buyer or just trying to get attention.
The Commerical Ektars are probably superior to any Dagor except for
coverage. They are much better corrected for zonal spherical
aberration, an inherant problem with the Dagor type. Which is not to
say that the Dagor is not an excellent lens.
The ad should not have been posted here anyway and I've sent a note
to the poster about it. Since we now have a system of classified
marketplace groups there is not much excuse for posting advertising to
the discussion groups.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999
From: "G. Lehrer" jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: [Rollei] Lens Focusing Movements
Andre and RUGers who might be interested:
A while back, Andre asked the question as to which was considered better,
total lens movement for focusing, or front element focusing; as the Rollei
35SE and 35TE are examples of each method.
It should be remembered that when the front element (actually the front
group) of a lens is moved forward, away from the diaphragm, the actual
focal length of the lens shortens, giving the effect of a longer
"bellows" draw. It focuses closer. This effect was used by the lens
designers of Eastman Kodak in their design of at least three Ektars: the
f2.8 80mm as used in the first Hasselblad, f3.5 100mm as used in the
Medalist, and f3.7 105mm as used in the Miniature Speed Graphic. These
three lenses have absolutely identical elements, they ONLY differ in
the spacing of the groups. This was shown to me by Dr Kingslake in one
of the many seminars he gave. These were all superb lenses,and could
hold their own against most modern lenses.
I have compared negatives from my SE and TE, with each type of focusing,
and found that for most practical use, NO DIFFERENCE.
So Andre, you will not be unhappy with either.
Jerry
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999
From: "G. Lehrer" jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lens Focusing Movements
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> you wrote:
> >Andre and RUGers who might be interested:
> >
> >A while back, Andre asked the question as to which was considered
> >better,
> >total lens movement for focusing, or front element focusing; as the
> >Rollei 35SE and 35TE are examples of each method.
> >
> >It should be remembered that when the front element (actually the front
> >group) of a lens is moved forward, away from the diaphragm, the actual
> >focal length of the lens shortens, giving the effect of a longer
> >"bellows" draw. It focuses closer. This effect was used by the lens
> >designers of Eastman Kodak in their design of at least three Ektars: the
> >f2.8 80mm as used in the first Hasselblad, f3.5 100mm as used in the
> >Medalist, and f3.7 105mm as used in the Miniature Speed Graphic. These
> >three lenses have absolutely identical elements, they ONLY differ in
> >the spacing of the groups. This was shown to me by Dr Kingslake in one
> >of the many seminars he gave. These were all superb lenses,and could
> >hold their own against most modern lenses.
> >
> >I have compared negatives from my SE and TE, with each type of focusing,
> >and found that for most practical use, NO DIFFERENCE.
> >
> >So Andre, you will not be unhappy with either.
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> I am very puzzled by this. The fact is that element spacing has a
> profound effect on corrections. You can demonstrate this with one of the
> optical analysis programs. Even though the ratio of sped and focal length
> come out right its hard to believe a variation of focal length of as much
> as 80 to 100mm could be made by simply respacing elements without a severe
> effect on the lens corrections.
> I also wonder if anyone has definite information about the Hasselblad
> Ektars. I was under the impression they were Tessars, maybe not. The other
> two are Heliar types.
> ----
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles,Ca.
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Richard
Sorry to disenchant you, though the first batch of H'blad Ektars MIGHT
have been of 4 element Tessar design, the rest of them were re-spaced
Medalist lenses ( Ref: Kingslake) A friend of mine had the miserable
f2.8 Tessar in a 2.8 A Rollei replaced with a H'blad Ektar by (I think)
Oscar Heinemann. (Or was it Marty Forscher?)
Rick Nordin does state that the first lens in the H'blad was a 4 element
(Tessar type) which was radioactive. I personally have seen them with
a 5 element Heliar style Ektar.
Jerry
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000
From: "John L. Couch" jlc@imatron.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Cc: jlc@imatron.com
Subject: Re: kodak ektar lenses
Dear BobM,
.....
Below is some information I got on the Kodak Ektar lens made in the US
for German Retinas. This lens would have been pretty top-of-the-line in
1946.
It has a many bladed-diaphram so the Bokeh out-of-focus spots are
round. Of course the diaphram does not have to open and close quickly.
The lens is rather small in diameter. The "outside" of the mount is
about 29 mm. Being a rangefinder, they did not have to have a lot of
extra glass for a retrofocus design.
Add lots of new stuff to the web. Your sites are great.
John
----- Begin Included Message -----
From RETINACAM@email.msn.com
Thu Feb 17 2000
From: "David L Jentz" RETINACAM@email.msn.com
To: "John L. Couch" jlc@imatron.com
Subject: Re: Retina Camera with ektar f2.0 lens
The optical design of the Kodak Ektar f2 47mm.
lens is 6 elements in four groups in an
asymmetrical double-gauss formula.
The 2nd + 3rd and 4th +5th elements
are cemented together.
The same design can be found with the
Leitz Summar , Zeiss Planar, Schneider Xenon or
the Rodenstock Heligon.
Would you email back to me the lens serial
number of your camera? It will start EO or ES.
Also, please email back the body serial number.
The body serial number is located on the inside
of the camera back door adjacent to the film pressure
plate.
The Ektar lens was mounted on Type 011 Retina II
cameras that were only sold by the PX system in
US military bases overseas.
Best regards,
Dave
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Ross Xpres lens
Richard et al.
I echo the erudite Mr Knoppow in his statements about
the Ektar series of lenses as used on the Kodak Medalist
and Baby Speed Graphic, as well as the Enlarging Ektars.
I still assert that the sharpest standard MF lens I have
ever used was the f3.5 4inch Ektar on my Medalist.
The Enlarging Ektars were of several designs even of the
same focal length. The good ones were of a 5 element
design (Heliar type) They can be identified by the very
coarse type of knurling on the diaphragm control ring.
The ones with a fine knurling were of a 4 element (Tessar?)
configuration.
On the subject of Ross Xpress lenses; weren't there
several families of lenses with that name? Some I recall,
were superb. The Brits made some great lenses, but the
cameras were no great shakes. Excepting of course the
Reid cameras which were the best Leica copies ever!!
I had two which seemed to be of higher quality than the
Leica IIIa or b. For what it is worth, the only Leica
copies that were in the same league as the Reid were the
US made Kardons, with a 47mm Kodak Ektar f2 lens
as used in the Kodak Bantam and some Kodak Retinas.
But I digress, sorry.
Jerry Lehrer
...
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: torx@nwrain.com (R. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 100mm and 103mm Ektar
There is the potential for some confusion in Kodak's 3.7 Ektars. The
105mm f3.7 (Not 103mm) is a heliar copy. The 103 mm f3.7 is not. It
is a 4 element lens.
I asked Steve Grimes for a price to mount the 100 mm 3.7 Ektar from a
Medalist in a modern shutter. As I recall it was at least $300 and
may have been closer to $400.
However, it is a sharp lens.
bob
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001
Subject: Kodak Ektar, 207mm, f/3.7 [really 107mm]
There was a question not long ago about this lens. I can't find the
original message so I am posting in hope the person asking will see
this.
I found the lens. It is listed in the 1940 edition of the lens
booklet included in the _Kodak Reference Handbook_, but is not in
later editions.
This is a modified Tessar type. It varies from a conventional Tessar
in that the order of powers of the cemented elements in the rear
component are reversed. That is, in an ordinary Tessar the negative
element faces the stop, in this lens, the positive element faces the
stop.
According to Rudolf Kingslake, Kodak found that this form is
superior to the ordinary one when high index glass is used.
The lens was sold as a general purpose lens for small view cameras
and for enlarging.
The 105mm, f/3.7, sold for similar purposes, is a later design of
the Heliar, five element, type.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001
From: "R. Creason" rcreason@zianet.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: New lenses on old Rolleiflex?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
> I believe this design was used for an f/3.7
> 107 mm lens made for a couple of years but replaced about 1944 with
> Altman's f.3.7 105mm lens, essentially the same design as used on the
> Medalist. Kodak used this form for some front element focusing lenses later.
I have two of these f3.7 105mm Ektars. One made in 1941 (uncoated) the
other in 1947 (coated).
I had the newer one CLAed by Ken Ruth about 2 years ago. He did an
excellent job and this lens has produced some of the best 6x9 Velvia
transparencies I have ever seen!
I also had a Medalist I that I carried with me during my tour of duty in
Germany in the early '50s (that was when I bought my Rollei MX). The lens
on that Medalist was truly outstanding.
Bob C.
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Photo Auction 6/23/01 Radford, Virginia
you wrote:
>>{Snip}
>> Depending on age you will find some very fine lenses on these guys. The
>> best of class is either the f/4.5, 101mm Ektar or the f/3.7, 105mm Ektar.
>> The 105mm is a Heliar type essentially identical to those used on the
>> Medalist camera. Pre- WW-2 Mini's usually have Jena Tessars on them. These
>> have a little residual spherical compared to the Ektar but when stopped
>> down to normal stops are about equally sharp.
>> Speed Graphics are my "other" favorite camera.
>> ----
>> Richard Knoppow
>
>Mine has a 101 Trade Graflex Optar Mark
> 4.5 which i guess is a Wollensak as i don't think they made the shutter.
>Not as good as the Ektar??!
>
>
>Mark Rabiner
>
>Portland, Oregon
>USA
>
>http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/
Most Optars are Wollensak Raptars. I say most because very late Optars
are Rodenstock lenses. These say Made in Germany on them and I think may
have the Rodenstock name also.
Graphex shutters are the same as Wollensak Rapax shutters. These are
very good shutters.
The Ektar was/is an outstanding lens even in comparison to modern glass.
I've checked only a couple of Raptar lenses and found the 135mm lenses to
have excessive coma requiring them to be stopped down to f/22 to be sharp
in the corners of a 4x5 where a 127mm Ektar is sharp at f/8. The Raptar is
very sharp in the center. This may not be true of all Raptar/Optar lenses
in Graphics. The lens in my Super-D Graflex is a Wolensak Optar and is
dead sharp all over, buit is an f/5.6 lens. A Tessar type but a different
design. Wollensak was capable of making excellent lenses but some seem to
have been dogs. I don't know of any Kodak dogs.\
BTW, the 15" Raptar/Optar telephoto lens is excellent and will cover a
5x7 film.
The main problem with Kodak Supermatic shutters is weak drive springs.
If the shutter has a good spring it is quite accurate and quite reliable.
Wollensak Rapax/Graphex shutters are rather more complex but are also
capable of being very accurate and reliable. They also have some nice
features like the flash synch arrangement and method of providing press
focus.
The Supermatic seems to have been designed to replace Compur shutters
which stopped being available in the US around 1940. The Rapax/Graphex
shutter came out around 1946 or 47.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: shuuter/lens combo ?
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001
>buzzmarr <buzzmarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> Hello,
>>
>> another newbie here. I am doing the 2x3 speed graphic thing and I have
>> picked up an ektar 100 3.5 for a kodak medalist. I think it will make a
>> good user, but I need to know what shutter to put it in (size) and if
>> there is anything I need to do other than screw the thing in.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Buzz
>
>isn't it in shutter already? i mean, the lens was mounted, in
>shutter, on the front of the medalist's focusing helical.
The Medalist lens fits the shutter in the Medalist. A slightly
different version of this lens, the 105mm, f/3.7 Ektar, was supplied
in #2 Supermatic shutters. Its possible the cells from the Medalist lens may also fit this shutter but the spacing may be different. The
#2 Supermatic is the shutter used for the 127mm, f/4.7 Ektar and
203mm, f/7.7 Ektar. You may be able to find a junked one or at least
find one you can use to check the threads with.
If it threads in the image quality will tell you if the spacing is
off a lot. Usually spacing is pretty critical. I don't have specific
infor on correct spacing. You would have to find a complete Medalist
and measure it.
Sorry to be discouraging. You can't loose much by trying to make the
thing work and will have a very good lens if you can.
This is a very good lens if you can get it to work.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Re: [Leica] Did Kodak at one time beat Leica in terms of lens
quality???
B. D. Colen wrote:
>Marc- NOT to start anything, but how do those Kodak lenses, which are
>found in a slew of still operation cameras, standup by today's optical
>standards. Not necessarilly when compared to the latest generation of
>Leica lenses, but when compared to the average lens in their focal
>length?
BD
The better Kodak lenses are still really competitive, and a lot of them are
still being used profesionally in LF and MF cameras. I have a
Tessar-derived Ektar in my Baby Speed Graphic which I am itching to try
out, once I find a film back and cut down some film.
For large-format cameras, Goerz, Zeiss, and Kodak still hold the edge for
inexpensive lenses -- the newer lenses (Rodenstock, JSK, Nikon, and Pentax)
ARE better but are also a true Leica-sized kick in the pocketbook.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001
From: "tlianza" <tlianza@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: [Leica] Did Kodak at one time beat Leica in terms of lens
quality???
The answer is that Kodak has beat Leica MANY times in terms of lens quality.
I own a Kodak Ektra Camera as well as a number of Medalists. The Ektra was,
and still is an amazing 35mm camera. It had some of the following features:
1 Interchangable backs
2 Variable FOV view finder (adjustable from 40mm to 254mm)
3 shutter speeds from 1 to 1/1000 sec
4 A wide range of interchangeable lenses
5 an extremely high magnification rangefinder, suitable for the 250 mm lens.
(the range finder was separated from the view finder.
I have some pictures of these systems on my web site
www.lianza.org/tlphotos/ in the camera collecting section.... The web site
is a work in progress and any comments, good or bad are welcome.
The lenses were designed by some of the finest lens designers in the world
(with all due respect to Leica) and there were no compromises made in the
design. The cameras didn't sell well because of their expense. On the down
side, the shutter was a maintence nightmare and 95% of the existing cameras
don't work. Mine does and I'll take it out for a test run against my new
Summicron 50 f2 this fall and I'll put a series of side by sides for the
group if there is an interest.
The Kodak Medalist was a tremendous camera and it still commands relatively
high prices amoung working pros. It is a 620 based camera and has a 100mm
Kodak Ektar lens which has beautiful imaging characteristics. Many users
have had the camera modified to accept 120 film, but I collect them so I
purchase re-rolled film from www.filmforclassics.com . Not cheap, but I get
to use the old machines in their original form. I still can get verichrome
pan for those machines. It's a beautiful imaging combination. The medalist
is a 6X9 horizontal format machine that yields 8 exposures on a 620 roll.
It's a great machine.
Unfortunately, Kodak stopped taking the camera business (from the domestic
US side) seriously after the second world . There were still fine cameras
made after the war in Germany by Kodak.
Today, it is a different story. Fortunately for all us, Leica has
concentrated it's talents on building a few very good lenses. I hope they
keep doing it....
Tom Lianza
Technical Director
Sequel Imaging Inc.
From: dilbertdroid2@aol.com (Dilbertdroid2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 20 Oct 2001
Subject: Re: Kodak EKTAR LF lenses
They are two completely different animals.
I'm in the process of selling one of each of these lenses, one Ektar (not
marked commercial but I've seen several on Ebay listed as "commercial" which
did not say commercial on the lens and were identical to mine) and one Portrait
lens (also called Ektar Portrait, but again, have seen several on ebay not
marked "Ektar" but identical to mine). Both are 12-inch (305mm) f4.5 lenses.
That's about all they have in common.
The portrait lens has no glass ahead of the shutter-- just a barrel that can
take adapter rings and filters. The glass is behind the barrel. I
understand this lens has a soft focus effect when fully open that disappears as
the aperture is closed.
The Ektar lens has elements ahead and behind the shutter and I understand this
is a conventional lens designed for maximum sharpness and minimum vignetting.
I'm a 4X5 shooter so I bought the lenses as part of a collection for resale, so
I'm sorry to say I haven't been able to test them, but that's what I've learned
from my brief research of these lenses.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak EKTAR LF lenses
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001
"william mitchell" bmitch10@home.com> wrote:
>What is the difference between a Commercial Ektar and a Portrait Ektar?
>
Portrait Ektars are soft focus lenses. They are well color corrected
by have a large amount of uncorrected spherical aberration. This
results in a halo around highlights and an overall soft look. The
aberration is dependant on the stop, the further the lens is stopped
down the sharper it gets. The lens consists of a single cemented
component of two elements.
The Commercial Ektar is a very highly corrected Tessar type lens.
These were intended to provide very high quality lenses for color
work. They are nearly apochromatic, being very well corrected for both
lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberration. That means that images
of different colors come to a common focus and are of the same size.
These are exceptionally good lenses.
The Portrait Ektar is intended to give the right kind of soft focus
effect for portraits and other images where something less literal
than a fully sharp image is desired.
The Portrait Ektar came in 12" and 16" focal lengths. The 12" is
intended for 4x5 and 5x7, the 16" for 5x7 and 8x10. The 12" came in
either a barrel or #5 Ilex Universal shutter, the 16" only in a
barrel. The 16" lens came with a special filter adaptor. It doesn't
take standard filters.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: 616 Film substitute
you wrote:
>Hi Jerry,
>
>Its a Junior Vigilant Six-16 with an Ektar.
>
>PK
I am _very_ curious about this. I wonder if it might not be the original
lens. The Vigilant Jr. was an inexpensive camera, as the shutter suggests,
Ektars were Kodak's premium quality lenses. Ektars were not AFAIK used even
on the more expensive Vigilant. The Vigilant was equipped with any of
several choices of Kodak Anastigmats or, in the top model, an Anasttigmat
Special. The Jr. camera had lenses like the Kodak Bimat. I wonder if
perhaps the threads were right and someone screwed an Ektar cell on the
front. Very curious.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: 616 Film substitute
you wrote:
>Richard
>
>Yes, but it's an f11 lens, so consider
>that.
>
>Not even my fathers Super Kodak Six-20 had
>an Ektar lens. That was an f3.5 Kodak Anastigmat
>Special, which might have been called an Ektar when
>it was used in the Medalist. He bought it at the NY
>Worlds Fair of 1939/40.
>
>Jerry
>
>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
Does the lens ring say f/11 or only the shutter calibration?
The lens on the Medalist is an Ektar and was never called anything else.
It was designed for that camera. It is a five element Heliar type. The
lenses on the original medalist are soft coated on inside surfaces, the
lens on the Medalist II are hard coated on all surfaces.
The only KA later called Ektar is the No.70 Kodak Anastigmat wich became
the 203mm, f/7.7 Ektar when coated.
The Kodak lens book does not show any Ektars of less than f/7.7 other
than some long focus process lenses. If this is truely an Ektar its _very_
unusual.
BTW, does it have a serial number on it?
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ektar on Vigilant
you wrote:
>Additionally, no Ektar was made by Kodak set in a focusing mount. So if it
>is an Ektar, it is probably a home brew operation.
> bob
>
No long focal length lenses but Ektar lenses in focus mounts were made
for the Ektra 35mm camera, early Hasselblad cameras, the Medalist camera,
and for 8mm and 16mm motion picture cameras. No Ektar _front element focus_
lenses were made. The best of this type went under the Anastigmat Special
name. All of the above focus mount lenes focused by moving the entire lens
as a unit in a helical mounting.
Kodak used Ektar for only their premium quality lenses. All Ektar lenses
are corrected for lateral color. Kodak was interested in selling lots of
color film so supplied lenses that would perform well with it.
I've never been able to establish when the Ektar name began to be used,
probably somewhere in the late 1930's. Most Ektars were designed and built
during the period when Rudolf Kingslake was running Kodak's lens division
(roughly 1939 to 1961). The Ektar lenses made during this period seem to be
of superlative quality both as to design and quality of manufacture. I
think optics was always a sideline with Kodak rather than a primary
product. Kodak lenses for general use seem to have been supplied where
other commerical lenses of adequate quality were not available. For
instance, the almost universal use of Ektar lenses on Speed Graphics
following 1941 when Zeiss lenses, the standard up to that point, became
unavailable. I could be wrong about this since obviously both Bausch and
Lomb and Wollensak were operating and Kodak had previously bought millions
of lenses from B&L;, but I suspect quality was an issue. Once other sources
of good lenses became available Kodak got out of the business.
Also, Kodak made their own glass and had commercialized a line of high
index rare-earth glasses originally developed at the U.S. Bureau of
Standards. These included the Lanthanum crown types which eventually became
universally used in high quality photographic lenses. Kodak may have wanted
to exploit this glass, which was available as a commercial product.
The series of lenses for the Ektra camera were outstanding, unfortunately
the camera itself was not, and in any case was killed off by the war.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ektar lens
you wrote:
>Andrei,
>
>I see them on eBay from time to time, I don't know where else I would
>look. I'll ask on the Cameramaker's list. Does anyone in CMG know where
>one of these could be found?
>
>Gene
>
>Andrei.Calciu@hn.va.nec.com wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I have a British friend who wants to purchase a 12" Commercial Ektar in a
>> decent shutter (most likely the standard Ilex #4).
>> Although I have large format experience, I do not have right now a resource
>> to which I can turn for advice and maybe a source of such lenses.
>>
>> Can anyone help? They do not need to be online resources.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -_______________
>> Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)
>> NEC America, Inc.
>>
You might also try the Usenet group rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
You can also try Lens and Repro in New York (I think they have a web site).
I see Commercial Ektars fairly frequently at local camera shows. The most
common seem to be the 12" and 14". These came in Ilex shutters and barrels.
Steve Grimes, who works on shutters a lot, has a higher opinion of Ilex
than I do seems to have a magic touch with them. The main problem with the
large Ilex Universal is that the speeds are not consistent. Ilex recommends
tripping the shutter a couple of times before making the exposure. It seems
to help. Unfortunately, there was never much choice in large shutters but I
think Kodak could have done better than the smaller Ilex's. I don't know
why they didn't use Wollensak shutters, IMHO they are much better than Ilex
and Wollensak made a shutter (Alphax, I think) as large as the No.5
Universal. The other good large shutter is the old Deckel Compound. This
uses an air-brake to regulate speeds so is affected by altitude but
otherwise is a smooth working, reliable shutter. They were made for
something like seventy years, which says something for them.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ektar lens
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ektar lens
>
> The other good large shutter is the old Deckel Compound. This
> uses an air-brake to regulate speeds so is affected by altitude but
> otherwise is a smooth working, reliable shutter. They were made for
> something like seventy years, which says something for them.
Although not often seen for sale there were also the big Compur Electronic
shutters. My 300mm Apo-Lanthar is mounted in a Number 5 Compur Electronic
and it is still accurate in speeds and really nice to use. Since the
control box is connected to the shutter by a cable, you can keep the control
box at the back of the camera and set everything from there. Makes for
speedy and efficient operation.
Bob
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Ektar 203mm Supermatic f/7.7 lens mounting ring
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001
mikescivic99vt@aol.com (MikesCivic99VT) wrote:
>I purchased this lens and have made my lens board for my camera but I understand
>that I need a lens mounting ring to properly fit this lens to my lens
>board.What size do I need and any suggestions where one could find one
In order to mount the shutter you need a mounting flange. It should
have come with the shutter but they are often missing on used lenses.
Kodak flanges are double duty type, they have holes for screws for
conventional mounting on the front of a wooden lens board but can also
be used as a retaining ring for rear mounting.
The f/7.7 Ektar is in the same size shutter (#2 Supermatic) as used
for the very common 127mm f/4.7 Ektar used on Speed and Crown
Graphics. You may be able to find one by shopping around. Try places
like Midwest Photo or Steven Shuart who have a lot of Speed Graphic
stuff. Check through Shutterbug magazine for other sources. These
shutters are very common so there should be a few loose flanges around
for reasonable prices.
If you can't find one you will have to get one made or try making it
yourself.
Steve Grimes at http://www.skgrimes.com makes all sorts of mounting
flanges. They are not as cheap as a used original, but he is
reasonable and does lovely work.
I have the dimentions for the flange if you want to try making one
yourself.
This is a very good lens, BTW, although it won't cover larger than a
5x7 negative.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
[Ed. note: possibly handy note from our flare pages..]
From: garymarklund Gary@Marklund.com
Subject: Re: Lens caps for Ektar 127mm
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002
Ken Smith wrote:
> mevansmi mevansmi@cbpu.com wrote
>> I recently purchased a Kodak Ektar 127mm lens on ebay but it does not
>> have front or rear lens caps. Does anyone happen to know the correct
>> size push on caps needed for that lens? Thanks very much.
>> mevansmi
My rear lens cap is an old metal Kodak 35mm film can cap. The inside
surface with the threads has a very thin strip of felt around it. Fits snug
and works like a champ. The front one is a round piece of wood with at note
inked on it to remind the photographer to remove the rear cap (:-). My
Speed Graphic Pacemaker came with this.
Gary
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday (RIP)
you wrote:
>Joe B,
>
>If it is truly the 47mm (not 50mm) f 2.0, it is only
>the best ~2inch lens ever made in the US. I have
>had several, in Kardons, Retinas and Bantam Special.
>They were just about equal to the 40mm Summicron
>or the 40mm Sonnar, which is saying a hellof a lot!
>I would rather have the 47mm f2.0 Ektar over any
>lens that has ever been installed in any Retina.
>
>I'm sure that Herr Knoppow can supply you with
>the information on number of elements etc.. as my
>
>Eric is completely correct in his assesment.
>
>Jerry Lehrer
>
>
>Joe B. wrote:
>
>> egoldstein@usa.net (Eric Goldstein) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > This was a relatively rare camera, as few of these cameras were fitted with
>> > the expensive and highly corrected Ektar f/2 lens and was only in
>> > manufacture for a year or two... it does not surprise me that the chromes
>> > were superb and personally I would choose the 50 mm Ektar f/2 over the 40 mm
>> > Sonnar f/2.8 in a heartbeat... (Nomex at the ready!)
>> >
>>
>> I just got one of these although it apparently needs some work done
before I can use it. Can anyone tell me anything more about the lens- like
for example what it is like at wide apertures, or what kind of Ektar it is,
how many elements, anything at all?
>>
>> Joe B.
The 47mm, f/2.0 is a six element Planar (or rather Biotar) type. The one
for the Bantam Special was the very first lens to bear the name Ektar.
Kodak also made a seven element 50mm, f/1.9 Planar type for the Ektra camera.
The Ektra had a couple of interesting lenses made for it. The 35mm, f/3.3
Ektar is a Heliar type, one of the series Altman designed.
The Bantam Special Ektar, the Ektra lenses, and the early Medalist lenses
were all soft coated on internal surfaces.
The Ektra was not successful probably because it was released too close
to the outbreak of WW-2, but it also had some ergonomic problems and got a
reputation for shutter problems.
I wonder of any Rollei types have working Ektra cameras?
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Using Various Lenses for 4x5 Speed Graphic
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
kaliushkin@att.net (Dan Kalish) wrote:
>dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) wrote
>> 76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm) wrote:
>>
>> >ynot_1957@hotmail.com (Tony) wrote ...
>> >> I have recently acquired the following lenses and shutters for
>> >> possible
>> >> use in a 4x5 Speed Graphic:
>> >>
>> >> 101mm f4.5 Ektar in Supermatic Shutter
>> >> 105mm f3.7 Ektar (front cell only), no shutter or rear cell
>> >> 127mm f4.7 Ektar in Supermatic Shutter
>> >> 140mm f4.5 Ilex Paragon Anastigmat in Acme no.3 Synchro shutter
>> >>
>> >> The basic two question I would like to ask the group are:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Will the three Ektars will provide adequate coverage for the 4x5
>> >> format, since it is my understanding that some of them were designed
>> >> for use in smaller format cameras.
>> >>
>...
>
>I took this question to mean will Tony have standard wideangle,
>normal, and telephoto lenses?
>
>A "normal" lens for 4x5 is 162mm. All of these lenses are wideangle,
>the 140mm being close to normal.
>
>Dan
The problem is that neither the 101mm or 105mm lenses will cover
4x5. The 127mm does cover it and was a standard lens for 4x5 Speed
Graphics although being designed for 3-1/4 x 4-1/4.
There is some confusion about the diagonal of cut film and "normal"
focal length because 4x5 and larger sheet film is actually smaller
than the "nominal" size. Evidently, this was done because the original
glass plates _were_ full size and the film was made a little smaller
to allow for adaptors to be used in plate holders. In any case the
actual diagonal, and "normal" focal length for 4x5 is 152mm (6"). For
glass plates its 162mm. 5x7 and 8x10 are similar, the dimentions of
the film being somehat smaller than glass plates. This doesn't apply
to sizes smaller than 4x5.
For a slightly wide angle lens for a 4x5 camera something like a
Kodak Wide Field Ektar 135mm will give better coverage than the Ektar,
which, while a remarkably good lens, is right at its limit at this
size.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday (RIP)
you wrote:
>Is the earlier Kodak-Anastigmat Ektar f:3.5/5cm any relative? I just got a
>little Retina with one of these and was wondering what to expect.
> Richard
I can't find this exact lens. Kodak made some lenses for Retina cameras
at a time when German lenses were not available. I think some Retinas may
even have Kodak shutters.
I suspect this lens is a Tessar type but may be the reversed rear element
design used in the Ektra camera and also available as a 107mm, f/3.7 lens
for a time. One of the Ektra lenses was a 50mm, f/3.5. The reversed rear
element is supposed to have an advantage when high index glass is used. I
think this design was by Aklin of Kodak; I have a copy of the patent but
can't find it right now.
All of the Kodak Ektar series were corrected for lateral color as well as
longitudinal color and are excellent to outstanding in quality. Kodak was
interested in encouraging the use of color film and made these very fine
lenses available to insure excellent color quality.
>> >If it is truly the 47mm (not 50mm) f 2.0, it is only
>> >the best ~2inch lens ever made in the US. I have
>> >had several, in Kardons, Retinas and Bantam Special.
>> >They were just about equal to the 40mm Summicron
>> >or the 40mm Sonnar, which is saying a hellof a lot!
>> >I would rather have the 47mm f2.0 Ektar over any
>> >lens that has ever been installed in any Retina.
>> >
>> >I'm sure that Herr Knoppow can supply you with
>> >the information on number of elements etc.. as my
>> >older books are still in storage.
>> >
>> >Eric is completely correct in his assesment.
>> >
>> >Jerry Lehrer
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002
From: Eric Goldstein egoldstein@usa.net
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday (RIP)
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> The 47mm, f/2.0 is a six element Planar (or rather Biotar) type. The one
> for the Bantam Special was the very first lens to bear the name Ektar.
> Kodak also made a seven element 50mm, f/1.9 Planar type for the Ektra camera.
> The Ektra had a couple of interesting lenses made for it. The 35mm, f/3.3
> Ektar is a Heliar type, one of the series Altman designed.
> The Bantam Special Ektar, the Ektra lenses, and the early Medalist lenses
> were all soft coated on internal surfaces.
> The Ektra was not successful probably because it was released too close
> to the outbreak of WW-2, but it also had some ergonomic problems and got a
> reputation for shutter problems.
> I wonder of any Rollei types have working Ektra cameras?
I have the block diagram for the 50/1.9 but unfortunately not the f/2... the
former is of the same construction as the original Summicron except the
first two groups are cemented and not air spaced...
What's missing from these discussions is the widely held acknowledgement
that Kodak's build quality for these premium lenses was second to none...
their Tessar-based lenses are spectacular performers with generous use of
so-called "rare earth" glass and very high levels of quality control...
years ago I've saw secondary spectrum curves from when these lenses were
introduced and they were very close to apochromatic. I have seen chromes
from the 6-element ektar-based Retinas as a pal of mine had one and remember
being just stunned by the beautiful character of the images... when that
camera wound up at the bottom of a lake, tears literally came to my eyes...
Have never seen an Ektra image... Richard, my internet pal Bob Howard had
one as the original owner and always claimed the lenses were tremendous but
the ergonomics were horrendous! He passed away a few years ago and I do not
know what his daughter did with this set... local collecting legend Jack
Naylor (who I just saw today) has an Ektra but to my knowledge has never put
film through the camera and it may not be operational...
Kodak lenses of this ilk were among the best money could buy and still hold
up beautifully today...
Eric Goldstein
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ektar 203mm 411
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
"gk" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I just got a Kodak Ektar 203mm 7.7 lens to go along with my other Ektars
>(127, 101). I am a little curious about the one I just got though. For one
>thing it is fairly new (as far as Ektars go). I was amazed to see a letter
>other than "E", or "R" starting the serial sequense. Mine is a '61 (OC). It
>also has a synchro compur shutter, instead of the Supermatic, or Flash
>Supermatic ones I usually see.
>
>Is this lens any more desireable than the older ones, or just newer? The
>shutter is dead on, and the glass seems pristine, except for--what should
>be--some easily cleaned haze. Needless to say, I'm anxious to try it out. I
>love my other Ektars. I know they don't cover as well as newer lenses, but
>my budget doesn't allow me to spend $ 500.00 ore more per piece of glass.
>And I like to do lightweight field work/portraits anyway.
>
>And besides, I am blown away at the quality of shots I get with these older
>gems.
>
Its just newer. Kodak gave up on shutters some time in the middle to
late 1950's. They started building shutters in the first place because
Compur shutters became unavailable due to WW-2.
Once also occasionally finds late 127mm f/4.7 Ektars in Compur
shutters.
Many lenses get a coating of haze inside after many years. The haze
cleans off easily but it requires opening the cells to get to the
glass. The outside facing elements in the 203mm Ektar are held in with
retaining rings which can be unscrewed. Most of the time the threads
are covered over with paint and are not obvious. The paint can be
removed by gentle application of some Acetone on a fine swab and a
little gentle scraping. The retaining ring is removed with a friction
tool made of a tube the right diameter with some sticky rubber, like
an O ring glued to the end of it.
The element can be coaxed out with the aid of some sticky tape.
Plain lens cleaner or alcohol gets the haze off.
I am not sure what the cause of the haze is, my best guess is its
something evaporated from the anti-reflection paint inside the cell.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Ektar Lenses
Siu Fai siufai@dds.nl wrote:
What a coincidence, I just bought one too! Mine is a 2x3 Speed Graphic in
excellent condition, same lens (from 1946) with a Kodak flash supermatic
shutter. But mine is an old model with the spring back :(
I'll see if I remove the ground glass and fit an rollfilm back on it.
BTW: Does anyone know the purposes of the button and handle on top of the
shutter? I suspect they are for testing the flash and tensioning the delay
for M flash setting.
The button is for "press-focus". It holds the shutter blades open for
focusing without setting the speed on T. Cock the shutter and push the button
down while tripping the shutter. To close the blades again re-cock the
shutter. The blade arrestor does not allow the blades to quite completely open
so it will not trip a strobe, about which more below. Do not cock the flash
delay mechanism when using the blade arrestor.
The handle on Flash Supermatic shutters with M-F synch is to cock the flash
delay mechanism.
Supermatic (X) shutters do not have the lever.
The Flash Supermatic has two sets of contacts. One is operated when the
delay is cocked and is for flash bulbs. The slider on the front of the shutter
sets the mechanical travel of the delay for either Class M (medium or 20ms
delay) or Class F (fast or 5 ms delay).
Many people don't know that there is a second set of contacts for strobe.
This set closes whenever the shutter is tripped regardless of whether the
flash delay mechanism is cocked. To prevent it from tripping flashbulbs it has
a high value resistor (usually 5Kohm) in series with it. Most strobe units
will trip with this resistance but it will not permit enough current to fire a
bulb.
There is also a non-synch Supermatic. On these the lever is for cocking a
time delay mechanism giving about a 12 second delay before tripping the
shutter.
If clean and properly set up Supermatics are quite accurate and reliable.
The retarder mechanism can be adjusted but it requires adjusting the spring
tension on the retarder. A bit of slight of hand is needed.
Sometimes the main springs or booster springs are weak giving slow speeds at
the fastest two speeds.
Probably 1/400th is calibrated to be _effective_ speed with the iris wide
open. It should measure around 1/300th if the spring is OK.
Supermatics came in three sizes. The smallest was used for the 101mm, f/4.5
Ektar and some other lenses. The medium size was used for the 127mm, f/4.7
lens and several others, the largest was used for the 152mm, f/4.5 and others.
For larger lenses Kodak used custom built Ilex shutters. These are not quite
the same as standard Ilex shutters and have different threads and maybe other
differences.
The last of the small Ektar lenses was supplied in Synchro Compur shutters.
Kodak began making the Supermatic about 1940 when Compur shutters were no
longer available.
They are very rugged and generally can be brought back to standard unless
badly corroded.
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Los Angeles, CA, USA
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002
From: Jerry Lehrer jerryleh@postoffice.pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Was SSL66 Lens, now Graflex Super D
Jim
You used the correct word "questionable". Occasionally the
answer to the question is, "this lens is good". And it is.
I never found a 127mm or 135mm Wollensak lens that was
anywhere nearly as good as the Ektars or Tessars. The 6in
or the 150mm lenses may be a different story. Richard Knoppow
is a keen judge of lens quality.
Jerry
Jim Hemenway wrote:
> Richard:
>
> Thanks for the info... I had thought that all of the Optars were
> questionable.
>
> Jim - http://www.hemenway.com
>
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
> SNIP
> > The f/5.6 Optar for the Super-D Graflex is also an excellent lens, I have
> > one. Its one that Wollensak did right.
> SNIP
[Ed. note: thanks again to Al Thompson for sharing these notes and observations!! ]
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002
From: AlThompsn@aol.com
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: No Subject
Hey Robert,
I moved from Huntington Beach, California, to Brady in glorious Texas in 1999
and am now getting back into the camera and lens discussion arena.
I just ran across this Leica Users' Group article that describes an Ektar,
made for the scarce 35mm Kodak Ektra, which tested noticeably better than the
Leitz Summacron, and was a pure Kodak design. Also, some Ektars apparently
had as many as seven coated elements arranged in four groups, two sets of
doublets in front of the iris, and one doublet and a single behind the iris.
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v20/msg12693.html
The Ektars in my Medalists definitely have six elements as claimed in Kodak
literature and indicated by counting the reflective spots when shining a
flashlight into the lens with the shutter held open. I discovered that the
term "Ektar" was a generic name that applied to a group of high quality Kodak
lenses, and not to just the classic five-element lens designed byKodak's F.
E. Altman that Mr. Knoppow was referring to in 1998.
At the moment I'm exploring what the Russkies have been producing and, so
far, am impressed. My el-cheapo 58mm f2 Helios on a Zenit-E (meter, long
dead) brick is taking unbelievably good pictures. I bought it on a lark for
$15 at a flea market in Torrance, California ten years ago. The Zenit is
about as basic as you can get and has been abused by neglect, but it keeps on
working.
I still use a Rollei 2.8C TLR, two Medalists, and a slew of 35 mm cameras.
Your web pages are outstanding and just about the best on the net. I hope all
is well with you personally.
Best regards,
Al Thompson, now in little Brady, Texas
From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 10" commercial Ektar
Date: 16 Aug 2002
tim eitniear timeitniear@newsguy.com wrote:
>Anyone familar with the 10" commercial Ektar f6.3 lens? Was wondering
>what filter size it takes.
I got Steve Grimes http://www.skgrimes.com/ to make a threaded
adapter ring so that I could use my Lee Filters compendium hood/filter
holder with my 10 inch Commercial Ektar. I don't remember what he
charged me for it, but it was good work. He mentioned that the Kodak
lenses did not use the metric thread pitch filters use today. That's
why I couldn't use the appropriate diameter adapter ring from Lee
Filters.
--
Brian Reynolds
reynolds@panix.com
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 06 Sep 2002
Subject: Re: Popular Photography
>Subject: Re: Popular Photography
>From: "William E. Graham" weg9@attbi.com
>Date: 9/5/02
>
>One of the big problems with Consumer Reports is that they are
>generalists, and specialize in nothing. But, if you realize this, and
>carefully read the criteria that they are using for their evaluations of
>any given product line, you can frequently get some useful information
>out of them. I have used them to good end in the past for things like
>choosing the paint to use when recovering my deck (over $200 worth of
>paint), and the built-in dishwasher to replace my old one....In other
>purchases, I might read their evaluations, but only with a huge grain of
>salt.....
>"John" john@darkroompro.com wrote
>> NickC n-chen@attbi.com wrote:
>> >
>> >I wrote to Consumer Reports and told them of my findings and never got
>> >an answer. I called the company that made the U210 and was informed
>> >that they too saw the article and had written a protest. Consumer
>> >Reports did nothing. I canceled my subscription and never bought
>> >another mag from them.
>>
>> They're the ones that called Kodak's Ektar lenses "mediocre
>> to poor" . Some of the best lenses ever made.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
>> Website --- http://www.darkroompro.net
Theres' a reason why they did that. Not an excuse a reason, Y'see they dindn't
know any better,. The Commercial Ektar designs were the results of Kodak's JND
research which showed that lenses that exhibited high contrast (at the cost of
sharpness) were percieved as being sharper than lenses that actually were
sharper but had lower contrast. Using this research, Kodak designed the
Commercial Ektars and the rest is history. But consumer Reports tested only
for sharpness not taking contrast into consideration. Thus the conclusion
they reached. But photographers all knew better.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 06 Sep 2002
Subject: Re: Popular Photography
...
>That's really interesting, in an "obscure photo trivia" sort of way.
>Thanks for sharing that Art.
>
>Lisa
I lived through those JND tests with Kodak so I have vivid memories of it all.
And today, the vast majority of inexpensive p&s; cameras made by just about
every company give priority to contrast to acheive a the perception of
sharpness using the simplest of lenses.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002
From: r.mueller@fz-juelich.de
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Aero ektars
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
There was one available at ebay from a fellow who had original data on
these lenses and the resolution was simply astonishing (I hope my
memory is correct but I think the measurements went well beyond 200
lp/mm and beyond anything usual LF films can reproduce.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Johnson genej2@cox.net
Date: Monday, October 28, 2002
Subject: [Cameramakers] Aero ektars
> Has anyone actually taken any pictures with an Aero Ektar? I did
> a search on the web looking for comments about performance of the
> AE's (especially the 178mm) from someone who had actually used
> one recently, and found NOTHING. Has anyone on the list actually
> tried one? I've got one on a board, but I only tried it once. My
> shutter arrangement may have introduced a lot of flare though and
> the contrast was very low. The resolution was excellent. I may
> try it again with black and white film, this time taking pains to
> keep flare and stray light to a minimum.
>
> Gene
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:29:18 -0500 (CST)
From: Michael Briggs
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Aero-Etkars
Reply-To: cameramakers@rmp.opusis.com
> From: "Gene Johnson"
>
> Has anyone actually taken any pictures with an Aero Ektar? I did a
> search on the web looking for comments about performance of the AE's
> (especially the 178mm) from someone who had actually used one recently,
> and found NOTHING.
I would like to test some Aero-Ektars that I have but haven't found the time
yet. There are some photos on the web -- all the ones that I have found been
by astrophotographers:
http://www.fornax.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/astro.html
http://www.stellafane.com/astro_images/hamel.html
http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/astro/comets.html
Some of these photos were taken on 35mm film and so use only the very center of
the designed coverage of the lens.
Jeffrey R. Charles reports that "I tried a few medium format and 4" x 5" photos
with a 7" f/2.5 Aero Ektar, but unless I stopped it down to f/4.5 or so, its
results did not seem to be much better than my 35 mm images with shorter
lenses.": http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/ecjrnl/apj80.htm
Probably astrophotographers are the biggest actual users of these lenses
because
they need speed or aperture and also since they are making long exposures they
have no need of a shutter.
--Michael
> From: r.mueller@fz-juelich.de
>
> There was one available at ebay from a fellow who had original data on
> these lenses and the resolution was simply astonishing (I hope my
> memory is correct but I think the measurements went well beyond 200
> lp/mm and beyond anything usual LF films can reproduce.
While I haven't done any testing, I am wonder about claims of such extreme
resolution. The great R. Kingslake of Kodak discusses Aero-Ektars and Allied
aerial photography in general in his 1947 article "Recent Developments in
Lenses for Aerial Photography" in the Journal of the Optical Society of
America.
He discusses the limits of resolution in WWII aerial photos and concludes that
the maximum the film of that era could do was about 40 lines per mm and that the
practical resolution in actual use was about 10 lines per mm. I am not sure
whether the units are a poorly labeled version of today's line pairs per mm, or
whether we should halve these numbers to obtain 20 and 5 line pairs per mm. In
either case, the total system resolution is so far below 200 lp/mm that nothing
would be gained by having the lens resolve at 200 lp/mm. If such a high
resolution in the lens was useless, it would be a mistake to design for that
very high resolution, because it would cost in some way, either money, weight
or some other performance parameter that did matter.
--Michael
From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Aero-Ektar resolution
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002
Well,
The few shots I did take with my Aero Ektar were on Ektachrome. I really
didn't see a significant color shift, though my lens definitely has a slight
brown tint to it. My big problem was a lack of contrast. I think the cause
was a front mounted shutter, where I did nothing to cover the bright
aluminum threads in the shutter body. Hard to explain. I had an Alphax #3
mounted in a round board just the right size to fit inside the front lens
surround of the AE. I slipped the board over the front element and used the
shutter that way. It vignetted too much to cover 4x5 that way so I used a
rollfilm adaptor with the ektachrome. Like I said, sharp, good color
balance, very little contrast. I need to do the experiment again with a
large Packard or something.
Gene
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003
From: "Mark PEARCE" top@tdstelme.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Kodak Retina II: Ektar vs Xenon vs Heligon
> Is the EKTAR version simply more rare, an American made curiosity that
> makes it more collectible, or is it sharper than the others?
Without further knowledge, I'd think that the Ektar version dated to the
wartime/just post-wartime years when German lenses were scarce. The problem
with that line of reasoning is that the cameras themselves came from
Germany.
As to the sharpness of Ektars, oh God yes! A whole cult has risen around the
Medallist 620 RF cameras due to their lenses, and the 101mm Ektar on my
Miniature Speed Graphic will hold it's own with the best. The finest
enlarger lens I've ever owned is a Projection Ektar. And wouldn't I love to
find one of the LTM Ektars made for the Kardon. The Ektar lens line as a
whole was meant to be pro quality, and from my usage was as good as any
available at the time, if not better. And I also use period Tessars, Xenons,
Xenars, Heligons, and Sonnars on a regular basis.
Mark
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002
From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
To: TLRList@topica.com
Subject: tessar lenses RE: [TLR List] Activity
the tessar recently had its 100th anniversary, IIRC, reportedly hundreds of
copies and varieties out there, see for example (in 4x5") World of
Tessars table: View from Kramer, Modern Photography, October 1969, p.30,36
(table at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenstype.html last table)...
problem with testing the old lenses is that they have to be cleaned before
testing, and realigned etc. or you downrate a great lens with some
volatilized gunk on the lens killing the contrast, that a cleaning would
bring back. In addition, there was often more variation between samples of
older lenses (see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/variations.html ) so you can
only really be sure about the ones you test, doesn't hold for all lenses...
my blind lens testing experiments suggest that with MF cameras, any 4
element or better lens can deliver excellent performance. The 3 element
lenses can also do very good jobs, at least if not used closeup, though a
good 4 element lens may edge them out in careful testing side by side...
(mf/blindresults.html ).
the seagull lens resolution table at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/seagull.html
shows why I recommend at least a 4 element lens if you can afford it in
your TLR - all the 3 element seagull lens scores were below the 4 element
ones ;-( I recommend the rolleicords and similar 4 el. TLRs are a better
buy than the more costly new 3 ele. TLRs for this and other reasons ;-)
hth bobm
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aircraft Aero Ektar Camera ?
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003
Henry Kolesnik wrote:
>
> At a local swapmeet I bought a Camera, Aircraft Reconnaissance, Stock No.
> 8400-10765 made by General Electric X-Ray Dept with a Aero Ektar Lens 12 in.
> (308 mm) f/2.5 by Eastman Kodak. It seems to be in fairly decent condition
> and too nice to dismantle for the lens to make a telescope. It probably
> weighs 60 pounds with its cables. Does anyone have any info on this camera
> and does it have any potential use aside from being a curio or perhaps
> museum piece? One stamp indicates it was made Sept. 1954.
9 inch aerial film is said to be available from Kodak, but a roll is
probably way too expensive to experiment with. You could try the lens
as a fast lens for an 8x10 camera.
You might want to look at my Aero-Ektar webpage:
http://home.earthlink.net/~michaelbriggs/aeroektar/aeroektar.html
My understanding is that the WWII cameras for the 12 inch Aero-Ektar
were the K-19A and K-19B. Your camera seems to be from the next decade
-- I don't know what the models were then. You can date the lens from
the two letters at the front of the serial number using the Kodak date
code: CAMEROSITY = 123456789.
--Michael
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aircraft Aero Ektar Camera ?
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003
"Henry Kolesnik" wd5jfr@oklahoma.net wrote
> At a local swapmeet I bought a Camera, Aircraft Reconnaissance, Stock No.
> 8400-10765 made by General Electric X-Ray Dept with a Aero Ektar Lens 12 in.
> (308 mm) f/2.5 by Eastman Kodak. It seems to be in fairly decent condition
> and too nice to dismantle for the lens to make a telescope. It probably
> weighs 60 pounds with its cables. Does anyone have any info on this camera
> and does it have any potential use aside from being a curio or perhaps
> museum piece? One stamp indicates it was made Sept. 1954.
> tnx
> hank wd5jfr
The Aero Ektar is a famous lens. Its more often seen in a
7" focal length. These lenses were intended for night photo
reconnaisance using flash bombs. They are well corrected but
there is some compromise to in spherical aberration to
improve overall sharpness.
Most of these lenses are somewhat radioactive from the
Thorium included in the Lanthanum glass used in a couple of
the elements. The Thorium is not an impurity as is sometimes
imputed but is a delibrate addition to obtain certain glass
characteristics. Kodak was a poineer in the commercial
manufacture and application of the rare-earth optical
glasses developed originally at the National Bureau of
Standards.
Many Aero Ektar lenses exhibit some browing of the glass
from the radioactivity. They have a reputation for having
poor color color correction but I think this may be due to
some change in the glass. Analysis of the design indicates
that color correction was excellent originally.
For more on the general design of these lenses see the
following patents:
USP 2,243,627 (1941) Aklin, Assigned to Kodak, 2,343,627
(1944) Aklin, assigned to Kodak, and USP 2,466,424, (1949)
Herzberger, assigned to Kodak.
Computer analysis may be found in:
_Modern Lens Design: A Resource Manual_
Warren J. Smith
1992, McGraw-Hill Book Company
ISBN 0-07-059178-4
See pages 344,345,346
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Q.G. de Bakker [qnu@tiscali.nl]
Sent: Sat 5/3/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad/Kodak Ektars: are they 4 element Tessars, or 5 element Heliars?
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> By the way, on the Rollei list, Jerry Lehrer mentioned how in 1952 he had
> seen a Hasselblad/Kodak Ektar lens in disassembled state, and it appeared to
> be not a 4 element Tessar design, but 5 element design ("just like a
> Medalist lens". Which, Richard Knoppow added, is a Heliar "of the Altman
> type", Altman being the person responsible for the Medalist lens).
> Though Jerry did add an "End of discussion" to his post, i still wonder,
> have the facts in this 1952 eyewitness report survived the 50 years gap
> between event and recollection? There must have been a firm basis for the
> Hasselblad/Kodak Ektars are 4 element lenses believe, or...?
A relevant post (by Dan Fromm) somewhere else on the internet today:
"The Heliar formula is essentially a tessar with the singlet front element
replaced by a cemented doublet [...] Few other makers used it, other
examples include the Dallmeyer Pentac, the Kodak 100/3.5 and 105/3.7 Ektars,
and the Kodak 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars."
No Hasselblad/Kodak Ektars among the "Heliars"?
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Gorlitz Trioplan
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003
"Stacey" fotocord@yahoo.com wrote
> ArtKramr wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: Gorlitz Trioplan
> >>From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
> >>Date: 4/24/03
> >
> >> Meyer made Triplan lenses in speeds to f/2.8 for 35mm
> >>cameras. This is an odd stop, probably dictated by the
> >>maximum open aperture of the shutter. Its likely the design
> >>is actually an f/3.5 lens. The
> > They made a 55mm F/2.9 which was in every sense a true F/2.9 lens, not a
> > mismarked F/3.5 lens.
> >
> He was talking about the f3.8 lens in the OP's message Art.
> Stacey
Yup, should have started a new paragraph or otherwise made
it clearer.
Kodak did the same thing with an f/3.7, 105mm lens (other,
similar lesnes are f/3.5) and I think the famous f/4.7,
127mm Ektar is the same story. The others in this series are
f/4.5 but the shutter isn't quite large enough and I think
Kodak didn't want to use the next larger size, which is
considerably larger and doesn't have 1/400th second speed.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens for MF view camera
Date: 18 Jul 2003
Rich Shepard rshepard@salmo.appl-ecosys.com wrote
> bill martin wrote:
> > One very excellent lens, but old, is the 101mm Kodak Ektar. It should be
> > available on ebay, probably for around $50 - $80, depending on condition.
> > This lens has a good reputation, and I've used it a lot with wonderful
> > results. Another I have is the 100 mm Zeiss Tessar f3.5. I think it's
> > fine, too, but prefer the Ektar. I think they're both the same formula.
>
> Thanks, Bill. Does that price range include the shutter, do you recall?
>
> Rich
PMFJI. Those lenses are typically offered in shutter, usually a Kodak
Supermatic, sometimes a Graphex. The cells are NOT threaded for
"modern standard" shutters, e.g., #00, #0, #1.
I think the prices Bill has quoted are unrealistically low.
And yes, the 101/4.5 Ektar is an outstanding lens. But it and its
supposedly better brother (mine wasn't) the 105/3.7 Ektar may not be
what you want since you have a Galvin. With both, coverage is
limited. They're ok on Graphics, whose movements are limited, but
with the Galvin you should be able to run out of coverage with either.
If you want a relatively inexpensive old lens, a 100/6.3 Wide Field
Ektar might suit you better. Not too costly somewhat shorter
alternatives include 90 mm WA lenses for 4x5, e.g., 90/6.8 Angulon or
90/6.8 Raptar and the 90/8 Ilex Acugon, which is better. If you're
much richer than I am, there are some nice modern lenses around 100 mm
that cover 4x5.
Cheers,
Dan
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Ektar 127mm lens
Date: 11 Jan 2004
"Neil Purling" sextant@sextant.karoo.co.uk wrote
> This is what's on my Pacemaker Crown Graphic.
> now then: It is said that the lens just covers 4x5 at infinity.
>
> Can any user of this lens inform me just how much I can enlarge any
> resulting negatives before the corners are obviously soft?
> Tessar type lenses seem to be best at three stops down from max aperture so
> assume I am shooting at f16 or f22.
>
> I am hoping that this lens will be adequate for what I want to do, even if I
> have to make a selective enlargement.
The 127mm Ektar is a quite remarkable lens. It covers around 65
degrees, a lot for a Tessar type. I have three of these guys, they are
all essentially sharp to the corners at f/11 or smaller stops. The
lens was really meant for 3-1/4 x 4-1/4" format but was widely used on
Graphic cameras because press photographers wanted a moderately wide
angle lens. "Normal" for 4x5 is a 152mm lens. Other types of lenses
have greater coverage but, since the movements of a Graphic are small
anyway, there is really no reason to replace the Ektar. It was
probably the best of the lenses sold with these cameras (the 152mm
Ektar not withstanding, its also excellent).
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Glendon" nothere@nowhere.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: First roll results from "new Agfa Isolette I"
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004
"Nick Zentena" zentena@hophead.dyndns.org wrote
> Glendon nothere@nowhere.com wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm, I probably should have come clean. I am fooling around with
> > 6x12...obtained by running 120 film in an old 616 Kodak. Oddball I know, but
> > interesting.
> I've been thinking of doing something similar. Just using respooled 70mm
> film. What has been holding me back is the worries about the lenses on those
> old 116/616 cameras. Just how good/bad are they?
>
> Nick
I think they vary quite a bit, with some of the basic cameras having some
basic lenses. This site has some useful info on Kodak lenses:
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~b-wallen/BN_Photo/Kodak_index2.htm
The general consensus on that and similar sites is that the better Kodak
lenses are surprisingly good.
I have a late model Monitor 616....it was probably at the top of the 616
line....the Regent might have been a better Kodak camera of the time, with a
German lens, but I don't think it was made in 616 format. My Monitor has a 4
element ,uncoated Anastigmat lens...just don't know how good it is at the
moment...will be in a better position to comment when I have run a few rolls
through....but I'm hopeful!
In contrast, some of the Junior 616 models look to have some pretty basic
lenses.
I thought about 70mm film...but where do you get backing paper and spools?
Also, I generally have a variety of 120 film on hand at any time and can
pick what I want to load....respooling 70mm means a bulk supply of film of
the one specification, no?
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 12" Commercial Ektar question
Date: 17 Nov 2003
"davidl" nospam@nospam.com wrote
> Hello all,
>
> I'm in the process of selecting suitable (standard/normal focal length) lens
> for 8x10 Cambo I just acquired - since I'm on the budget, my picks are 12"
> Commercial Ektar (or maybe, as a second choice, 12" Claron-G).
>
> I did some research on 12" Commercial Ektars on the web, and it seems that
> the filter thread is non-metric, so there is a need for some kind of adapter
> to accommodate standard filters/lenshoods. Could some tell me what is the
> best way to go? Or, are there any original filters available somewhere, and
> is yes, what size do I need?
>
> Also, I'm unsure which shutter the lens will be mounted in, expecting Ilex
> #4 maybe - I got the info that it's supposed to fit the #3 copal hole
> without problem, is that correct? To me it seems that the Ilex is bit larger
> diameter (some 66.15 mm - 2.604", according to S.K.Grimes pages), vs.
> predrilled 65mm of copal#3 hole .. could this be an issue? (I will have
> predrilled board, so the most I could do would be to maybe carefully enlarge
> it a bit with round file if necessary; I don't have the lensboard yet - will
> order the correct one after I'll select the lens/shutter).
>
> Thanks for advice.
>
> Finally, I hope this is the appropriate question for this group - apologize
> in advance if I was supposed to post elsewhere...
>
> Dave
Kodak made a large clamp on filter adaptor for studio lenses. These
take 4"x4" glass or mounted gelatin filters. They show up occasionaly
on eBay or at camera sales. The other method was to use a combination
sunshade and filter holder. These were made by various manufacturers
but not Kodak.
There are adjustable filter systems using gelatin filters available
which will fit this and many other large lenses.
There are better shutters than the Ilex although the Acme is
certainly better than the Universal. Remounting will not be cheap, for
one thing a new Copal shutter is on the order of $300. Steve Grimes
shop will give you a good estimate.
The Commercial Ektar series are excellent lenses, comparable to
modern lenses, however, they are Tessars so the coverage is limited
compared to a modern Plasmat type like a Rodenstock Sironar or
Schneider Symmar.
Commercial Ektars are exceptionally well color corrected, nearly
apochromatic. The large ones have back caps on the front cell so its
easy to get inside to clean out any haze which may have formed.
This is exactly the sort of question this group is meant for.
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Los Angeles, CA, USA
From: "doug" dduthie@keepitsympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004
"John Hendry" wrote in message:
> Just acquired one of these and was wondering if anyone familiar had a few
> facts or opinions about it. In particular I'm wondering if someone can
> confirm this is a tessar, and what the circle of sharp coverage is like -
> much room for movement on 4x5? What's the optimum aperture to use it at
> ?(its in a supermatic and will stop down to f45)
> Is it still a decent lens by modern standards like the Commercial Ektars?
> Thanks.
I use the 152mm f4.5 Ektar. Yes it's a Tessar. It is a good performer,
small, and sharp. I typically use it at f/16 or f/22, but have used it as
wide as f/11. Compared to modern plasmats it has very limited coverage for
4x5 use ~ 182mm image circle (62 degrees) at f/22. This corresponds, on a
4x5, to lens standard rises of approx 17mm portrait/ 20mm landscape at
infinity. I often run out of movements and have to tilt the lensboard back.
Still they're quite cheap. Frankly, I love all of the Kodak Ektars,
Commercial Ektars, and Wide Field Ektars - they are so consistently good
quality-wise.
There is a good link for Ektar lenses with contributions from many including
the very knowledgeable and gracious Richard Knoppow:
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/ektar.html
Doug
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ektars for Hassy - do they really exist?
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004
Lassi Hippel,inen wrote:
> Coca-cola Germany had to develop a replacement for Coke, because they
> couldn't get the original dark goo from America. So they made their own
> yellow soup using oranges, and Fanta was born...
More to the point: German made products were sold all over the world even
during WW2. So a neutral country like Sweden would not have had any problems
obtaining German made lenses.
As long as German Zeiss could produce any, of course.
> [...]
> At some point in time Ektars were Tessars. Zeiss had sold a license to
> B&L;, who shipped them to Kodak. The name wasn't part of the deal.
Kodak did have a very fine, "cutting edge" lens design department. I doubt
that they felt the need to use "foreign" designs. Do you have a source for
your "Ektars were licensed Tessars" statement?
And a source showing what other make lenses (Kodak, Bausch & Lomb?) were
used on the "military Hasselblads"?
In fact, the Ektars produced for Hasselblad were Heliar designs, designed by
Kodak's Fred E. Altman.
> ...
> > And as a manufacturer of photographic goods, you do want the
> > things you offer to be affordable to a reasonable amount of customers, don't
> > you? ;-)
>
> We're discussing Hasselbld, aren't we? ;-)
Indeed. That's why the bit you snipped was saying that even "the less
expensive Zeiss lenses were not quite cheap".
;-)
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Use a 105mm Ektar on a 4x5?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004
"Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote...
> sanfelice02144@yahoo.com (SanFelice) wrote
> > I realize that there could be few - or no - movements when using such
> > a lens, but is it possible to use straight (w/no rise/fall?)
>
> It won't cover. The 101mm Ektar is a Tessar type. It has pretty good
> coverage but is not a wide angle lens. You will do better by finding a
> good wide angle. The 100mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar will just about make
> it for 4x5, a lens like a Super Angulon will do better. A 90 mm S.A.
> will cover 4x5 with plenty over for movements. The older versions of
> these lenses are very good even though not quite up to the current
> ones, and are generally available at reasonable prices. The older
> Angulon design will also cover but avoid the pre-WW-2 ones, they are
> quite variable in quality. The Angulon is not as good as the Super
> Angulon but is smaller and lighter, probably not a problem for a 90mm
> lens. Rodenstock Grandagons are also excellent lenses but do not show
> up used too often.
>
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
For some reason I read the original post as saying the
101mm Ektar. However, the above is also true of the 105mm
Ektar. The 105mm Ektar is a variation of the Heliar type,
that is, it has two cemented elements in both front and
back. The designer states in his patent that this was done
to improve rim ray correction. That would give better
correction for the lens used wide open. This design was used
for several Kodak Ektar lenses; the 105mm, f/3.7, made for
small press cameras; 100mm, f/3.5, used on the Kodak
Medalist camera; 50mm and 75mm Enlarging Ektars, and a
couple of others. They have excellent performance but have
somewhat narrower coverage than an equivalent FL Tessar
type, so the answer stays the same: they will not work as
wide angle lenses, thediameter of the image circle at
infinity focus is a little larger than the focal length.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions
Date: 5 Apr 2004
"John Hendry" pict@pict.co.uk wrote
> "doug" dduthie@keepitsympatico.ca wrote ...
> (snip)
> > I use the 152mm f4.5 Ektar. Yes it's a Tessar. It is a good performer,
> > small, and sharp. I typically use it at f/16 or f/22, but have used it as
> > wide as f/11. Compared to modern plasmats it has very limited coverage for
> > 4x5 use ~ 182mm image circle (62 degrees) at f/22. This corresponds, on a
> > 4x5, to lens standard rises of approx 17mm portrait/ 20mm landscape at
> > infinity. I often run out of movements and have to tilt the lensboard back.
> > Still they're quite cheap. Frankly, I love all of the Kodak Ektars,
> > Commercial Ektars, and Wide Field Ektars - they are so consistently good
> > quality-wise.
> >
> > There is a good link for Ektar lenses with contributions from many including
> > the very knowledgeable and gracious Richard Knoppow:
> >
> > http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/ektar.html
> > Doug
>
> Thanks for the link and the vote of confidence in the glass. Coverage seems
> a bit tight. I just wonder why Kodak didn't employ a naming convention that
> bore some relationship to the specific lens construction like most of the
> rest of the planet. Mind you they seem to have adopted this logic with film
> recently. e.g. when is Tri-X not Tri-X? When its not the stuff left in your
> fridge.
> John
I will also vouch for the 152mm Ektar. However, check the cement in
the rear component on Ektars, I've found a couple where it was getting
a little turbid. You have to shine a flashlight at it or through it to
see the effect but it results in a substantial loss of contrast. When
clear these are quite contrasty lenses.
Kodak is not the only lens maker who chose to use a trade name to
indicate quality rather than construction. For Kodak Ektar was the top
of the line. The first Ektar was a Biotar type lens for the Kodak
Bantam Deluxe camera c.1936. Until 1946 Kodak used the names Kodak
Anastigmat and Anastigmat Special for lenses of lower quality than the
Ektar series. For the most part the difference is degree of color
correction. After about 1946 Kodak introduced several lens names for
lower quality lenses such as Anastar and Anaston. Ektanon became the
new name for most of the former K.A. lenses. Kodak claims that Ektar
lenses are completely corrected for lateral color.
For many years Wollensak marketed most of their better lenses under
the name Velostigmat. Velostigmats, like Ektars, were of several
different designs. In about 1946 a new name, Raptar, was adopted for
most of these lenses. Zeiss, in particular, had names for each
different design of lens but other makers, Nikon for instance, did
not. All Nikon lenses are Nikkors although older ones carry a letter
code to indicate the number of elements. Cannon doesn't even use a
separate lens name, just Cannon Lens.
All of the f/4.5 Ektar lenses for medium format cameras are Tessar
types. They have a coverage of nearly 70 degrees when stopped down all
the way and perhaps 65 degrees at f/11. The 127mm f/4.7 Ektar is
common on 4x5 cameras and is sharp in the corners at f/11. Commercial
Ektars are also Tessars, with a little more coverage than the f/4.5
lenses as would be expected from a slower lens. The 105mm, f/3.7 Ektar
and 100mm F/4.5 Ektar on the Medalist camera are modified Heliar
types. The older and rarer 107mm f/3.7 Ektar is a Tessar with reversed
rear component. This is supposed to be advantageous when high index
glass is used. I suspect this lens was not too successful since it
seems to have been replaced with the 105mm lens within a year or so.
The Wide Field Ektar is a double Gauss type AKA a Holostigmat. The
famous (or notorious) Aero Ektar is a seven element Biotar. A number
of other designs were used for Ektar motion picture lenses and for the
Ektars designed for the Ektra camera.
I have no idea why Kodak never made Plasmats. I think the main
purpose of the Ektar series, and certainly the Commercial Ektar, was
to sell color film by making sure lenses with excellent color
correction were available.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
End of Page