Yes, I really thought that the 12" f6.3 Ektar I had was as good as it could get. The thought of selling it for something else never entered my mind. If this Ilex lens is as good I might just sell my triple convertible Protar. I'm going to start to reassemble my 8X10 B&J tonight and then I will be able to find out for myself just how good the 305mm Caltar is.Kodak Commercial Ektars are excellent lenses that were designed under the watchful eye of Dr. Rudolf Kingslake (1903-2003) director of Kodak's Optical Design Department. Interestingly Ilex was located on Portland Avenue in Rochester, NY only a few blocks from Kodak Hawk-Eye Works. I used 8 1/2, 10, 12, and 14-inch Commercial Ektars. All excellent.
btaylor,I have a 14” Ilex, I was looking for an 14”Ektar, but the Ilex came with a camera I bought. I later got the 14” Commercial Ektar in barrel but I was pleased with the Ilex and just kept using it. I also have the 12” Commercial Ektar. They are all fine lenses that fit my needs and aesthetic, no reason for me to use anything else.
I worked for a different division of Kodak from our good friend "laser". Oddly enough my group had a 14-3/4"/6.3 Ilex-Calumet lens, along with several different Kodak Ektars.
One assignment we had required an 8'x8' color enlargement as the final product. The perspective called for the Ilex lens- which performed superbly. A 12x enlargement is a non-trivial requirement for a LF lens, by the way.
Many years later, I still enjoy using my own Kodak lenses, but I'd happily shoot with an Ilex Tessar-formula lens if I owned one.
A tessar is a tessar is a tessar. Coatings vss non coating is a notable differential. But tessar vss tessar is not. An Osaka 360 f6.3 is a force to be reckoned with. We all have some magnetic draw to the Kodak, but looking at prints no one could tell the difference. But then there's Heliar's. Yumm. And Cooke's! Yummmmmm. The hardest thing to get is something out in front of any of the lenses that anyone cares to look at.
For an inexpensive "wide field" get the cheapest barrel 210 G-Claron. The early one in the 10 and 11 millions SN is a Dagor type. Killer lenses. They turn up under a hundred bucks now and then.
"We all have some magnetic draw to the Kodak"... how true. But my excuse is that I was born and raised in Rochester, and worked for 25 years as an industrial shooter in the Hawk-Eye complex where those lenses were made (long before my time). So I've used and liked many Kodak lenses, and still own a few today.
But Mr. Galli (who has experience with many more different lenses than me) is right, Tessars are good lenses. The Schneider Xenars on low-end Rolleis are quite sharp and have a lovely tonality, and my Nikkor-M 300/9 might be my favorite LF lens.
"The hardest thing..." also true.
And I'll agree with my former compatriot "laser"... there were an awful lot of good lenses made in our home town!
John, there are tessars and then there are tessars. The best -- most coverage, sharpest -- are f/6.3ers, of which the most recent is the f/6.1 Xenar. Modern f/4.5ers are better than older designs. Same goes for f/3.5ers and f/2.8ers. There are many different prescriptions, some better, others not so good.MarkS,
Tessars are usually very good lenses, but I have had a few from the 30's that were not what I'd call "very good". They were all the f4.5 versions. I'm not saying they were unuseable, but were not "snappy" sharp for sure. The best Tessar lens I have used was on a little German Rollei 35. As for Kodak lenses my favorites are the 100mm f3.5 Ektar and a real sleeper the Kodak Anastigmat "SPECIAL" 101mm f4.5 on the Monitor 620. I'm blown away by that Monitors lens every time I use it. Yes, the name Kodak on a lens meant top quality.
Dan,John, there are tessars and then there are tessars. The best -- most coverage, sharpest -- are f/6.3ers, of which the most recent is the f/6.1 Xenar. Modern f/4.5ers are better than older designs. Same goes for f/3.5ers and f/2.8ers. There are many different prescriptions, some better, others not so good.
By the way, Ektar is an EKCo trade name. The 100/3.5 Ektar is a heliar type, not a tessar type. Not all Ektars are the same design type and within design type prescriptions can vary. The 101/4.5 Ektar (= 101/4.5 KA Special) is a fine lens but isn't the best standard issue lens for 2x3 Graphics.
Drew,Tessar formula lenses were a diverse batch which kept evolving over a long period of time. I certainly wouldn't place late ultra-crisp Nikon M's in the same category as old 4.5's of anything, nor in the same camp as 6.3 whatevers.
John, there are tessars and then there are tessars. The best -- most coverage, sharpest -- are f/6.3ers, of which the most recent is the f/6.1 Xenar. Modern f/4.5ers are better than older designs. Same goes for f/3.5ers and f/2.8ers. There are many different prescriptions, some better, others not so good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?