305mm f6.3 Caltar lens vs 12" f6.3 Commercial Ektar

[John Wiegerink]

I just received a 305mm (12") f6.3 Calumet Caltar lens from KEH and was wondering if the optical results were just like the 12" Commercial Ektar. Everything I have read says that the Caltar lens was made to fill the gap of the discontinued Commercial Ektars. It also said that the 305mm f6.3 was a recomputed Ektar design, but have no Idea what they mean by recomputed. I also searched for a cut-cross sectioned picture of the lens element, but came up with nothing.
My first 8X10 outfit back in the 80's was a Kodak 2D with a 12" Commercial Ektar and I was really satisfied with the Ektar and never upgraded. I sold that outfit and now have a B&J 8X10 that is stripped down for refinishing at the moment so I can't try the 305mm f6.3 Caltar. Has anyone ever compared the two lenses in an actual landscape setting?

 

[Dan Fromm]

It is an Ilex Acutar (f/6.3 tessar type) rebadged for Calumet. Acutars were sold under a variety of names. "Recomputed" is marketing fluff. Ilex positioned it as a recomputed f/4.5 Commercial Paragon. Yeah, right.

Sorry, I can't address your request for a comparison with the equivalent Commercial Ektar.

 

[blee1996]

I have the 14" version, albeit rebranded as "Orbit". It is a bit too sharp for portraits, even wide open. But your use case might vary...

 

[laser]

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

btaylor,
That's exactly what I wanted to know. I pretty much figured both the Ektar and the Caltar were like first cousins.

 

[MarkS]

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.

 

[blee1996]

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.

Hi Mark, thanks for the historical notes. Turns out I have the exact 14-3/4"/6.3 Ilex/Calumet/Orbit lens. I don't have comparable Commercial Ektar to do side by side comparison, but your results sound very reassuring.

 

[nosmok]

I'll echo everybody's positive Ilex experiences, and chime in on the other end of the spectrum as well: my 65mm f/8 Ilex is the best wide-angle in 4x5 I've got, sharp as hell with great contrast.

 

[jimgalli]

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

Thanks, Jim and nosmok! I'll have to remember that about the Ilex 65mm f8. Yes, I'm a big Heliar fan, and it's one of the reasons I really like the prints I make with my old Kodak Medalist camera. My 16 1/8" Bausch & Lomb Zeiss triple convertible Protar VII is no slouch either. I have my 8X10 lens selection covered, but still need a wide-angle that won't raise red flags when the wife balances the checkbook. I bought the Calumet Caltar 305mm from KEH. They had it in the (ugly as-is) condition for $37.00. I'm very good at fixing things, .so I thought I couldn't go wrong. When I received it I looked through it a saw what looked like fungus in between the front and rear groups. I removed the front group and to my surprise the film of crude cleaned right off. Not even a trace and the coating is beautiful. I then checked the old Acme No.4 shutter, and it seems to work perfect. I have always been pleased with my KEH purchases, but this is like the icing on the cake. No, I don't have any stock in KEH!

 

[jimgalli]

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

I have a 240mm f9 G-claron, but I'd like a little wide angle of view. 210mm G-claron might just work out? I had an old Wollensak 159mm f12.5 with my first 8X10 outfit and was surprised at how well it did for what it cost me at the time.

 

[MarkS]

"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 Wiegerink]

"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!

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 Fromm]

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.

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

Dan,
Yes, the Medalist lens is a Heliar and probably one of the reasons why I like its output. Wasn't it the Emperor of Japan that wouldn't let his portrait be taken unless it was with a Helier lens?
I have the 101mm f4.5 Ektar unit focusing lens and the front focusing Monitor lens and I have no complaints about either. In fact I think the Monitor lens is better than my mint 105mm f4.5 coated Opton Tessar on my Zeiss Super Ikonta C and that lens is no slouch. There are many good lenses from that era, but some are slightly better than others.
Best,
John

 

[DREW WILEY]

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 Wiegerink]

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.

Drew,
You're right, as for old tessar lenses I agree with Dan, the old 6.3's almost always seem better than the 4.5's. I have a late Fujinon 210mm f5.6 L lens that as good as it gets for a Tessar. It's darn sharp at f11-22, very light, pretty small and resist flare fairly well. It's also much easier to cart around on my Toyo field camera or Chamonix than my 210mm f5.6 Symmar-S.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

I have the 12" f4.5 Ektar (not the Commercial Ektar) and an f4.5 Industar-37 (I was given this lens), both Tessars with the same aperture value. The Industar-37 performs well in most ways, except that it is far more prone to flare than the Kodak Ektar. (The Industar-37 is multi-coated) As others have said before, not all Tessars are created equal, but it seems many people make the assumption that they are.

 

[DREW WILEY]

John - The Fuji L's were still thick-element tessars, and single-coated for sake of the portrait studio trade; I'm coveting a 300 or 420 version of one of those L's for 8x10 usage, but those two are in larger 3S shutters and rather heavy. Meanwhile, around the same time, Nikon developed their single-coat Q series of large format tessars.

Nikon replaced the Q series with the M series, which, with only six multicoated air/glass interfaces, has the highest contrast of any LF lenses I've ever used, with the exception of the multicoated Kern 14" Dagor with only 4 interfaces. Their Q's and M's are unusual in being thin-element style. The 200M and 300M are wonderfully small and portable. I also have the 105M for roll film back usage; but it doesn't have enough coverage for 4x5.

It's not a matter of the Nikon Q's or M's being "better" than Fuji L's - just different personalities with a little different edge rendering and contrast level. All of these are particularly designed for excellent color rendering. But with both categories we're talking about late renditions of the tessar formula, quite different from the classic ole Kodak Ektars, Zeiss tessars, etc.

I do have a single-coat Zeiss 360/9 process tessar which renders lovely bokeh on 8x10 film, while being very sharp at the same time; but it's an old thick-element design and a bit too heavy for backpacking purposes. I haven't mounted it in shutter yet, and still have to use the lenscap method of long exposures with it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

That's what is so mystical to me about 4X5 and 8X10 is the lens selection and the difference in rendering. Something that is hard to find in 35mm unless you go back to the older, uncoated Leitz and Zeiss lenses, but with larger formats you seem to be able to see the differences in lens output much more easily, at least for me anyway. I have a 150mm Goerz Dogmar that someone had coated and while it's a nice lens I much, much prefer my uncoated 165mm Rodenstock Eurynar. Of course flare can be a problem with the Eurynar, but when the scene is right the lens is all I could ask for. Let's just say, very nice. One lens I'd like to have for my 4X5 field camera is the Nikon 300mm M, which I will get later this summer.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I really like the "reach" the 300 M gives me with a roll-film back, comparable to the angle of view of a 450 lens provides on full 4x5 film. But that 300 M barely covers 8x10 format size; so I mostly use it for 6X9 and 4x5 instead. It's one of my favorite lenses in those cases. The majority of 4x5 petite folding "field cameras" can handle a 300mm plus bellows extension; but full 450 or more is mainly the domain of monorail designs, or else a few triple-extension folders (I use the Sinar system for that).

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, that's why I want the 300 M is for my 4X5 or 4X5 with roll film back. I got the 300mm range for the 8X10 covered with other lenses.