36" and 48" inch Ektars images?

[MMfoto]

Anyone have pictures of either of these lenses?: 36-inch f/6 Aero-Ektar, a 48" f/6 Aero Ektar, or a Kodak Special Ektar 48" f/6.3(?)

Ever seen any of these?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Anyone have pictures of either of these lenses?: 36-inch f/6 Aero-Ektar, a 48" f/6 Aero Ektar, or a Kodak Special Ektar 48" f/6.3(?)

Ever seen any of these?

I've seen 'em -- I'm pretty sure I used to have the 36 inch, in a HUGE light-alloy cone -- and I think they were designed to cover 9x9 or 10x10 inch aerial film at infinity only. I'm also reasonably confident that they use 'hot' radioactive glass and tend to yellow a lot, reducing transmission by a stop or more (and giving a really useful yellow filter). From memory, the lens itself was 8-9 inches in diameter. But this is all vague memories of maybe 30 years ago when these things were readily available, cheap.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JG Motamedi]

Yes, I have seen them. Think big. REALLY BIG. In fact, so big you probably can't find a camera to hold them. An interesting conversation piece or barn-door stop, but not much more, unless you are looking to outfit a spy-plane.

 

[John Bartley]

Just to give you an idea how big they "might" be, here's a 20" Ross, F6.3 aero camera lens mounted on an Agfa 8x10. There's not much room left for any more lens ...

cheers

 

[ejschwarzjr]

I have the EK 36f8 Telephoto (RM1182) for 9x18, it even has a single speed shutter and aperature. Just put it on the scale, weighs about 21 pounds. The shutter is about 9" in dia. with the outer edge covered in felt. Looks like it was made to be mounted inside some sort of hollow tube mount. I bought it to try on a Argyle 24 graphic camera. Another project sitting in storage.

 

[jd callow]

I've seen 'em -- I'm pretty sure I used to have the 36 inch, in a HUGE light-alloy cone -- and I think they were designed to cover 9x9 or 10x10 inch aerial film at infinity only. I'm also reasonably confident that they use 'hot' radioactive glass and tend to yellow a lot, reducing transmission by a stop or more (and giving a really useful yellow filter). From memory, the lens itself was 8-9 inches in diameter. But this is all vague memories of maybe 30 years ago when these things were readily available, cheap.

Cheers,

R.

If it covers 10x10 at infinity, would it not cover a greater area at less than infinity or have i got it backward?

 

[scootermm]

If it covers 10x10 at infinity, would it not cover a greater area at less than infinity or have i got it backward?

Correct JD
in all likelyhood I imagine it will cover MUCH more than 10x10. As with most manufacturers, the useable coverage is usually much more than stated.
Recently I've been shooting 12x20 night-time scenes with a 405mm Soft Focus Portrait lens and it covers substantially - actually havent run out of "useable" coverage with the full movements on my 12x20 F&S. Granted this is for contact printing so the sharpness requirements are far less than would be required for aerial shooting.
Just an FYI based on my limited experience.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If it covers 10x10 at infinity, would it not cover a greater area at less than infinity...?

Yes it would. The only question is how the correction would hold up: I suspect it might deteriorate quite rapidly as you focused closer. And I'm not kidding about the yellowing: you might well have lost a stop or more by now.

Edit: Admittedly, as noted in the previous post, this might be completely irrelevant for many kinds of photography other than aerial mapping...

Cheers,

R.

 

[MMfoto]

Here's a photo I just dug up from my 24" f/6 Aero-Ektar I just sold with 35mm camera for size comparison.

 

[Kino]

How about a B&L 40 inch (1016mm) f5.6? I have no clue what it serviced...

 

[MMfoto]

That is one big lens Kino.

 

[Kino]

That is one big lens Kino.

Yes, it is not a retro focus design either, so you have to "walk to" the aperture ring to set it!

One of these days, I'll figure out the image circle size and find something to do with it.

 

[RoBBo]

Yes, it is not a retro focus design either, so you have to "walk to" the aperture ring to set it!

One of these days, I'll figure out the image circle size and find something to do with it.

Using a 30" Artar at a little less than 1:1 is about the same experience.
Actually is really fun to work with on an old studio camera, since the beast takes up so much space, climbing over it to do your movements and recomposing. It feels a little ridiculous but it's a really satisfying thing, a real machine instead of just some silly little camera.