Did Kodak Put It's Ektar Lenses On Anything But the Retinas?

[gone]

I love the 50 3.5 Ektar lenses on the Kodak Retinas, but I don't love the Retinas. Very fragile and easy to break, and very difficult and expensive to fix. Did Kodak put a similar lens on any of their other 35mm cameras? I know about the little Signet 35 w/ the 44 Ektar. Any others? The Signet may work, but it looks as quirky as a Retina. Since it doesn't fold up it may be less fragile though.

 

[lxdude]

I think that the original Hasselblads used Ektar lenses.

 

[gone]

Ah, I should have stipulated 35mm cameras. Thanks for the info though lxdude, I'll edit my post.

 

[summicron1]

They used the name on some point and shoot cameras later. The Medalist, which is a 620 film camera, uses an Ektar. The Ektar was also available as a large format camera lens. And I suspect the Kodak Ektra had one.

 

[elekm]

Ektar was a brand name that didn't signify anything. It wasn't a lens design.

As I recall, there were Ektars on some point and shoots.

Leafing through my Kodak book, it looks like the only other Ektar for 35mm was on the Ektra. Probably more than you want to pay.

And of course there are the medium format Ektars on the Medalist and Chevron - different designs.

 

[gone]

Actually, it does signify something, to me anyway. It signifies excellent optics. Kodak used that designation on only it's best lenses, and I have never been disappointed with any piece of glass that said Ektar on it. I understand it isn't a particular design like Heliar or Tessar.

Yep Mike, the Ektra camera will not be a recent purchase of mine, although I don't doubt that it would make great images. Looks like it will have to be the Signet 35 then. They're dirt cheap too. I'm afraid it will be too small for my hands, but may as well buy one and see.

 

[Tom1956]

All my enlarging lenses are Ektars, probably of the Tessar-type design. I'm happy.

 

[chip j]

All my enlarging lenses are Ektars, probably of the Tessar-type design. I'm happy.

Ctein {"Post-Exposure" book} rated the Computar DL 55mm 1.9 as the best enlarging lens ever(35mm format}. And the people that designed the Computar said the enlarging Ektars were the only goo d lenses around when they started to design theirs.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Oh, there definitely are Retinas with Ektar lenses.
But they're only good if the camera hasn't been too mistreated. And they often are

I love Ektars. Especially the 5-element heliar variants used on the Medalist.
The Ektar on the Signet 35 is the one I had the most trouble getting to grips with, but this was mainly down to an iffy shutter and user-error.

The Signet 35's Synchro Shutter is also pretty limited in my opinion and rather sensitive to dust. The shutters on the retina's certainly are more reliable.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Ektar was used on some of the Bantam cameras, they use 828 which is un-perforated 35mm roll film later repackaged as 126. The Ektars were also used on the better Instamatics.

Ian

 

[AgX]

I am confused. I just learned that there had been "Ektar" lenses on Retinas anyway.
Part of them rebranded versions of Schneider lenses I know.
Part of them Kodak made lenses. I do not know of Kodak manufacturing complex lenses in Germany. Thus Kodak imported their german bodies into the US and fitted them there with their own Ektar lenses?

 

[lxdude]

The Ektar was used on some of the Bantam cameras, they use 828 which is un-perforated 35mm roll film later repackaged as 126.

Yep. I forgot earlier that my Bantam has an Ektar.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's no common feature/design to Ektars, any of Kodaks Anastigmats were rebranded as Ektar when coating was introduced, although there were some uncoated Ektars before that. They were made by various companies including Kodak themselves.

Ian

 

[BMbikerider]

They also had a number of large format lenses named 'Ektar' and the famed SAV Carousel slide projectors all used Ektar lenses

 

[Dan Fromm]

All my enlarging lenses are Ektars, probably of the Tessar-type design. I'm happy.

Not necessarily. The 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars are heliar types, the 100/4.5 is a dialyte. See Dead Link Removed

 

[Dan Fromm]

I do not know of Kodak manufacturing complex lenses in Germany. Thus Kodak imported their german bodies into the US and fitted them there with their own Ektar lenses?

Kodak owned Nagel. Nagel made, among other cameras, Kodak Retinas. Most of the Ektars fitted to Retinas were rebadged Xenars, but some type 011 Retina IIs were fitted with a 47/2 Ektar (6/4 double Gauss type, I think) made in Rochester. All cameras were assembled in Stuttgart.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ctein {"Post-Exposure" book} rated the Computar DL 55mm 1.9 as the best enlarging lens ever(35mm format}.

I didn't remember that comment, so I checked and couldn't find it. Ctein recommended the 105/5.6 Apo El Nikkor above all other lenses for enlarging 35 mm.

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodak owned Nagel. Nagel made, among other cameras, Kodak Retinas. Most of the Ektars fitted to Retinas were rebadged Xenars, but some type 011 Retina IIs were fitted with a 47/2 Ektar (6/4 double Gauss type, I think) made in Rochester. All cameras were assembled in Stuttgart.

It's interesting that while Nagel was independent they didn't use Zeiss lenses instead using Schneider, presumably there was bad blood between Nagel and Zeiss. This seems to have boosted Schneider's importance as a leading lens manufacturer. Once Kodak took over Nagel the cameras began using Zeiss lenses as well.

Ian

 

[elekm]

The medium format Ektars weren't the same design. The one on the Medalist I and II are five elements, while the Ektar on the Chevron is a four-element Tessar type. The Ektar was just a brand name and didn't represent a specific lens design, such as a Sonnar, Planar, Tessar, etc.

Kodak used a variation of that name, producing lots of cameras with Ektanar lenses.

 

[elekm]

There are Kodak (Nagel) cameras with Zeiss lenses. I have a Vollenda Type 48 (VP 127) with a Tessar and a Vollenda 620 (6x4.5 and 6x9) also with Tessars. However, these are Kodak AG products and not the ones that are pre-Kodak, and I think Ian is right that pre-Kodak Nagels did not carry Zeiss lenses.

I believe the story is that August Nagel was a former Zeiss employee who left and formed his own company after a disagreement with Zeiss. I can't recall what the disagreement was, but I recall reading that the split was acrimonious. I have to do some digging to find the article.

The Retina Type 126 (the fourth Retina model) was the first to offer an array of lens options, including a Tessar, a Xenar, an Alcor, a Ysar and an Angineux, in addition to the Ektar for U.S. markets. My little Petersen's Retina guide says all prewar Kodak Ektar lenses (for the Retina) were manufactured by Schneider-Kreuznach.

 

[Peltigera]

Nagel owned one of the four companies (Contessa) that merged to form Zeiss Ikon in 1926. He left because he was made into a director instead of being allowed to be a designer. He sold his new company to Kodak as he was a brilliant designer (of cars as well as cameras) but was no good at running businesses.

 

[gone]

It's easy to tell the fake Retina Ektars from the real ones. The fake ones look just like the Schneider lenses because....they are! They simply renamed them on the front. The Ektars (real) have a wide silver front to them and use the Kodak "camerosity" way of identification. I understand that they did this because they were having a harder time selling the non Ektar lensed cameras and the Ektar lenses were in short supply (not that the Xenar is a bad lens), so they simply renamed the Xenars to give people what they wanted. Sorta. I've owned Retina Ia cameras w/ the 50 Xenar lens and the real 50 Ektar, and there is no comparison. While the Xenar is a perfectly capable lens and makes lovely images, the Ektar is sharper by far and exhibits Heliar type 3-D imaging. Zeiss sharpness w/ Leica 3-D look. Very nice!

The Ektanar was a 3 element lens if I remember correctly. Not in the same league as a Retina Ektar. They used the Ektanar on the later Signets. Mr. Flibble's comments about the Signet shutter are what have kept me from buying one so far. That and the odd design and it's tiny size. Looks like it would be hard to hold properly for an adult. I found the following link helpful.

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_lenses

 

[Dan Fromm]

Folks, camerapedia is filled with misinformation. Filled. If you want to know about EKCo lenses, get the information from Brian Wallen's site Dead Link Removed . Brian's information comes straight from EKCo data sheets.

 

[dynachrome]

I have at least one of the Computar enlarging lenses. Some of them look suspiciously like lenses marketed under the Beseler name. Almost all of the ones I have seen in recent years have some kind of discoloration of the cement between the elements. There was a good article somewhere, Shutterbug I think, about usng the various Computar lenses on bellows units for macro work.

 

[Ian Grant]

Folks, camerapedia is filled with misinformation. Filled. If you want to know about EKCo lenses, get the information from Brian Wallen's site Dead Link Removed . Brian's information comes straight from EKCo data sheets.

Personally I hate that camerapedia site the camera-wiki.org one is bit better.

Brian's site is excellent but only covers EKCo and Kodak made cameras elsewhere with different lenses and shutters, so I have UK made lenses Ektars and Anastigmats in #0 compatible shutters, Epsilon, Prontor & Compur (Mount 370), the cells won't fit the Supermatics etc used for the same lenses sold by EKCo in the US.

But perhaps more importantly people aren't realising that Ektar lenses vary enormously in terms of design and quality so some comparisons aren't particularly useful.

Ian