Ektar lenses

[hblad120]

I am in the process of putting together a lerge format (8x10) kit. With my other MF equipment I have always been partial to older lens designs and their looks.

For LF I am looking closely at the Kodak Ektar lenses. Is there a significant difference between the Ektar and Commercial Ektar lenses in the 10 to 14 inch range? What should I expect to pay for a lens in this range?

 

[Scott Peters]

Price? . Rumor has it that the Ektars do just fine on their own right.

 

[John Kasaian]

I am in the process of putting together a lerge format (8x10) kit. With my other MF equipment I have always been partial to older lens designs and their looks.

For LF I am looking closely at the Kodak Ektar lenses. Is there a significant difference between the Ektar and Commercial Ektar lenses in the 10 to 14 inch range? What should I expect to pay for a lens in this range?

FWIW I have two Ektars in my 8x10 stable: a 14" Commercial and a 10" Wide Field. They are very desireable IMHO. They open up wide for focusing (F/6.3) and do very well at larger apertures. On the minus side, these beauties are large and heavy by comparison to say a G Claron. I've never had a problem with the No.5 Universal shuttters but they are single action and require a "long throw" cable release like a Gepe.

IIRC i bought the 14" from Midwest Photo for under $500 and the 10" WF on Ebay for approx. $500. but this waas several years ago. I am I happy with them? You bet!

For a 10" alternative, you might consider a 240mm G Claron in a modern copal shutter. I think the going price is close for these lenses. Advantages are a small light lens (G Claron) with slightly less coverage at the expense of only opening up the f/9. Either lens is a winner on an 8x10 IMHO (I have both!) For a 14"er I don't think anything comes close to the Commercial Ektar for the performance & price except maybe the Congo and Ilex copies. 14" APO Artars are nice but are kind of limited on movements and I've noticed the 355 G Claron goes for much more money (the same with Dagors). The most interesting 14" alternatives on a budget I think would be the Ilex 375mm, the 14" Wollensak Velostigmat, the Wollensak triple convertible 1A (?) and the Congo. The Congo I think is still available as a new lens, but the Ilex and Wollensaks are way under-valued and can be excellent alternatives for the budget minded.

 

[Jim Jones]

The Commercial Ektar lenses from 8.5 to 14 inches were all Tessar designs, alike except for the focal length. Kodak doesn't recommend the 10" for 8x10, but it might suffice at small apertures and no front standard adjustments. Full aperture coverage for all the Commercial Ektars is advertised to be 53 degrees, and 64 degrees at small apertures. Since they are well known, you should expect to pay at least what they are worth.

 

[Scott Peters]

FWIW, $118 for a "14 Ektar vs. $310 and $400 for a 14" comm'l ektar sold on ebay. I am no expert, but told that comm'l ektars simply had more quality control steps/inspections - other than that same glass. There is a 16 1/2 coated Artar at midwest in an ilex 3 for $350 - can't go wrong with that. I own one and it is a fantastic lens.

 

[John Kasaian]

Jim is right about the 10" Commercial Ektar. If you want a 10" -er Ektar for an 8x10 look for the 10" /250mm Wide Field Ektar, which is not a tessar design but rather a gauss. Kodak also made a 190mm Wide Field Ektar (also a gauss)which reportedly covers 8x10 but without much in the way of wiggle room.

FWIW I got along just fine for years with just a single lens in my 8x10 kit---a 14" Commercial Ektar!

 

[Amund]

I have 12" Ilex Paragon that is supposed to be very similar to an Ektar, maybe those are an option as well? I like mine.
I also have a 16½ inch R.D Artar, fantastic lens.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've got a 14" Commercial Ektar, and a 12" Ektar F4.5 . The 12" will cover 8x10, even at infinity, wide open, but it was intended as a portrait lens for 5x7. Both lenses are huge hogs, but they produce beautiful images. The 14" Commercial Ektar should be in just about everyone's 8x10 kit, IMHO. It produces excellent images for either b/w or color. Most of the 8x10 work I have posted in my gallery was done with my 14". There may have been a difference in QC between the regular Ektars and the Commercial Ektars - it is a hair-splitting difference if there was one, as in the 1940s-1960s (the production life of the Kodak LF lenses), Kodak was a top of the line lens maker, perhaps the best in the world in its day. These lenses have earned their reputation, justifiably. None of them are cheap, as a result - Commercial Ektars go for about $300 (in fair to poor condition) to $600+ for collector condition. Even the regular Ektars go in the $250-500 range, depending on who's bidding on them and who's selling them. Lens and Repro in New York usually has a few in stock at any moment, but their prices are high, as their lenses tend to run toward the higher end of the condition spectrum.

Then there are specialty lenses like the 305mm F4.3 Portrait Ektar - you'll sometimes see it as an F4.8 Portrait Ektar - it is the same lens, but the 4.8 spec is for it in a shutter (also an Ilex #5). In barrel, it is an f4.3 .

 

[MarkS]

The name "Ektar" was Kodak's signifier for their top-quality lenses- the name does not refer to one optical design. The f/6.3 lenses were called "Commercial Ektars", the f/4.5s were plain Ektars. There were no quality-control differences, and both are 4-element Tessar-formula lenses. You can't go wrong either way. The Wide-Field Ektars are f/6.3, 4-element lenses, but designed for 80 degrees coverage, against the standard lenses' 60 degrees. Also fine lenses.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The Kodak Ektar series was not the most innovative range of lens designs but they were the most refined. Put simply Kodak took well established lens designs with good reputations and made them better! They are universally excellent - just make sure that you get one that covers the format!

Hope this helps,

Lachlan

 

[phfitz]

Hi there,

"The Kodak Ektar series was not the most innovative range of lens designs but they were the most refined. Put simply Kodak took well established lens designs with good reputations and made them better! They are universally excellent - just make sure that you get one that covers the format!"

Kodak Ektars are now 40+ years old, the only problems I've seen are rub marks to the coating OR rear element seperation starting. Just look for a clean one, there are literally 10,000s of them to pick from.

Good luck with it.

PS. there is a very good reason Hasselblad started with Kodak Ektars.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The Kodak Ektar series was not the most innovative range of lens designs but they were the most refined. Put simply Kodak took well established lens designs with good reputations and made them better! They are universally excellent - just make sure that you get one that covers the format!

Hope this helps,

Lachlan

Um, er, ah, Lachlan, I beg to differ. Not about the quality of Ektar lenses but about their, um, copycat nature.

Go learn about Cine Ektars. Some of them were new designs, not old ones perfected.

And read the patent for a more or less symmetrical 5/3 lens that would appear to be a heliar type and that made it to production as 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars, the 63/8 Microfile Ektar, and the celebrated 100/3.5 and 105/3.7 Ektars. You'll see that that family of designs isn't quite a heliar knock-off.

The various fast Aero-Ektars were new designs that took advantage of new glasses. Kodak-developed glass, of course.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[vet173]

If your going to get one you might want to look for one with the L in a circle, indicating a coated lens. I have had an 8 1/2 in Ektar comercial, and a 10 in wide field. Both were excellent. The front of the 8 1/2 looked like someone missed the front with the metal lens cap for years, and was still tack sharp.

 

[JLP]

Know that the tread was about 8x10 but perhpas someone can tell me if a #5 shutter (12" Ektar) will fit a 4x5 lens plate or 5x7 is the smallest it will go on. Was meant as a portrait lens for the 4x5
Thanks

 

[Amund]

That really depends on wich size your 4x5 lens board is, what camera are you using?

 

[JLP]

It's a Shen Hao which i believe is 4x4?

 

[Ole]

The Shen-Hao uses Technika-size boards, doesn't it?
If so, there's no chance of a #5 shutter fitting the board without some very imaginative adapters. A Compound #5 shutter will barely fit on a 6x6" board!

 

[Amund]

As the Shen-Hao uses Technica-sized lensboards I don`t think it will fit at all.
I have a 12" Ilex Paragon in a #4 shuttter, and while the shutter technically will just fit on the lensboard, the shutter will interfere with the front standard.
A #5 shutter will be even larger, and will probaly not fit the Shen lens board....

 

[Amund]

Yep, Ole said it.

 

[JLP]

Yes, i believe it is a Technica board so i should perhpas look at something in a #4 as a max size.

Thanks

jan

 

[JLP]

Or, if a #4 also is to large a bigger camera!

 

[removed account4]

SNIP

The most interesting 14" alternatives on a budget I think would be the Ilex 375mm, the 14" Wollensak Velostigmat, the Wollensak triple convertible 1A (?) and the Congo.

i have a wollensak velostigmat triple ( 13.5, 20, 25 ) in a betax shutter. great lens on a budget ... if i were to do it again, i would no questions asked ..

 

[Ole]

Yes, i believe it is a Technica board so i should perhpas look at something in a #4 as a max size.

Better yet a #3. I don't have a Technika-board camera anymore, but I do have lenses in #3, #4 and #5. The Compound #3 is the largest shutter that can fit on a Technika board.

 

[joneil]

Not all #5 shutters will fit easily on all cameras. Depends on weight, size of lens, etc. for example, one lens I have in a #5 shutter, I fint th elens itself a wee bit too heavy for my Tachihara extended all the way out. also, on my Super Speed Graphic, the lensboard there is very slightly recessed, just enought to jam up getting at the iris stop.

However, on my Crown Graphic, or my Graphic View monorail - not a single issue, works just fine. I guess that one reason why I have more than one - 4x5 camera.

Back to Ektar lenses, as a general rule, excellent. You will run into some issues, so look before you leap. These problems gnerally are:

1) excessive cleaning - I've seen many wonderful Ektar lenses near ruined by people who used them so much and litterally scrubbed the lens surface to ruin;

2) Shutters. Usually the Supermatic, Ilex and Wollensak shutters provided with these lenses were pretty good, but agian, years of use and abuse - just simply too many miles.

3) Image circle to small. The 127mm Ektar is a prime example. Coverage on Ektar lenses is pretty good, fantasic on the WF Ektars, but with the 127, it was made originally for 3x4 or 120 format size, but hte image circle was soo good it barely covered 4x5, so it used used on mnay press cameras for 4x5. I've seen the same sort of thing on larger formats, the lens designated to cover 8x10 might barely do so, becuase maybe it was originally designed to cover 5x7 with movements.

4) overpriced sometimes. I've seen 135mm WF Ektars sell for more on Ebay than a good used 135mm Rodenstock Sironar - N or S. That's exactly why I sold my 135mm WF Ektar and bought a new 135mm Sironar.

good luck

joe