• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Hasselblad Ektar lenses... 80, 135, ...254mm?

MMfoto

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
523
Format
Super8
There is scarce information online about the Kodak Ektar lenses for the Hasselblad 1600f. Many people know about the 80/2.8 and its Heliar design. The 135mm is a little less common. But I cannot find anything but a quick reference to a 254mm f/5.6 (10 inch) Ektar for the Hasselblad. Does anyone have this lens or have a photo/illustration? I'm interested to know the optical formula as well. I found one possible reference that seemed to indicate it was a 5/3 design with a central, cemented triplet.

If anyone knows of an ancient website that I can pull up in the Internet Archive that would be appreciated as well.

Feel free to post random tidbits and generally discuss the Hasselblad Ektars in general. They are an intriguing corner of camera and optical history.
 

Thanks for those great links.

"I have a 2.8/80 Ektar. Mine is a Tessar type."

Is there more than one optical version of the 80mm Ektar? I thought they were all Heliar type/5 in 3, modified triplets?
 
Last edited:
I have never seen any 55 or 254 for the 1000f/1600f in any auction sites.
My 80mm is a Heliar, I checked when I serviced it. I found also mixed information ablut this lens whenever is Tessar or Heliar.
 
As mentioned, the 6.3/55 and 5.6/254 exist in prototype or very low numbers, as Hasselblad switched over to Carl Zeiss before these were put into production.

The 1st 2.8/80 was 5/3 construction, and the latter was a 4/3 construction with thorium doped glass. Both reportedly perform well.

I have only handled a 2.8/80, and I did not know which variant it was. I've never owned or used the Kodak lenses.

By comparison, the 1st Zeiss 2.8/80 Tessar was 4/3 construction, and the latter was the same 4/3 with thorium doped glass, I've had both. My early version was not good, but it's obviously miss aligned, so I need to put it on an optical bench. My second version was optically quite good, but it was also the most radioactive lens I've ever measured (!).
 
I had a 1000F with the 80 and 135 Ektars. They were superb. According to the Hasselblad history they switched to Zeiss because the Kodak lenses became too expensive. I also picked up an 80 Zeiss Tessar for the 1000F Hasselblad and I tested it against the Ektar and the Zeiss lost badly. It took the Zeiss Planar when the 500 series came out to approach the Ektar. The Heliar is a 5 element lens in 3 groups - 2-1-2 and the Tessar is 4 elements in 3 groups - 1-1-2. The Kodak Heliar was optimized for color at a time when Kodak construction and quality control was at the peak of the industry. For those who don't know, the Kodak lenses (and that early Tessar) will only mount on the 1600F and the 1000F cameras. That Kodak Heliar formula was also used for the Medalist and one of the enlarging lenses.
 

"The 1st 2.8/80 was 5/3 construction, and the latter was a 4/3 construction with thorium doped glass. Both reportedly perform well."

Just to be clear, you're referring just to the Ektar 80/2.8? So an early 5/3 Ektar and a later 4/3 Ektar?
 
OAPOli said:
@MMfoto I suppose there are? I've read first hand accounts that they were a Heliar or Tessar type. It make no sense to me.
Click to expand...

I'm confused as well. I'm surprised how poorly documented these Ektar's are considering how well Hasselblad is documented in general. Not to mention how well Commercial Ektar's are documented.
 
Alex Varas said:
I have never seen any 55 or 254 for the 1000f/1600f in any auction sites.
My 80mm is a Heliar, I checked when I serviced it. I found also mixed information ablut this lens whenever is Tessar or Heliar.
Click to expand...

Would you mind sharing the year code for your Ektar?

Was it difficult to service?
 
MMfoto said:
"The 1st 2.8/80 was 5/3 construction, and the latter was a 4/3 construction with thorium doped glass. Both reportedly perform well."

Just to be clear, you're referring just to the Ektar 80/2.8? So an early 5/3 Ektar and a later 4/3 Ektar?
Click to expand...
Yes, the Ektar came in 2 formulas before they discontinued it.
 
In case people don't know, Ektar' is a Kodak term for quality level, not for lens design. So Kodak had various 5/3 and 4/3 designs all called Ektar, meaning their highest quality, that's all.
 
OK, get your scales out. I found a reference on lens-db.com that says the 4 in 3 "Tessar" optical version of the EKTAR 80/2.8 weighs 265g. I weighed my ETxxx 1949 dated 80 Ektar (without caps). My kitchen scale says 264g. So presumably it's the 4/3 version.

The only image of a non "ET" date code lens I can find online is the "ES" dated lens on the first 1600f at Hasselblad's website. That lens looks significantly different, but it could have been a prototype.

Would love to see if anyone gets a different weight for their 80 Ektar.
 
Last edited:
My scale also shows 264g (+/- 2g). ET code from 1949.

You can check the optical configuration via the reflections in the front group. Close the diaphragm and shine a light. Four reflections = 2 elements. If there is an additional fainter reflection near the second you have a doublet in front.
 
itsdoable said:
The 1st 2.8/80 was 5/3 construction, and the latter was a 4/3 construction with thorium doped glass. Both reportedly perform well.
Click to expand...
I may have this backwards, I was just reading an article on a Japanese site about the 2.8/80 Ektars, and they mentioned that the 4/3 thorium doped 2.8/80 Ektar was built from 1941, and the 5/3 2.8/80 Ektar was built from 1948. The earlier 4/3 Ektar was considered the sharper, more expensive lens (Cost in no issue design), while the 5/3 was a modification of an old f3.5 lens that had a lot of over corrected spherical aberrations when expanded to f2.8, which was actually liked by the pictorialists of the time (and cheaper!). There are references to patents, Marco Cavina and Rick Nordin on the article.
 

I count 4 clean reflections in the front, and three behind the aperture (two strong, one weak). Must be a Tessar.
 
Digging through my archives, I've created this...


There is a "?" on fig-3 because Kodak's patent by Fred Altman showed 3 variation for the 3.5/135, so I just picked one. They were all 4/4 construction, but the double concave element was in either the 2nd or 3rd position.

For those interested, Marco Cavina has a nice article at nocsensei, it is in Italian, but that shouldn't be a problem these days with G-translate. It's a subscription site, but I believe this article is free.
 
@itsdoable

Thanks for posting that. If I'm reading everything correctly, there should be at least three versions of the 80/2.8 Ektar. The early/prototype (an unusual Tessar design with the second element behind the aperture), then a Heliar, and then a more traditional Tessar.

The 254mm is intriguing. Does anyone know of a production telephoto with a similar 1-3-1 formula?
 
No, the 1st Ektar 2.8/80 was the 4/3 thorium oxide doped expensive design, the second was the 5/3 design. There was no 3rd, as they switched to Zeiss.

Some Leitz Hektors use the 1-3-1 arrangement.
 
itsdoable said:
No, the 1st Ektar 2.8/80 was the 4/3 thorium oxide doped expensive design, the second was the 5/3 design. There was no 3rd, as they switched to Zeiss.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is I'm holding a 1949 80/2.8 Ektar which very much appears to be 1-1-2, 4/3, but not in the configuration of that 1941 Ektar diagram shown above.
 
MMfoto said:
The only problem with that is I'm holding a 1949 80/2.8 Ektar which very much appears to be 1-1-2, 4/3, but not in the configuration of that early Ektar diagram shown above.
Click to expand...

Ektar is a trade name, not a design type.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register