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

[MMfoto]

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.

 

[OAPOli]

As far I know, the 254mm and 55mm lenses were only made as prototypes.

The 55mm is especially weird; it could only be used with the mirror up. But the early F cameras didn't have that capability...

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

Brochure here: http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/PDF/Brochures/1600FSpiral.pdf

Test here: https://www.photomeeting.de/1000F/US_Camera_Jan1949.pdf

 

[MMfoto]

As far I know, the 254mm and 55mm lenses were only made as prototypes.

The 55mm is especially weird; it could only be used with the mirror up. But the early F cameras didn't have that capability...

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

Brochure here: http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/PDF/Brochures/1600FSpiral.pdf

Test here: https://www.photomeeting.de/1000F/US_Camera_Jan1949.pdf

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?

 

[OAPOli]

@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.

 

[Alex Varas]

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.

 

[itsdoable]

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 (!).

 

[outwest]

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.

 

[MMfoto]

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 (!).

"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?

 

[MMfoto]

@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.

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.

 

[MMfoto]

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.

Would you mind sharing the year code for your Ektar?

Was it difficult to service?

 

[itsdoable]

"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?

Yes, the Ektar came in 2 formulas before they discontinued it.

 

[Dan Daniel]

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.