How to mount LF Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm to MF Pentax 67 or Mamiya RZ67?

[moodlover]

I am interested in figuring out how to mount the Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm 7" f/2.5 to one of my medium format cameras either the Pentax 67 or [preferably] the Mamiya RZ67.

I found this on Flickr by Oleg Pavlyuchenkov who has done this with a Pentax 67:

From Flickr by Oleg Pavlyuchenkov

Then I have found someone else on Flickr by the name of Diego Ruiz who shows the lens on the Pentax 67 but not much info is provided about how exactly besides the use of an extension tube (which I have all 3 for this camera):

From Flickr by Diego Sevilla Ruiz

Any idea if this requires a custom modification and custom parts building, or can I do this with things I can buy online?

I know nothing about this lens or how it works other than the fact that I've dreamt about it for ages and finally want to buy one. I find the workflow of a large format camera a little too slow for me right now so if anyone has any advice on how this can be achieved, and possible downfalls/issues with focusing/mounting/using flash with it, I would really appreciate it!

 

[Dan Fromm]

You are so ignorant that you'll hurt yourself. The lens is not in shutter. Mamiya RB/RZ cameras use lenses in shutter, don't have focal plane shutters. 6x7 Pentaxes have focal plane shutters so the lens can be used on one of them with adapters. Custom adapters.

 

[moodlover]

Yes I realize I am a little ahead of myself here hence me asking about it online before making any moves. No need to be mean.

I found a video on YouTube that shows someone who has done this as well but his adapter costs $1000 which could just be used to buy a 4x5 system hah:

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not mean, honest. You need to be brought to reality before you make really stupid expenditures.

 

[moodlover]

Not mean, honest. You need to be brought to reality before you make really stupid expenditures.

Thats why this forum exists, so the ones who don't know can ask questions to those who do know. I don't agree that it's a "stupid expenditure". It was only a question of how I can replicate what I've seen someone else do, and wondered what the issues may be. I never said I've bought every part and that I'm ready to super glue them together. I don't even own the lens yet.

Maybe you haven't learned this in your long time here, but you can educate someone without spewing your rude attitude on them. Like "hey moodlover, I don't think that's a good idea because certain bodies are not capable of supporting this lens or vice versa." See how easy that was? Calling people ignorant and their questions/ideas stupid is totally unnecessary. Says more about you than me. I know you mean well, but how you present your words is very poor.

 

[nsurit]

Good question. It would be interesting to know what the adapter is in the youtube video. I have one adapted to a speed graphic. SK Grimes can make an adapter or there is a company JOLO that makes one. Although the P67 is a beast, I'm thinking it would be easier to work with than the speed graphic. Bill Barber

 

[shutterfinger]

This is what A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum has to say about the Aero Ektar:
Aero-Ektar f2.5 made in 7in (177.9mm) for 5x5 from 1942-1944 approx.,and 12in (305mm) for 9x9 approx.
Layout Kod003. Glasses 5+6 seem to be thoriated. The 7in was made in enormous numbers, and is quite
common at Fairs, and is a really sharp lens, but rather heavy and bulky. The new glass gives it a brown colour
and it shoots as about f3.0 max. Original lenses have the name, filter and cap mounted on a front ring, easily
removed by loosening a locking screw, and the whole lens was on a stubby cone: the complete item is much
scarcer as they were usually remounted for 35mm or 56x56mm use, the latter being more successful. The
name ring was usually removed for this and this may seem a pity now. The back focus is good, but too small
for most 6x9cm reflexes at infinity.

This is the lens diagram

The aperture is at the arrow arms which show the direction of light travel. Finding a shutter thin enough to fit in place of the aperture maintaining the element spacing will likely be impossible or close to it. Front mounting onto a shutter is possible.

This is the extent of my knowledge. How to do it was likely available in the early to mid 1950's.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thats why this forum exists, so the ones who don't know can ask questions to those who do know. I don't agree that it's a "stupid expenditure". It was only a question of how I can replicate what I've seen someone else do, and wondered what the issues may be. I never said I've bought every part and that I'm ready to super glue them together. I don't even own the lens yet.

Maybe you haven't learned this in your long time here, but you can educate someone without spewing your rude attitude on them. Like "hey moodlover, I don't think that's a good idea because certain bodies are not capable of supporting this lens or vice versa." See how easy that was? Calling people ignorant and their questions/ideas stupid is totally unnecessary. Says more about you than me. I know you mean well, but how you present your words is very poor.

You were born naked and ignorant, just like everyone else, The questions you asked indicate that, at least with respect to putting an aerial camera lens to use, you still don't know anything. As you've said, you don't know much. In a word, you're ignorant.

So far I've adapted seven aerial cameras for use on Speed Graphics, have tested one more on a Nikon and rejected it as not worth the trouble of adapting, and have had five others that were completely unusable for a variety of reasons.

For a P67, all you need is a focusing mount -- if I were going to hang a lens in front of a P67 I'd look into a bellows -- and an adapter with a male P67 mount on one end and the other end with female threads to accept the lens. No diaphragm automation, no metering at full aperture. For a view camera with a behind the lens shutter, all you need is a lens board with a flange that will accept the lens. These are the obvious solutions, I've implemented others.

I've already told you why an RB/RZ won't do. I've already told you that a Speed Graphic is a solution to your problem. Bill Barber echoed my advice about Graphics. Bill, the OP asked much the same question in the LF section. I've directed you to books and to links to sources of information. That's all the responses you've got. Stop squealing and use what I gave you.

Bill, the adapter in the video looks like a P67 lens barrel with the lens elements removed. What's left is a focusing helical that's threaded internally to accept the lens. Note that it has an aperture scale, there's a hint that a lens was sacrificed to make it. Presumably the maker cut threads in the barrel or put in an internally threaded bushing. There are many ways to collimate the lens to the body so that when the helical says "infinity" the lens is focused at infinity. I'm not sure that was done here, but its fairly simple to do. I don't think there's a 180 in the P67 system -- could be mistaken. If there isn't, the barrel's focusing scale is probably wrong for the lens. Again, making a new correct distance scale isn't a huge job..

OP, if you knew enough you'd have understood what was involved. $1k for the adapter is outrageous, if you want to do it discuss with the bright guys at SKGrimes.

 

[paul ewins]

The important dimensions are as follows: The rear of the AE is around 74mm in diameter and (at a guess) would be 76.2mm/3" at the threads, while the inside of the P67 mount is around 72mm so you will need only a slight taper on the adapter that mounts to the AE. Looking at the spacing for the screws that hold the P67 lens mount you might even get away with a straight tube. At infinity, the distance from the rear of the AE to the ground glass on my Speed Graphic is 125mm while the register distance of the P67 is 84.95mm so there is 40mm to work with, more if you don't care about infinity focus. The P67 helicoid (or hericoid if you get the misspelled version) adapter is 32mm thick so that gives you 8mm to play with which should be just enough thickness for the mounting screws on the bayonet and a couple of mm clearance for the back of the lens .

To summarise, you will probably need a custom made tube around 90mm in external diameter and around 75mm internal diameter, threaded at one end for the AE. At the other end of this a P67 lens mount is attached, so that (ideally) there is no more than 8mm between the back of the lens and the the side of the lens mount closest to the lens. This then bayonets on to the helicoid adapter (which will allow you to focus the lens) and in turn to the P67.

 

[moodlover]

Good question. It would be interesting to know what the adapter is in the youtube video. I have one adapted to a speed graphic. SK Grimes can make an adapter or there is a company JOLO that makes one. Although the P67 is a beast, I'm thinking it would be easier to work with than the speed graphic. Bill Barber

Well I rewatched it and he says the name which links to his Facebook page "The Bokeh Factory". Roughly $1000 for the adapter which I would rather just use for a new 4x5 system!

 

[moodlover]

This is what A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum has to say about the Aero Ektar:
Aero-Ektar f2.5 made in 7in (177.9mm) for 5x5 from 1942-1944 approx.,and 12in (305mm) for 9x9 approx.
Layout Kod003. Glasses 5+6 seem to be thoriated. The 7in was made in enormous numbers, and is quite
common at Fairs, and is a really sharp lens, but rather heavy and bulky. The new glass gives it a brown colour
and it shoots as about f3.0 max. Original lenses have the name, filter and cap mounted on a front ring, easily
removed by loosening a locking screw, and the whole lens was on a stubby cone: the complete item is much
scarcer as they were usually remounted for 35mm or 56x56mm use, the latter being more successful. The
name ring was usually removed for this and this may seem a pity now. The back focus is good, but too small
for most 6x9cm reflexes at infinity.

The aperture is at the arrow arms which show the direction of light travel. Finding a shutter thin enough to fit in place of the aperture maintaining the element spacing will likely be impossible or close to it. Front mounting onto a shutter is possible.

This is the extent of my knowledge. How to do it was likely available in the early to mid 1950's.

Thanks for all the info, very cool to read! I see this is a difficult task so I'm not going to go too crazy over it. I will probably just move into buying a Speed Graphic soon.

 

[moodlover]

To summarise, you will probably need a custom made tube around 90mm in external diameter and around 75mm internal diameter, threaded at one end for the AE. At the other end of this a P67 lens mount is attached, so that (ideally) there is no more than 8mm between the back of the lens and the the side of the lens mount closest to the lens. This then bayonets on to the helicoid adapter (which will allow you to focus the lens) and in turn to the P67.

Yes this is what it roughly looks like, thanks for the input.

 

[moodlover]

You were born naked and ignorant, just like everyone else, The questions you asked indicate that, at least with respect to putting an aerial camera lens to use, you still don't know anything. As you've said, you don't know much. In a word, you're ignorant.

Look man, you know your stuff, congratulations. But please drop the holier-than-thou attitude. I will block you from here on out so please don't bother "contributing" to my threads anymore since you have to belittle people who know less than you every time you post. Have a good one.

 

[MattKing]

Dan is blunt. He absolutely refuses to mince words.
But I think you misunderstand him. He isn't using "ignorant" as a pejorative. He is saying you lack knowledge.
I would have said things like this much more gently, but like as not I wouldn't be nearly as clear as Dan almost always is.
It is probably not a good idea to ignore Dan. It is a really good idea to expect nothing other than brutal clarity from Dan.

 

[paul ewins]

Now having got the technical aspects out of the way, I've got to say that that first image is not what I would expect from an Aero Ektar. That looks like an extreme case of the Petzval swirlies, whereas an AE should just give very shallow DoF. I'm even more confused by the bottom right corner where the effect seems to have gone missing. I rather suspect that the model was shot with an AE while the background is something else again that has been hit with the radial blur filter before being layered together.

 

[moodlover]

Now having got the technical aspects out of the way, I've got to say that that first image is not what I would expect from an Aero Ektar. That looks like an extreme case of the Petzval swirlies, whereas an AE should just give very shallow DoF. I'm even more confused by the bottom right corner where the effect seems to have gone missing. I rather suspect that the model was shot with an AE while the background is something else again that has been hit with the radial blur filter before being layered together.

I thought the same thing! I am confused as well. Very good eye. I think I will actually not bother trying to do this with the P67 and instead just invest into doing it the proper way!

 

[shutterfinger]

The image in post 1 is soft focused and possibly photoshopped.
Mood go to https://graflex.org/helpboard/, click on Search, put David Burnett in the search term box and select Search for All The Terms
You will get 15 results related to the Aero Ektar and its use on Graflex cameras.
http://www.davidburnett.com/