Kodak aerial anastigmat

SuXarik · Jul 14, 2015

Hello everyone.
Sometimes I can find a k-20 aerial fairchild camera lens on some online auctions. Like Kodak Anastigmat 4.5/161mm. I was wondering if this lenses are interesting for using them on 4x5 camera? Or let's say standard Kodak Ektar for Speed Graphic is better?

MDR · Jul 14, 2015

It depends on what you want to photograph Aero lenses were optimized for infinity. They are usually a bit faster than their purpose build LF Cousins. They also have drawbacks like no shutter, heavier. Pros they are often cheaper and can make nice Pictures if mounted on a Speed graphic with FP shutter. The Speed king and most desireable version these lenses is the Aero Ektar 2.8/7" see David Burnett's work for some examples. The 4.5 Version are no faster than their purpose build Lf lens cousins and don't really offer anything Special.

For General purpose photography the Standard Ektars are a better choice they are mounted/can be mounted in shutter and are not really expensive. The 7.7/203mm Ektar is a superb lens and the results are on par with many modern lenses. The Commercial Ektars are very good Tessars

SuXarik · Jul 14, 2015

MDR said:
It depends on what you want to photograph Aero lenses were optimized for infinity. They are usually a bit faster than their purpose build LF Cousins. They also have drawbacks like no shutter, heavier. Pros they are often cheaper and can make nice Pictures if mounted on a Speed graphic with FP shutter. The Speed king and most desireable version these lenses is the Aero Ektar 2.8/7" see David Burnett's work for some examples. The 4.5 Version are no faster than their purpose build Lf lens cousins and don't really offer anything Special.

For General purpose photography the Standard Ektars are a better choice they are mounted/can be mounted in shutter and are not really expensive. The 7.7/203mm Ektar is a superb lens and the results are on par with many modern lenses. The Commercial Ektars are very good Tessars

Thank You for explanation!

Dan Fromm · Jul 14, 2015

This link http://www.collection-appareils.fr/...repert=Graflex_K-20&marque=Graflex&modele=K20 will take you to a users' manual for the K-20.

Short answer, its lens is a perfectly ordinary 6 3/8"/4.5 Tessar type mounted in a leaf shutte intended to be cocked and triggered by the camera body.

MDR is right that there are better (= more cost-effective) ways to get a more-or-less normal lens for 4x5 in shutter, otherwise is badly mistaken.

The Ektar usually supplied with/found on 4x5 Graphics is 127/4.7. It is a normal lens for 3.25" x 4.25" and just covers 4x5. For general use a 152/4.5 Ektar is the better choice. At today's prices, however, a 150/5.6 plasmat type (convertible Symmar, for example) is probably an even better choice.

MDR · Jul 14, 2015

+1 to the plasmat camp the 210mm Symmars were the mainstay of the commercial studio photographer with the "hostile digital Takeover" of the Studio many lenses in that focal length are looking for a new home and are therefore cheap. They will beat all ektars for sharpness not necessarily charm but they are overall better lenses. Also normal focal length in the LF world is not equal to normal Fl in 35mm World 135mm to 210mm is considered normal for 4x5.

Dan Fromm · Jul 14, 2015

MDR, 4x5's diagonal is 150 mm +/-. By the usual convention, the format's normal focal length is 150 mm.

MDR · Jul 14, 2015

Dan you are of course right but we know that the diagonal isn't always identical with the normal/standard fl 45mm to 58mm is considered normal in 35mm world. The 150 is around 45mm 35 equivalent and the 210 around 62mm the 180 is around 52mm equivalent. In MP world it gets even weirder but you know that as well. Mathematically the 150 is the correct choice, aesthetically not always.

Dan Fromm · Jul 14, 2015

Um, er, ah, 35 mm still is squarely in the MP world, that's why it doesn't follow the usual convention.

MDR · Jul 14, 2015

Not to forget two focal length in one with anamorphic lenses

gzinsel · Jul 14, 2015

I like the ektars, I also like the plasmats. Tessars are different breed than plasmats, but all in all. It really doesn't make much difference at F22. are you get a little more coverage with the plasmats, the tessars are little bit more soft on the corners. but most of that goes away when stopped down. I dont really understand whats the big deal? between the two?

I mean . . . .just over my last vacation. I took along my Fujinon Gw690III and my Zeiss Ikon netter. A 5/4 over 3/3 . . . . . . . At f16. @9x13 print . . .. A little bit more contrast and a little sharper at the corners. so the winner is fujinon. But not by much. IMO whats make a good image is CONTENT, then light, maybe composition. sharpness of lens in kinda at the bottom.

gzinsel · Jul 14, 2015

o.k. so technically the fujinon 90mm f3.5 is NOT a 6/4 construction. but close enough≥

SuXarik · Jul 14, 2015

Damn! Just learn a lot more from one simple question)
Just a one more. I see than Kodak Aero-Ektar goes for huge amount of money. So it's it's not an evolution of this aerial anastigmat, but something entirely different? Or they simply just sooo good?

Dan Fromm · Jul 14, 2015

SuXarik said:
Damn! Just learn a lot more from one simple question)
Just a one more. I see than Kodak Aero-Ektar goes for huge amount of money. So it's it's not an evolution of this aerial anastigmat, but something entirely different? Or they simply just sooo good?

Not a garden variety tessar type. More complicated double Gauss type. Cult lens, too.

Kodak aerial anastigmat

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency