KODAK ANASTIGMAT

[anthonym3]

I have bought a 4x5 field camera body and I have a 126 mm f 4.5 KODAK ANASTIGMAT from a MONITOR 616. Is it usable for 4x5?

 

[ciniframe]

I use a 130mm f7.7 Kodak Anastigmat from a similar camera format (5 in. diagonal) and, while it won't do any shifts, it covers 4x5 without too much falloff. Of course the best answer it to 'try it out.'

 

[anthonym3]

I use a 130mm f7.7 Kodak Anastigmat from a similar camera format (5 in. diagonal) and, while it won't do any shifts, it covers 4x5 without too much falloff. Of course the best answer it to 'try it out.'

 

[anthonym3]

Thank you I will try it .I have not used this lens,what is the quality?

 

[ciniframe]

Kodak made some very high quality lenses. Some of the best of their time. At least the 4 element Ektars were well regarded. They also made quite ordinary lenses too. However a f4.5 will offer more even illumination stopped down anyway. try shooting at f11 or f16 for best performance. As always, predicting performance on a 60~70 year old lens is not possible. The proof will be demonstrated by the results...and your own standards.

 

[shutterfinger]

Camerapedia states its likely a 4 element tessar type. The 616 format is 2 1/2 X 4 1/4 for a diagonal of 125mm; 4 X 5 is 162.6mm (format diagonal).
It likely just covers the designed format.

 

[ciniframe]

Right now I'm messing about with plus diopter close up lenses on 4X5. Stopped down to near pinhole values they are not too bad, relative to their price at least.

 

[Ian Grant]

Even the 135mm Xenars and Tessars have poor coverage for 5x4 there's little room for movements and they need to be used at f22 if you need edge and corner sharpness. That's from practical experience. The coated 150mm Tessars (CZJ) and Xenars are great lenses and can be found at budget prices, the only coated Kodak LF lens sold (and made) in the UK was the 203mm f7.7 Ektar they are superb optically, they can be found at reasonable prices, I'm on my fifth

Ian

 

[anthonym3]

Since it will not cover 4x5 and I have no use for it I would give it away if anyone might want it.

 

[removedacct1]

Anthony,
The Kodak Anastigmats are very nice lenses, but compared to the "lumenized" (coated) Kodak Ektars that followed, they are a bit soft on contrast. That's not necessarily a bad thing - in fact, I find it an ideal match for wet plate collodion work, as it is a good match for the contrast of that process. I personally use a Kodak Anastigmat #31, 5.5" (140mm) for my 4x5 tintype work, and it performs quite well. However, it doesn't allow for movements, and unless stopped down, the corners are a bit soft. If you were to seek out a good lens for your 4x5, I suggest you consider the 203mm Kodak Ektar lens. Its very sharp, has nice contrast, and is very small/compact. It is regarded by many as being one of the best 4x5 lenses ever crafted. It offers coverage up to 5x7 and so it allows for plenty of movements, if needed.

 

[anthonym3]

I don't know if the 203 would suffice for landscapes which is what I am going to use the camera for. I'm new to LF and would like to learn which focal lengths are best for landscapes. I have read 90 to 150 mm on various websites and forums.

 

[removedacct1]

I don't know if the 203 would suffice for landscapes which is what I am going to use the camera for. I'm new to LF and would like to learn which focal lengths are best for landscapes. I have read 90 to 150 mm on various websites and forums.

Landscape work does not automatically mean working with wide angle lenses. There have been plenty times when a "normal" focal length was better than one of my wide lenses. That said, if you find you are frequently in a situation where you want to stuff as much of the grand vista before you into the frame, then wider lenses are useful. On 4x5, one of my favorite landscape wide lenses is my 100mm Wide Field Ektar. You can see a review of some of the Ektar lenses, including the 100mm Wide Field here: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/cameras/ektar_list.html

There are more modern wide angle lenses made, with refinements and modern coatings, etc., but the Ektars are tiny, light lenses, easily carried in a backpack without adding significant weight to your kit, unlike many modern equivalents. I also happen to like the rendering style of the Ektars as a whole, and I own several, for formats from 35mm up to 8X10, and I wouldn't trade a single one of them.

Knowing which lenses are going to work for you requires trying a few lenses. Nobody can decide for you what the appropriate lenses are for what you want to achieve - its something you will have to find out by gaining first-hand experience with the equipment. If you acquire a lens that isn't what you want, its probably easy to pass it on to someone who wants it, and so you're unlikely to be on the losing end of any lens investment.

Here for example, is a 4x5 landscape piece made with the 203mm Ektar lens: https://live.staticflickr.com/917/39816727020_115128e25a_h.jpg

And here is a shot made using the 100mm Wide Field Ektar: https://live.staticflickr.com/1810/43472301811_e15287787d_h.jpg

The idea is that if the scene fits on the ground glass the way you want it to, then you have the right lens on!

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't know if the 203 would suffice for landscapes which is what I am going to use the camera for. I'm new to LF and would like to learn which focal lengths are best for landscapes. I have read 90 to 150 mm on various websites and forums.

My main landscape lenses are 150mm or occasionally a 135mm, followed by a 90mm, then a 75mm, and 203mm/210mm, and very rarely a 65mm. That's roughly 60% with a 150, 30% with the 90mm, 5% with the 75mm and 5% with the 210mm/203mm.

We don't have the wide opens landscapes found in North America here in the UK so I tend to stick to 150mm and shorter but the 203mm/210mm FL is also useful, I also have a 360mm Tele-Xenar but that's mostly for another project.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

I think 90s and wider are over rated for landscapes, Saint Adams used many lens, including wild feild Extars, but as I recall he used longer lens, for 4X5 a 210mm. I shoot in the west and find my primary lens to be 150 and 210, followed by 135, dont recall the last time I used a 90mm. I would start with a normal lens, 135 to 150, once you've shot for a while decide on you next lens.

 

[Jim Jones]

In the Great American West I found longer lenses more useful than WA lenses. Often a fine view that demands a WA to capture it all will also present several nice tightly cropped images. This is also sometimes true in my native Midwest.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think 90s and wider are over rated for landscapes, Saint Adams used many lens, including wild feild Extars, but as I recall he used longer lens, for 4X5 a 210mm. I shoot in the west and find my primary lens to be 150 and 210, followed by 135, dont recall the last time I used a 90mm. I would start with a normal lens, 135 to 150, once you've shot for a while decide on you next lens.

With all due respect the UK landscape has little to no resemblance to the American West,

In the Great American West I found longer lenses more useful than WA lenses. Often a fine view that demands a WA to capture it all will also present several nice tightly cropped images. This is also sometimes true in my native Midwest.

Having visited the Rockies I can understand the usefulness of longer lenses however I seem to remember Eric Rose shooting with a 58mm on his wife's Shen Hao 5x4 in a small canyon But there will always be exceptions, I was shooting with one of my 203mm Ektars round Osoyoos Lake (on the US/Canada border) on a 6x7 camera something I'd never think of in the UK.

The landscape in the UK and much of Europe and Turkey (where I've shot a lot) is more suited to normal to wide focal lengths, there aren't the wide open spaces even in the mountains except perhaps one or two Glens in Scotland like the Great Glen.

Should add the light is quite different as well.

A 90mm Landscape in Snowdonia, no space for a 150mm.

Ian

 

[John Koehrer]

Adams and Weston both shot in very different style.
Weston, at one time used a 12/21/28" Turner Reich Convertible on 8X10 so normal to slightly long fl.A great deal
of EW's work seems to have been done at moderate distances.
Different horses for courses.

 

[jimgalli]

The Kodak 127mm f4.7 was almost standard on most of the old 4X5 Speed Graphic press cameras. I'd sure give the little 126 a try before I listened to everyone here and gave it away.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Kodak 127mm f4.7 was almost standard on most of the old 4X5 Speed Graphic press cameras. I'd sure give the little 126 a try before I listened to everyone here and gave it away.

Correction it was the common standard with the Quarter plate Pacemaker Speed Graphics.

Here's Eastman Kodak's data for the 101mm and 127mm Ektars. It's true some were used on the 5x4 Pacemaker Graphics but edge and corner sharpness will be quite poor.

There's a difference between illumination and coverage, my Ross 105mm f3.8 Xpres will fully illuminate a 5x4 ground glass screen at Infinity at all apertures, but the usable part of the image circle is much smaller. Of course this can be exploited creatively, we only have to look at some early work by Emmet Gowin

Ian

 

[jim10219]

My main landscape lenses are 150mm or occasionally a 135mm, followed by a 90mm, then a 75mm, and 203mm/210mm, and very rarely a 65mm. That's roughly 60% with a 150, 30% with the 90mm, 5% with the 75mm and 5% with the 210mm/203mm.

We don't have the wide opens landscapes found in North America here in the UK so I tend to stick to 150mm and shorter but the 203mm/210mm FL is also useful, I also have a 360mm Tele-Xenar but that's mostly for another project.

Ian

I use my 360mm Tele-Xenar a lot more than I thought I would for landscapes. A long lens is great for giving mountains a sense of size.

I probably use the 90mm most often, followed by the 150mm. The 65mm doesn't get used too often, but there are many times where if I didn't have that lens, it wouldn't even be worth taking a shot. You can always crop a wide shot later. The 210mm sees the least use. Scratch that. The 135mm sees the least use. But that might be because my 135mm and 210's are all uncoated and ranging between 75 and 150 years old.

 

[bdial]

As stated earlier, much depends on your personal vision. I find that quite often, "less is more" for landscapes. If I could have only one lens for my 4x5 it would be my 210.
However, also as mentioned, try out what you have, and see if you like the result. It may have too much fall off for infinity, but, even if that's the case, it could work well for you for closer work.