Kodak enlarging Ektars. London v Rochester?

[John51]

I'm in the UK and I would very much like to print some negs from my Kodak Medalist II using a 100mm Kodak Enlarging Ektar lens. Because cool/history/whatever.

All the lenses I see on the UK side of that auction site are made in London and are not coated. So I assume pre WW2. Across the pond, I find many Rochester lenses compete with that lovely L in a circle. (Post WW2?) One of them could be mine, if I'm prepared to pay the rather large shipping costs plus the usual import taxes etc. I'd rather not, unless...

...what's the difference in terms of print quality? B&W only, condenser enlarger. Up to what print size (assume a recently serviced 100mm lens) can mere mortals like me not tell which lens was used to make the print?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

While I fully understand and respect your interest in matching the lens and camera, I'll point out that modern NikoRodeSchneider enlarging lenses are a steal today and are incredibly good.
However, a clean uncoated lens can give superb results, and the postwar Lumenised Ektars are excellent if clean, this would be the correct match for the Medalist.

 

[John51]

Thanks for the reply.

I can (just about/almost/maybe) afford any enlarging glass but if I've spent £200 on a camera that uses film that they stopped making over 20 years ago, then nostalgia does have a part to play, does it not?

1946 camera, 6x9 neg. B&W. Which Ektar Enlarging Lens gave the best print in (say) 1946-1950? By what margin? Was there something better than Ektar back then?

fwir, 'Made in Rochester' that was better but I'd like to know how much better, ie. an answer like: '10x8 , you can't tell the difference. 11x14 maybe but with 20x16, Rochester always beats London.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Thanks for the reply.

I can (just about/almost/maybe) afford any enlarging glass but if I've spent £200 on a camera that uses film that they stopped making over 20 years ago, then nostalgia does have a part to play, does it not?

1946 camera, 6x9 neg. B&W. Which Ektar Enlarging Lens gave the best print in (say) 1946-1950? By what margin? Was there something better than Ektar back then?

fwir, 'Made in Rochester' that was better but I'd like to know how much better, ie. an answer like: '10x8 , you can't tell the difference. 11x14 maybe but with 20x16, Rochester always beats London.

I don't have enough specific experience with those lenses to give a meaningful answer. At that time, Kodak made the best lenses they could, I doubt any other lenses made in the immediate postwar years would be much better. Kodak did not suffer as the European companies did from labor and material shortages; one great boon was the development of really good lens coating in the sense of volume production.
As for uncoated enlarging lenses, I use an uncoated Wollensak Enlarging Velostigmat on 6x6 and 6x7 b&w, it's very sharp and on a condenser enlarger (Omega D2) gives just the right contrast.
As for London vs. Rochester, I've always been very positively impressed with British craftsmanship.

 

[Arklatexian]

I'm in the UK and I would very much like to print some negs from my Kodak Medalist II using a 100mm Kodak Enlarging Ektar lens. Because cool/history/whatever.

All the lenses I see on the UK side of that auction site are made in London and are not coated. So I assume pre WW2. Across the pond, I find many Rochester lenses compete with that lovely L in a circle. (Post WW2?) One of them could be mine, if I'm prepared to pay the rather large shipping costs plus the usual import taxes etc. I'd rather not, unless...

...what's the difference in terms of print quality? B&W only, condenser enlarger. Up to what print size (assume a recently serviced 100mm lens) can mere mortals like me not tell which lens was used to make the print?

Your lens was probably intended for use in a Kodak Precision enlarger. I had a customer once who had us order a Precision A enlarger with Kodak Enlarging Ektars from the UK. It was a beauty. This was in the 1950s so they were coated but I have been told by smarter people than I for B&W coating is not really needed so print away. You have a fine lens coated or uncoated......Regards!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I don't know much about old English enlarging lenses, but if I am not mistaken there were some that were really good. I seem to recall lenses by Wray and TTH being said to be good. I know you want to use a Kodak from over here, but I'd love to use a TTH from over there!

 

[John51]

Your lens was probably intended for use in a Kodak Precision enlarger. I had a customer once who had us order a Precision A enlarger with Kodak Enlarging Ektars from the UK. It was a beauty. This was in the 1950s so they were coated but I have been told by smarter people than I for B&W coating is not really needed so print away. You have a fine lens coated or uncoated......Regards!

It's not my lens yet but I do have the Medalist.

There is a very cheap Kodak Precision enlarger on that auction site, has a glassless 6x6 neg carrier. 3rd listing so far and still no takers but it's over 200 miles away. (That is a LONG distance for us Brits plus I'd need to persuade a car owning relative.) I am ever so tempted but much closer to home is a Gnome quarter plate enlarger with a glass carrier. Has an absolute beast of a condenser. Also been listed previously and no takers.

The Enlarging Ektar I'm looking at is on a board which I guess I'd need whichever enlarger I bought.

If ever I do try RA4, it will be with my Durst so good to know that lens coating isn't that important when printing B&W.

 

[Paul Howell]

No experience with uncoated Ektars, mine are all post war, but I do have a couple uncoated Federal enlarger lens. For 6X9 my favorite is a 2 element uncoated lens with water house stops for aperture control. Surprising sharp, somewhat lower in contrast than 3 or 4 element lens, it is on a Federal enlarger called a Stowaway. Somewhat clumsy to use, with the right negative makes a nice print. I think an uncoated Ektar will do just fine with B&W.

 

[BMbikerider]

I don't know much about old English enlarging lenses, but if I am not mistaken there were some that were really good. I seem to recall lenses by Wray and TTH being said to be good. I know you want to use a Kodak from over here, but I'd love to use a TTH from over there!

The cheaper enlarging lenses made by Wray were.....doubtful. But TTH (short for Taylor, Taylor and Hobson) were superb. They didn't make cheap lenses!
In their day as much thought of as Rodenstock and Schneider are today.

 

[jjphoto]

I have both US (Rochester) and British Ektar 4.5/100mm lenses. They appear the same to me in terms of the reflections in the lens/coatings, same colours although both are vey subtle. I suspect the British lens is coated even though it is not labelled as Luminized. Note that the British lens doesn't have serial numbers either, so it's difficult to date. I don't know which is sharper/better, I've never tested or compared. I suspect they are identical and would be surprised if they were different as they are obviously the same lens/formula/design, aside from sample variation/condition etc. Just get a clean one and move on.