Lens for 8x10

A fellow apugger just made a shutter tester and of course, we are testing everything! Some are way off, some not so bad. The testing madness raised the question below.

I have a 14 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar which I love, but it also comes with a pretty old shutter - a No. 5 Universal Synchro. . A lot of people claim that these shutters are as good if not better than modern shutters, but the shutter tester showed that there was a lot of drift. It also has very limited speeds (1", 1/2", 1/5", 1/10", 1/25", 1/50" as well as B and T). On the other hand, my f/5.6 210mm Rodenstock Sironar-N was dead on, except for a little wandering in the highest speed (1/400") which I almost never use anyway. The Rodenstock has an extra two stops of shutter speed (ignoring the 1/400) over the Kodak. Not that one is a substitute for the other. I am just comparing their relative stability.

So, is it worth it to get the Commercial Ektar put into a modern shutter or should I just bite the bullet and get a more modern lens? I wouldn't get rid of the Kodak. I would save it for special occasions.

I have, in fact, two of the Kodak lenses in identical shutters. One was damaged and I thought it could never be repaired so I bought another one. Paul Ebel encouraged me to send the old one to him and he fixed the darn thing even though it was quite seriously damaged. So, I could get both Universal shutters CLA'd and thus have a backup, but I am seriously wondering about the stability of a shutter that old.

I would appreciate some suggestions for more modern lenses that might be a good substitute for the 14" Commercial Ektar. I shoot mainly landscapes, cityscapes and people.

Shutter age is less important than the wear and tear. I've pre-WWI Compurs that are as smooth and accurate as the day they left the factoty, same with a Velosto (UK name for the Optimo) that I recently CLA'd.

Personally I'd get the shutter cleaned and also look for a spare as a back-up.

Ian

(modern Lenses) -regardless of the manufacturer of the glass, or the name on it. . . . Its still a Copal shutter! correct. IMO, CLA's of shutters are really important. as far as recommendations of the 14" ektar. it is a Tessar type construction. Fujinon did make a 420mm tessar type lens. It is an "L". also Nikkor made the 450mm "C" another tessar type. as for a 360mm. I do not know off the top off my head. but a little digging on camera eccentric looking at their info section. there you will find brochures for all the lens manufactures. Pour over them, look at their spec. find your Tessar type. buy it!!!!!!!!!! or just send your ektar in for a CLA? no big whoop!

When you say drift, do you mean the shutter speed is inconsistent each time it's fired, or do you mean the measured speeds differ from the marked speeds? The Ilex #5 shutters are perfectly useable if they're serviced. The 14" Commercial Ektar is a very good lens and I don't think it'll fit into a Copal #3 shutter. A set of neutral density filters helps with the shutter speed range. The modern 14" plasmats are too big and heavy for field lenses. The 355mm G-Claron can be had in a modern shutter, but I prefer the look of the Commercial Ektar. It sounds like you were happy with the Ektar until you measured the shutter speeds--did you experience problems with your negs? If not, I suggest you remove the battery from the tester and put it in your sock drawer.

Your commercial Ektar renders a certain kind of look different from that of more modern lenses. So you might want to keep it, regardless.
I'd second a 355 G-Claron if you want huge coverage in a relatively compact lens in a no.3 shutter. The 14" Kern dagor is of course another
classic offering in this focal length which is also reasonably compact in a 3, but nowadays miserably overpriced in my opinion. My absolute
favorite is the 360 Fujinon A in no.1 shutter: lightweight and compact, stunning optical performance all the way from macro to infinity, and
generous image circle, and sadly, rare. If you go to barrel lenses, the dialyte-style 360 Apo Nikkor is a phenomenal optic, and common and very reasonably priced on the used market. You'll just either need to find a shutter for it or use the lens cap method of exposure.

Generally old No.5 Universals need to be cocked and fired a few times before you trip the shutter for reals. One old time Pro told me that was the case even when they were new. Try timing it after four or five firings and see if the speeds settle down. Also have you exercised (exorsized?) that old Ilex? I mean routinely dry firing it at all the speeds at least once a month as part of your maintenance regimen?

Depends what you're doing. With chrome 8x10 film, having slightly off or unpredicatable shutter speeds can get real expensive, real fast.

+1 what drew said ( both posts)

Thanks for the quick responses.

Yes, I do like this lens. I am not a bokeh nerd, but this tessar creates a really pretty out-of-focus background and has a certain ... something about it.

Barry, I mean that the measured speeds differ from the marked speeds. I just got a CLA on this lens and it is not too bad now, but the 1/50" is really out of whack. Paul Ebel, whose opinion I respect a lot, said that it might be very hard to get the higher speed working on that shutter. I get your point about putting the tester in the sock drawer, but it has caused some problems with exposure. I would not dare shoot chromes with this lens and some of the posts here confirm that. I really like this lens however, and I think I will keep it, keeping in mind its limitations and using it accordingly. Ian suggested a backup shutter, which I have, so maybe I will get that one CLA'd as well for backup.

Drew, I am going to put the 360 Fujinon A on my wish list and start looking. I am not really interested in barrel lenses because I do a lot of portraits and children are hard to keep still for the hat method of exposure. I have tried duct tape and staples but their parents resist such extreme methods. I already have one barrel lens for the 8x10 - a 24 inch LD Artar - and I want to get that into a shutter as soon as I can afford it.

So, I am leaning heavily toward keeping this lovely tessar and looking for a comparable lens in a modern shutter. Suggestions are welcome.

Thanks to all.

hmmmm, i certainly do not wish to start something, however, if you are interested in the "atmosphere" of that ektar, you might NOT like the Apo of ANY manufacturer. Apo's are a "more corrected" double plasmat type. (very sharp)I think the Apo's are wonderful lenses, so too are triplets, say. . .. of an earlier era. its an aesthetics thing. Newer double plasmats with multi-coating "render" differently, then single coated tessars or non-coated triplets. Many triplets for 10x8 are quite sharp. Moonrise over Hernandez" by AA was shot with an uncoated triplet. Just sayin'. . . . .they are not dogs. It might need additional research, say on LFP. see if people there who have both can tell you the difference between. The 360 A from fujinon, if you can find one is usually. . . .$$$$$$. out of my league, but maybe just in reach of yours!! best regards

When testing most between-the-lens shutters at their highest speeds, the time it takes the blades to open and close can be a significant part of the exposure. A shutter tester that measures the sound of the shutter opening and closing instead of the amount of light the shutter passes will likely read a slower shutter speed than the effective speed. When using a shutter tester that actually integrates the amount of light the shutter passes, measurements should be made at each of the smallest few apertures.

Want a more modern Commercial Ektar? A Congo is a copy of the venerable Commercial Ektar in modern shutter and they were made up until pretty recently IIRC.

I just checked on the Congo lenses and it looks like there is a 360mm tessar that fits into a Copal 3. It has almost the same maximum aperture as the 14" Commercial Ektar (6.8 vs 6.3). These are not expensive lenses but Copal 3 shutters are around 1K. Does anyone have any experience with this lens or other Congo lenses. I have never heard of these before.

Just buy some bargain used lens in a working no. 3 shutter and toss the glass. It will be cheaper than buying the shutter alone! But it will still
cost some bucks to get the thing fitted and have the scales made. But first you need to check compatibility with someone who does this kind
of work, like SK Grimes current crew.

I would go with the average tested speed of each marked one and use those for exposure. Mechanical shutter speeds are seldom/never exactly what they are actually marked. If you are doing portraits, isn't your exposure really controlled by your strobes?

good point = OUTWEST.

The Congos are modern Commercial Ektars. When Kodak stopped making them Congo took over. They were made available in shutters and it shouldn't be too difficult to track one down.

GKC said:

The Congos are modern Commercial Ektars. When Kodak stopped making them Congo took over. They were made available in shutters and it shouldn't be too difficult to track one down.

Click to expand...

I wonder how the bokeh would be with a Congo in a Copal 3 compared to a Commercial Ektar in an Ilex #5.

outwest said:

I would go with the average tested speed of each marked one and use those for exposure. Mechanical shutter speeds are seldom/never exactly what they are actually marked. If you are doing portraits, isn't your exposure really controlled by your strobes?

Click to expand...

I use only available light. This is partly an aesthetic decision but the main reason is that I have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Alan Gales said:

I wonder how the bokeh would be with a Congo in a Copal 3 compared to a Commercial Ekter in an Ilex #5.

Click to expand...

I have been wondering the same thing. Does anyone out that have some examples?

I wasn't aware that the Kodak Commercial Ektar was known for bokeh---it is flattering on skin tones, but not what I'd consider bokeh:confused:

"Bokeh" is a relatively plastic term. And large format Ektars weren't all made the same way. Many commerical Ektars were airspaced four
element design, which is certainly so-so in terms of blur; but still, the old multi-bladed shutters helped the roundness of highlights. They also
made tessar-design Ektars in similar focal lengths, with faster apertures and presumably better bokeh; but these are less common because
they were not considered "commercially" ideal in the sense of product photography etc. I was looking at some color images taken with
Commercial Ektar the other nite. Yeah, they were reasonably nice in out-of-focus rendition compared to some more modern lenses lenses of
equivalent focal length, but not really ideal if I were homing in on that one particular property.

GKC said:

I wasn't aware that the Kodak Commercial Ektar was known for bokeh---it is flattering on skin tones, but not what I'd consider bokeh:confused:

Click to expand...

I think my 14" Commercial Ektar has nice bokeh. Of course bokeh is a subjective thing. I like Petzvals but I don't care much for the swirly effect that some Petzvals have. Of course the swirl is all the rage with a lot of photographers.

I know bokeh is determined by lens design and the roundness of the aperture blades. The Ilex shutters have more blades than modern shutters and can produce better bokeh. I was just wondering if the bokeh with the Congo was worse than that of my Commercial Ektar or if it was about the same. There are of course lenses with better bokeh than the Commercial Ektar but I wouldn't want worse bokeh than I have now.

I'm just curious.

Alan Gales said:

I wonder how the bokeh would be with a Congo in a Copal 3 compared to a Commercial Ektar in an Ilex #5.

Click to expand...

It may not be much different because I "think" all Copal 3 shutters have ten aperture blades so the aperture is fairly round... though not as round as the many-bladed Ilex.

Old-N-Feeble said:

It may not be much different because I "think" all Copal 3 shutters have ten aperture blades so the aperture is fairly round... though not as round as the many-bladed Ilex.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I know a lot of people complain about the old Ilex shutters and a Copal 3 is more accurate. The Congo sounds like a viable alternative to the Commercial Ektar.