Who can repair Bantam Special lens?

[jtk]

I've have a beautiful example of Bantam Special (my mother's). Evidence is that it was optically better than Leica's uncoated Elmars, partially because of Kodak's optical coating. I have her negatives and prints and they're way beyond anything possible with uncoated Elmars.

Unfortunately the lens wants re-coating...AND the elements show snowflake-separation.

Who might be able to fix this lens?

 

[Dan Daniel]

Try Jason Lane. Along with making dry plates, he is an optical engineer who takes on occasional recoating and recementing jobs.

PICTORIOGRAPHICA

Maker of New Photographic Dry Plates. Bringing Early Photography Into the Modern Era

www.pictoriographica.com

 

[awty]

How is it better than an Elmar? The Elmar is a very good lens away from anything to cause flare.
Maybe your mother was just a really good photographer and any camera in her hands produced a good image.
It would be expensive to recoat a lens, better to buy one with a still good lens and switch the elements.

 

[awty]

Looked up the price of a Bantam and it maybe more economical to repair, I would get the shutter serviced as well. The down fall of many old leaf shutters is they aren't as smooth as they use to be and its critical for a sharp image to have a smooth shutter.

 

[gone]

If the op's camera has the 45mm f2 Ektar lens, then that is a very special lens indeed (and there is nothing wrong w/ a good Elmar either). Back in this time era, Kodak Ektars were truly in a glass of their own. I had a Retina w/ an Ektar lens, and it was maybe the sharpest lens I ever saw. Bitingly sharp, and it gave very clean images.

Myself, I prefer an Elmar because I like the character of the early Leica lenses, but the Ektar was the top lens for Kodak, no matter what format.

 

[MattKing]

Back in this time era, Kodak Ektars were truly in a glass of their own.

Some typos are truly wonderful

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some typos are truly wonderful

Siriusly

 

[jtk]

If the op's camera has the 45mm f2 Ektar lens, then that is a very special lens indeed (and there is nothing wrong w/ a good Elmar either). Back in this time era, Kodak Ektars were truly in a glass of their own. I had a Retina w/ an Ektar lens, and it was maybe the sharpest lens I ever saw. Bitingly sharp, and it gave very clean images.

Myself, I prefer an Elmar because I like the character of the early Leica lenses, but the Ektar was the top lens for Kodak, no matter what format.

I'm sure the uncoated Elmars were OK, sometimes even goodish in some lighting, but I don't think Leica ever rivaled Ektars with uncoated Elmars.

Coated Elmars were great lenses, uncoated weren't.

That's just my experience.

 

[jtk]

How is it better than an Elmar? The Elmar is a very good lens away from anything to cause flare.
Maybe your mother was just a really good photographer and any camera in her hands produced a good image.
It would be expensive to recoat a lens, better to buy one with a still good lens and switch the elements.

You're right, she was a really good photographer. And no, she didn't restrict her work "away from anything to cause flare."

Coated Elmars are fine lenses, in my experience. Uncoated Elmars are paper weights.

I've read that cement might recover when slowly heated in a household oven (obviously low odds).

Recoating would be a challenge.. I've seen modern coating setups (vacuum chambers?) which might do well, but I don't have any idea about how someone would remove the old coating in order to re-do .