Re: 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions

[doug]

"John Hendry" wrote in message:
> Just acquired one of these and was wondering if anyone familiar had a few
> facts or opinions about it. In particular I'm wondering if someone can
> confirm this is a tessar, and what the circle of sharp coverage is like -
> much room for movement on 4x5? What's the optimum aperture to use it at
> ?(its in a supermatic and will stop down to f45)
> Is it still a decent lens by modern standards like the Commercial Ektars?
> Thanks.
>
>

I use the 152mm f4.5 Ektar. Yes it's a Tessar. It is a good performer,
small, and sharp. I typically use it at f/16 or f/22, but have used it as
wide as f/11. Compared to modern plasmats it has very limited coverage for
4x5 use ~ 182mm image circle (62 degrees) at f/22. This corresponds, on a
4x5, to lens standard rises of approx 17mm portrait/ 20mm landscape at
infinity. I often run out of movements and have to tilt the lensboard back.
Still they're quite cheap. Frankly, I love all of the Kodak Ektars,
Commercial Ektars, and Wide Field Ektars - they are so consistently good
quality-wise.

There is a good link for Ektar lenses with contributions from many including
the very knowledgeable and gracious Richard Knoppow:

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/ektar.html

Doug

[AArDvarK]

"John Hendry" > wrote in message news:o0tbc.17023$Ig.9004@pd7tw2no...
> Just acquired one of these and was wondering if anyone familiar had a few
> facts or opinions about it. In particular I'm wondering if someone can
> confirm this is a tessar, and what the circle of sharp coverage is like -
> much room for movement on 4x5? What's the optimum aperture to use it at
> ?(its in a supermatic and will stop down to f45)
> Is it still a decent lens by modern standards like the Commercial Ektars?
> Thanks.
>
>
Here's an example of a different Ektar lens, image was
shot with an Ektar 127mm lens at f/8, as described. It
does seem a bit low on resolution as far as sharpness,
but it is f/8. I find the image quality quite acceptable
and I'm sure this lens is better than many lenses A.A.
used long long before these were out and about. Use it.

Upper image: http://www.b54.net/pphoto2
Alex

[John Hendry]

"doug" > wrote in message
...

(snip)

> I use the 152mm f4.5 Ektar. Yes it's a Tessar. It is a good performer,
> small, and sharp. I typically use it at f/16 or f/22, but have used it as
> wide as f/11. Compared to modern plasmats it has very limited coverage for
> 4x5 use ~ 182mm image circle (62 degrees) at f/22. This corresponds, on a
> 4x5, to lens standard rises of approx 17mm portrait/ 20mm landscape at
> infinity. I often run out of movements and have to tilt the lensboard
back.
> Still they're quite cheap. Frankly, I love all of the Kodak Ektars,
> Commercial Ektars, and Wide Field Ektars - they are so consistently good
> quality-wise.
>
> There is a good link for Ektar lenses with contributions from many
including
> the very knowledgeable and gracious Richard Knoppow:
>
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/ektar.html
>
> Doug

Thanks for the link and the vote of confidence in the glass. Coverage seems
a bit tight. I just wonder why Kodak didn't employ a naming convention that
bore some relationship to the specific lens construction like most of the
rest of the planet. Mind you they seem to have adopted this logic with film
recently. e.g. when is Tri-X not Tri-X? When its not the stuff left in your
fridge.
John

[Richard Knoppow]

"John Hendry" > wrote in message news:<LDYbc.23352$oR5.14965@pd7tw3no>...
> "doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> (snip)
>
> > I use the 152mm f4.5 Ektar. Yes it's a Tessar. It is a good performer,
> > small, and sharp. I typically use it at f/16 or f/22, but have used it as
> > wide as f/11. Compared to modern plasmats it has very limited coverage for
> > 4x5 use ~ 182mm image circle (62 degrees) at f/22. This corresponds, on a
> > 4x5, to lens standard rises of approx 17mm portrait/ 20mm landscape at
> > infinity. I often run out of movements and have to tilt the lensboard
> back.
> > Still they're quite cheap. Frankly, I love all of the Kodak Ektars,
> > Commercial Ektars, and Wide Field Ektars - they are so consistently good
> > quality-wise.
> >
> > There is a good link for Ektar lenses with contributions from many
> including
> > the very knowledgeable and gracious Richard Knoppow:
> >
> > http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/ektar.html
> >
> > Doug
>
> Thanks for the link and the vote of confidence in the glass. Coverage seems
> a bit tight. I just wonder why Kodak didn't employ a naming convention that
> bore some relationship to the specific lens construction like most of the
> rest of the planet. Mind you they seem to have adopted this logic with film
> recently. e.g. when is Tri-X not Tri-X? When its not the stuff left in your
> fridge.
> John

I will also vouch for the 152mm Ektar. However, check the cement in
the rear component on Ektars, I've found a couple where it was getting
a little turbid. You have to shine a flashlight at it or through it to
see the effect but it results in a substantial loss of contrast. When
clear these are quite contrasty lenses.
Kodak is not the only lens maker who chose to use a trade name to
indicate quality rather than construction. For Kodak Ektar was the top
of the line. The first Ektar was a Biotar type lens for the Kodak
Bantam Deluxe camera c.1936. Until 1946 Kodak used the names Kodak
Anastigmat and Anastigmat Special for lenses of lower quality than the
Ektar series. For the most part the difference is degree of color
correction. After about 1946 Kodak introduced several lens names for
lower quality lenses such as Anastar and Anaston. Ektanon became the
new name for most of the former K.A. lenses. Kodak claims that Ektar
lenses are completely corrected for lateral color.
For many years Wollensak marketed most of their better lenses under
the name Velostigmat. Velostigmats, like Ektars, were of several
different designs. In about 1946 a new name, Raptar, was adopted for
most of these lenses. Zeiss, in particular, had names for each
different design of lens but other makers, Nikon for instance, did
not. All Nikon lenses are Nikkors although older ones carry a letter
code to indicate the number of elements. Cannon doesn't even use a
separate lens name, just Cannon Lens.
All of the f/4.5 Ektar lenses for medium format cameras are Tessar
types. They have a coverage of nearly 70 degrees when stopped down all
the way and perhaps 65 degrees at f/11. The 127mm f/4.7 Ektar is
common on 4x5 cameras and is sharp in the corners at f/11. Commercial
Ektars are also Tessars, with a little more coverage than the f/4.5
lenses as would be expected from a slower lens. The 105mm, f/3.7 Ektar
and 100mm F/4.5 Ektar on the Medalist camera are modified Heliar
types. The older and rarer 107mm f/3.7 Ektar is a Tessar with reversed
rear component. This is supposed to be advantageous when high index
glass is used. I suspect this lens was not too successful since it
seems to have been replaced with the 105mm lens within a year or so.
The Wide Field Ektar is a double Gauss type AKA a Holostigmat. The
famous (or notorious) Aero Ektar is a seven element Biotar. A number
of other designs were used for Ektar motion picture lenses and for the
Ektars designed for the Ektra camera.
I have no idea why Kodak never made Plasmats. I think the main
purpose of the Ektar series, and certainly the Commercial Ektar, was
to sell color film by making sure lenses with excellent color
correction were available.

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA USA

[Richard Knoppow]

"AArDvarK" > wrote in message
news:pHNbc.70243$1I5.25902@fed1read01...
>
> "John Hendry" > wrote in message
news:o0tbc.17023$Ig.9004@pd7tw2no...
> > Just acquired one of these and was wondering if anyone
familiar had a few
> > facts or opinions about it. In particular I'm wondering
if someone can
> > confirm this is a tessar, and what the circle of sharp
coverage is like -
> > much room for movement on 4x5? What's the optimum
aperture to use it at
> > ?(its in a supermatic and will stop down to f45)
> > Is it still a decent lens by modern standards like the
Commercial Ektars?
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> Here's an example of a different Ektar lens, image was
> shot with an Ektar 127mm lens at f/8, as described. It
> does seem a bit low on resolution as far as sharpness,
> but it is f/8. I find the image quality quite acceptable
> and I'm sure this lens is better than many lenses A.A.
> used long long before these were out and about. Use it.
>
> Upper image: http://www.b54.net/pphoto2
> Alex
>
Its not what I would expect from this lens, especially
the rendition of textures. It looks slightly misfocused to
me but its very hard to tell much from web images.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

[John Hendry]

"Richard Knoppow" > wrote in message
om...

> I will also vouch for the 152mm Ektar. However, check the cement in
> the rear component on Ektars, I've found a couple where it was getting
> a little turbid. You have to shine a flashlight at it or through it to
> see the effect but it results in a substantial loss of contrast. When
> clear these are quite contrasty lenses.

(snip lots of interesting stuff)

When you say turbid, is it an even muddiness or does the flashlight pick out
a texture in the cement layer?