A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 3rd 04, 08:35 PM
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions

"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


  #2  
Old April 4th 04, 07:12 AM
AArDvarK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions


"John Hendry" wrote in message news0tbc.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


  #3  
Old April 4th 04, 07:39 PM
John Hendry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions


"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


  #4  
Old April 5th 04, 10:11 AM
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions

"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

  #5  
Old April 8th 04, 12:17 PM
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions


"AArDvarK" wrote in message
newsHNbc.70243$1I5.25902@fed1read01...

"John Hendry" wrote in message

news0tbc.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



  #6  
Old April 9th 04, 02:02 AM
John Hendry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions


"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?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.