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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|