Kodak Ektars

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 07:02:41 CDT 1998

Michael Liczbanski mliczbanski@email.msn.com wrote:

>Which Ektars and what vintage? They do differ considerably in quality and
>specs.

Actually, I don't think that's generally acknowledged to be the case.

All Ektars were Kodak's premium-priced lenses for professional use, and though new glass and better coatings gradually became available over
time, the basic designs changed very little. Most Ektars were Tessar formula lenses, with a scattering of 4-element air spaced and dialyte lenses.
The "Commericial Ektar" lenses were corrected for minimal lateral color (like a modern lens) and, as the last Ektars made, had the best coatings.

Kodak's quality control was reputedly better than that of any other contemporary lens manufacturer and their designers while not enormously
innovative were certainly extremely competent.

This is some email from Tim Takahashi (who collects Kodak lenses) which I saved a while ago (note it doesn't include most of the longer focal
lengths):

| 135mm f/6.3 WF Ektar - 4-element W.A. Gauss
| 152mm f/4.5 Ektar - Tessar
| 178mm f/2.5 Aero Ektar - 7-element
| 190mm f/4.5 Ektar - Tessar
| 203mm f/7.7 Ektar - 4-element Dialyte
| ..
|
| I'm packing to move (new job), so I dont have my reference
| books handy. That's what I'm sure of off the top of my head.
|
|
| >Many of the earliest Ektars (non-commercial) were labled "Anastigmat"
|
| Not quite. K.A's were uncoated lenses... and when the Ektar series
| debuted in 1939, all had some form of anti-reflection treatment
| (though the early ones have soft coatings on the inner surfaces
| only).
|
| The high-end line continued to be marketed as "Anastigmat" and
| "Eastman Anastigmat" until after WW-II. Afterwords these were
| re-released (re-computed???!?!) as Commercial Ektars.
|
| -tim
|
| >I guess it's all dependant upon who Kodak bought from in the early
| >days.
|
|
| ps. Kodak made all lenses "in house" - Rochester has a large
| number of now defunct glassworks.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
tls@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Michael Liczbanski" mliczbanski@email.msn.com
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 11:37:37 CDT 1998

Thor Lancelot Simon wrote

>Michael Liczbanski mliczbanski@email.msn.com wrote:
>>Which Ektars and what vintage? They do differ considerably in quality and
>>specs.
>
>Actually, I don't think that's generally acknowledged to be the case.

Ah, but it is the case:

The quality varies depending on the vintage & purpose of Ektars... I realize that the original post was most likely about the LF Ektars, but many
MF Ektars are on the market as well (sometimes sans their original cameras so one cannot tell without testing whether or not they cover 4x5...)
Here is a brief description of just a few Ektars:

Kodak Ektar 2/45 (for Bantam Special) 6 elements in 4 groups, covers 28x40mm negatives

Kodak Ektar 3.5/100 (for Kodak Medalist) 5 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (and 6.5x9 cm)
`
Kodak Ektar 3.7/105 4 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 *** A very good lens, also used on the Precision enlarger. Sharp and contrasty.

The above is incorrect. The f 3.7 105mm Ektar is a Heliar design, 5 elements in 3 groups; very similar to the Ektar in the Medalist. Ed.

Kodak Ektar 4.5/101 and 4.7/127 4 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 respectively *** Also a great lens, esp. for 6x9 ``

Well, the Anastigmat was a separate line of lenses - essentially Tessars with the exception of the 6.3/105, 6.3/130 and 7.7/8in. Some notable
Anastigmats were: 7.7/8in Covers 5x7 "process" lens, well-corrected for close-up work. Quite nice

5 1/2in, 6 3/8in, 7 1/2in, 8 1/2in, 10in and 12in - all f/4.5 Cover from 3 1/4 x 4 /1/4 to 8x10 (with movements) depending on the focal length. Fine
lenses (great for architecture, as they don't display much linear distortions of any kind.)

There were also Anastigmats for small format cameras (35mm, Bantams and Vigilants)

Well after WWII, Kodak started tinkering with their lenses a lot, and the distinctions between many lens lines blur in the 50s. (The summary
above describes the mid-to-late 40s status quo.)

Just my USD .02.

Michael

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Michael Liczbanski" mliczbanski@email.msn.com
\-(1)--(1) [1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 17:47:02 CDT 1998

OK, here are the numbers (actually in the Kodak catalogue, the numbers precede the lens name:) All data come from Kodak Reference
Handbook, 1946 (practically unchaged from 1940-1946.)

No. 31 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 5 1/2in (140mm) No. 32 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 6 3/8in (161mm) No. 33 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 7 1/2in (190mm)
No. 34 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 8 1/2in (216mm) No. 35 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 10in (254mm) No. 36 Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 12in (304mm)

All appear to be Tessars (4 elements in 3 groups, 4 internal air surfaces)

No. 70 Kodak Anastigmat f/7.7 8in (203mm)

(Symmetrical, air-spaced, 4 elements in 4 groups, 6 internal air surfaces.) BTW, that's the one I like on a 4x5 VC the best (it will cover 5x7, but
with 4x5 you'll sooner run out of swings and titlts, than go beyond its circle of coverage.)

Michael

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 14:43:51 CDT 1998

"Frank Filippone" red735i@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>So can I assume that lenses marked "Ektar" are identical to lenses marked
>"Commercial Ektar" except for manufacture date?.... the real question
>is.....There is no significant difference between these 2 brand names?
>
>Assume same FL and Max Aperture....
>--
>Please do not auto-respond. Please respond to address below.
>
>Frank Filippone
>red735i@worldnet.att.net
>
>> All Ektars were Kodak's premium-priced lenses for professional use,
>...........The
>> "Commericial Ektar" lenses were corrected for minimal lateral color (like
>> a modern lens) and, as the last Ektars made, had the best coatings.

The Commerical Ektar was a series of f/6.3 Tessar type lenses intended for use on view cameras. Tessars have somewhat better performance at
f/6.3 than when faster.

_All_ lenses sold under the Ektar name were highly corrected for color, especially for lateral color, which is sometimes known as chromatic
magnification. In other words, the size of the images from different colors are the same size.

The Commerical Ektar series was sold as Eastman Ektars prior to about 1946. The earlier version was soft coated on insided surfaces, the
Commercial Ektar is hard coated on all surfaces and bears the "circle-L" mark for coating standing for Kodak's trade-mark "Luminized".

Not all Ektars are coated. Most of the f/4.5 series, for use on press cameras, etc., were not coated until after about 1946 (I don't know the exact
date Kodak started coating all its lenses).

Most Ektars for medium and large format are Tessar types, but Ektar was used as a trade-mark for a quality level rather than a specific design.
For example, the f/1.9 lens for the Ektra and the Aero-Ektar are both seven element Biotar types, the 45mm f/2 lens for the Bantam Special is a six
element Biotar. At least four other prototipical designs were used for Ektar lenses.

Undoubtedly, the quality of the coatings varied over the fifteen or so year period that Kodak continued to make lenses after coating was adopted.
Unfortunately, according to my contact at Kodak, the historical material which would clarify this sort of issue has been buried away somewhere
and is not accessible.

My statement about the coating of Eastman Ektars is based on statements made in a 1940 or 1941 Kodak lens handbook.

This states that this series and the also the lenses for the Ektra camera were soft coated.

The Ektra was an ill-stared attempt by Kodak to produce a deluxe 35mm camera system. It had an advanced rangefinder combined with the
viewfinder, and automatic parallax compensation; interchangable backs; single lever wind, and a group of really outstanding lenses. It was put on
the market just before the entry of the US in WW-2 and never had a chance.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Mon Jul 13 14:48:20 CDT 1998

An additional note. Many prewar Kodak lenses were sold as Kodak Anastigmat followed by a number. It would seem from catalogue data that
numbers in the "thirty" series, like K.A. No.33 are Tessars, those begining with 70 seem to be dialytes (four element air spaced type).

I wonder if anyone has more extensive older Kodak catalogues or lens handbooks and can verify this.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Mon Jul 13 23:45:15 CDT 1998
From: Charles Steinmetz csteinmetz@nym.alias.net
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Michael Liczbanski mliczbanski@email.msn.com wrote:

> Kodak Ektar 3.7/105
> 4 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4
> *** A very good lens, also used on the Precision enlarger. Sharp and
> contrasty.

My information (from the Kodak Data Book _Kodak Lenses, Shutters, and Portra Lenses_, 3rd ed. 1948, and several other sources) indicates that
the 105mm f/3.7 Ektar is a 5-element, 3-group Heliar type like the 100mm f/3.5 Medalist II lens.

> Kodak Ektar 4.5/101 and 4.7/127
> 4 elements in 3 groups, covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and 3 1/4 x 4 1/4
> respectively
> *** Also a great lens, esp. for 6x9

Kodak lists the 152mm f/4.5 together with the 101/4.5 and the 127/4.7. These three Tessar types do indeed perform very similarly (and very well)
on 6x9, 3x4, and 4x5.

Charles

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Thu Jul 16 03:58:13 CDT 1998

jones@spacelab.net jones@spacelab.net wrote:

>On Mon, Jul 13, 1998 5:47 PM, Michael Liczbanski
> wrote:
>>>>The quality varies depending on the vintage & purpose of Ektars...
>>>>I realize that the original post was most likely about the LF Ektars,
>but
>>>>many MF Ektars are on the market as well (sometimes sans their original
>>>>cameras so one cannot tell without testing whether or not they cover
>>>>4x5...) Here is a brief description of just a few Ektars:
>
>How come the 190 Ektar on my Super D Graflex isn't mentioned? At 5.6 It's
>a nice lens. . .
>
>

Well, I just forgot it. It wasn't part of the regular line and doesn't show up in Kodak handbooks. Its a Tessar. They are excellent lenses. My
Super-D has an Optar on it, built by Wollensak. Turns out to also be an excellent lens. All the automatic diaphragm assemblies were built by
Kodak and say Kodak on them. That sometimes confuses people with Optars into thinkin the lens was also made by Kodak. The Kodak ones say
Kodak Ektar on the retaining ring.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ektar Lenses
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998

>>> All Ektars were Kodak's premium-priced lenses for professional use,
>>...........The
>>> "Commericial Ektar" lenses were corrected for minimal lateral color (like
>>> a modern lens) and, as the last Ektars made, had the best coatings.

They are very good all right and seem to have very little zonal aberrations of the sort which cause focus shift. Nonetheless, they still have the
inherant faults of all lenses and have some residual coma in the corners which requires them to be stopped down if good performance is
required there. Optimum stop depends somewhat on FL but will be around f/11 to f/16.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998
From: "R. Peters" torx@nwrain.net
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: thanks Re: Slide Projectors

Yeh, sources for the codes on various enlarger accessories are difficult to crack. The unfortunate thing is that at camera shows, I have seen boxes
of new durst accessories, and no one knows what they fit....

One note on the 105mm f3.7 Ektar... It is easily confused with the 107mm f3.7 Kodak Anastigmat which I believe was prewar, and I think it was a 4
element lens rather than a 5 element Heliar copy. Kodak put out a booklet called, I believe, Kodak lenses & shutters or something like that.
Showed the formulas (formulae?) for most of the Ektars.

bob.

Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998
From: "R. Peters" torx@nwrain.net
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: thanks Re: Slide Projectors

The booklet was published in different printings over many years. It would be helpful to compile a prewar edition (say 1939 or so) with a postwar
edition, say about 1953. This way you'd pick up the Anastigmats along with the Ektars. I think the only difference between some of the Ektars and
their Anastigmat counterparts was the "Lumenized" coating. And, According to Richard Knoppow, not even all of the Ektars were coated (if I
understood him correctly).

bob

From: glosdl@email.uc.edu (David L. Glos)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aero Ektar (Was: Newton Photo Products LF Camera????)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998

> I've never had an Aero Ektar to play with so can't testify from
>personal experience. The explanation above doesn't quite make sense.
>Most lenses intended for use in ordinary photography are corrected at
>infinity. Generally they will have good performence down to some
>limit like 10x focal length beyond which they will need to be stopped
>down some. I don't know how the Aero Ektar could be different than
>this.
> I've also read suggestions that the color correction of this lens is
>optimised toward the red since aerial cameras are nearly always used
>with yellow filters and often used with IR material. If this is true
>thei lens might exhibit some blue fringing. Someone who has a properly
>mounted Aero Ektar might be able to say whether it does this.
> This lens was intended for use in aerial reconnaissance, often with
>hand-held cameras and for night flash photography where lens speed was
>more important than exact geometry as in lenses meant for aerial
>mapping. In other words, its design is more like an ordinary camera
>lens than the usual aerial survey lens. It will be interesting to
>hear from those who have practical experience.
> There was also BTW a 12" version of this lens. It is a very
>impressive piece of glass.
>---
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, Ca.
>dickburk@ix.netcom.com

FWIW, I was recently given a 24"/6.0 Aero Ektar that is very impressive in girth and weight. One of the elements in the rear group is
yellow/brown in color and will peg the meter on a geiger counter, if placed within 6". Talked with several sources, including a retired military
nuclear engineer, and all said not to worry too much as it was emiting alpa radiation from the trace of thorium (?) in the glass. I have yet to see
how it will image as I don't have a camera large enough to put it on........and that includes an 8x10. On the barrel is an indication that it will cover
9x18. Current thoughts center around a panorama camera from hell, but backlog of projects exceeds time available to bring them to fruition. I
have also thought about making a nice telescope with the beast.

BTW, I even talked with the Kodak person in charge of their historical archive. He knew of the 6" and 12", and had examples on their shelves, but
had no record of the 24".

David Glos

Univ. of Cincinnati
513.558.6930

glosdl@email.uc.edu

From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aero Ektar (Was: Newton Photo Products LF Camera????)
Date: 29 Oct 1998

David L. Glos glosdl@email.uc.edu wrote:

>
>FWIW, I was recently given a 24"/6.0 Aero Ektar that is very impressive in
>girth and weight. One of the elements in the rear group is yellow/brown in
>color and will peg the meter on a geiger counter, if placed within 6". Talked
>with several sources, including a retired military nuclear engineer, and all
>said not to worry too much as it was emiting alpa radiation from the trace of
>thorium (?) in the glass. I have yet to see how it will image as I don't have
>a camera large enough to put it on........and that includes an 8x10. On the
>barrel is an indication that it will cover 9x18. Current thoughts center
>around a panorama camera from hell, but backlog of projects exceeds time
>available to bring them to fruition. I have also thought about making a nice
>telescope with the beast.
>
>BTW, I even talked with the Kodak person in charge of their historical
>archive. He knew of the 6" and 12", and had examples on their shelves, but had
>no record of the 24".
>

I don't understand what the various Aero Ektars that are out there are, either.

The two classic "radioactive" ones designed during WW II are discussed in Kingslake; they're 7" and 12" and are supposed to be of the same
design, a 7-element Gauss type similar to a Leitz Summar/Summarit/Summitar or many modern SLR lenses.

I went out a few months ago trying to buy a 7" Aero Ektar and ended up with a 6" Aero Ektar, which I didn't notice 'till I got home. It's marked "4
1/4 x 4 1/4", which is the same size the 7" lens was supposed to cover, and it's also f/2.5 -- but it appears to be multicoated, and according to its
serial number it was made in 1955! I've also heard vaguely of the 24" lenses and some later 12" lenses which might be of a different design than
the original ones.

I was thinking I'd call the equipment collection people at Eastman House sometime soon and see what they know. Kingslake aparrently still helps
out there from time to time and certainly he'd know what Kodak made when.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: [Rollei] Hasselblad Ektar Lenses

At 08:21 AM 1998-12-01 -0500, Stanley Yoder wrote:

> That said, the Ektar in question (as used in the original 'Blad) MAY
>be of Tessar design - I don't know.

Ha-RUMPH. Wasting perfectly good Rollei List bandwidth to discuss this Rival Brand, and there is, for the all of it, a fine Hasselblad List as well!

Rick Nordin, in his superb HASSELBLAD SYSTEM COMPENDIUM, confirms that the combination of close ties between Kodak and their Swedish
agency, Victor Hasselblad, coupled with the devastation of Zeiss caused by the War, led to the use of Kodak lenses in the original 1600F/1000F
Hasselblad camera. Approximately 3641 of the 2.8/80 lenses and 1787 of the 3.5/135 design were produced: most were marketed from the US and
marked in feet, though some were shipped to Sweden to be sold by Hasselblad directly, and these were marked in meters. The 80mm lens was
prodcued in 1948 to 1950, 1948 seeing 3280 being made, so that is the bonus year. The 135 lens was made in two batches, 1512 in 1949 and a
further 275 in 1957, after production had shifted to the 500C camera body.

A 6.3/55 Widefield and 5.6/254 Tele were also produced, but in minute quantities of one or two each.
<

Rick doesn't give the optical layout, but I will E-mail him and ask.

By 1952, Hasselblad had shifted to Zeiss lenses from Oberkochen, still their primary source today.

Marc

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Commercial Ektar focals?
Date: Wed Jan 13 03:11:38 CST 1999

luc@overland.net (Luc Novovitch) wrote:

>Hello All,
>Did Kodak make 'short' Commercial Ektar, in the range of 4" and 5"? Shorter?
>I have a 8 1/4 and 12 and I'd like to get shorter lenses of the same
>quality (the 8 1/ is better than my 210 Schneider S!) to be used on 4x5,
>most of the time with a 6x9 back.
>Thanks for reading.
>
>--
>mailto:luc@overland.net

Nope, the shortest of the Commercial Ektar series was 8-1/2", they were also made in 10", 12", and 14" sizes.

Shorter lenses were made as Ektar and Wide Field Ektar. The former are f/4.5 Tessars, the WF lenses are four element air-spaced Double Gauss
types. All were corrected for lateral color. The Commercial Ektars were f/6.3 Tessars, they have somewhat larger image circles than the f/4.5
versions. However the f/4.5 lenses are equally sharp.

f/4.5 Ektars were offered in 101mm, 127mm, 152mm and 12". The 127mm was commonly used on 4x5 press cameras and is sharp to the corners at
f/16 or smaller.

The Wide Field Ektar was made in 80mm, 100mm, 135mm, 190mm and 250mm, all at f/6.3. Coverage is around 80deg at infinity and f/22.

There is also an f/3.7, 105mm Ektar which is a Heliar. It has somwhat narrower coverage than a Tessar but is extrmemly sharp. It was intended
for 2x3 press and view cameras.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: bpotter@home.com (Bill Potter)
[1] Re: Kodak Ektar Lens Question
Date: Sun Feb 07 21:28:17 CST 1999

On Sun, 07 Feb 99 20:54:36 EST, TCNET058@ysub.ysu.edu wrote:

>Today at a Cleveland Photorama, I purchased an old Kodak Ektar press
>lens. Its a 127mm F4.7. My question is about strobe sync. This lens has
>a switch on the front labeled "M" and "F". Are both these for old-style
>flashbulbs only? If it can't strobe sync, I guess I haven't lost much since
>I paid $80 for it. Its in reasonable shape and seems to work ok. But it
>would be nice if it could sync a strobe. Thanks for any info on this
>lens.
>
> -Fred
>
>P.S. Going to use this lens on a 4x5 field camera.
>

Fred,

The F and M are the delay settings for fast and medium peak flash bulbs. If this shutter is like the Supermatic on my Ektar 203, it has a lever next
to the sync setting that cocks the synchronizing timer. This is used for flashbulbs and cocks to different depths depending on whether F or M is
selected.

The good news is this shutter also has full-time X sync, but through a 10K ohm resistor. This prevents flashbulbs from firing, but allows some
strobes to fire. Connect your strobe, don't cock the sync timer and fire the shutter. If the strobe fires, you are in luck. If not, the 10K resistance is
too much to allow it to fire. This was the case with one of my Vivitar strobes, so I opened my shutter and replaced the 1Ok resistor with a piece
of wire. Now I have only X sync, but that's all I will ever need.

You can easily test the sync by looking through the lens at the strobe while tripping the shutter at a high speed. It will be obvious if the sync is
correct; you will get a flash in the eye :-)

Bill

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: catman1963@aol.com (Catman1963)
[1] Re: Ektar Filter Sizes
Date: Sat Mar 13 11:56:47 CST 1999

I have an old Kodak publication titled "Camera Technique for Professional Photographer" which contains the data for all the Ektars. Most of
them seen to use the Series-type adapters. If you could be specific as to what lenses you are interested in, I can give you the data

Bob Kerr

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Pigs in Pokes - Commercial Ektars
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999

"dan edwards" strawberry9@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>Today I was at a local camera store and picked up a Commerical Ektar (8.5")
>in Acme #3 shutter. Two quick questions, though:
> 1) The front element has a bubble in the glass not far from the edge -
>was this a common problem or did this one just get by the Kodak QC?
> 2) Can one tell the age from the serial #?
>
>BTW, I only paid $100 for it, and the shutter appears to be fine, and the
>rest of the glass is great (except for the ubiquitous very fine cleaning
>marks on the front element.) It was a consignment item, the dealer had a
>box of them. Apparently an old photog is on his deathbed and he is getting
>rid of his equipment. The lenses are going fast, as one could guess - there
>are some 8.5" and one 10" left. Email me if you want to know who to call.
>
>-dan
>strawberry9@worldnet.att.net

Occasional small bubbles are very common in dense barium crown glass, which is what the front element is made of. It has no effect on
performance whatever. Beware of bubbles in the rear element, they may actually be indications of problems with the cement.

The shutter is worth what you paid for the lens.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Koni Omega List:
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@lucent.com
Subject: RE: [KOML] OT: Telerollei

Eric wrote:

Another example are the Kodak Ektars found on many view cameras. These are really outstanding executions of Tessar designs and in many ways
outperform the original. It can go the other way, however, and many formula copies don't measure up (ie Raptars and some Xenars). In general,
the KO glass has an excellent reputation for medium contrast optics...

.....

Agreed. There are many junk copies of lenses. Incidentally, the Ektar enlarging lenses are the 5-element Heliar design and well worth finding if
you do enlargements. I doubt you'd find a better lens, especially at the price they sell for. An undiscovered Gem, like the Konis ;-)

Peter K

...

Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dating Kodak lenses

"Elton Pope-Lance" elton@popelance.com wrote:

>Is there a code, system, or source for determining the date of manufacture
>of Kodak LF lenses?
>
>--
>Elton Pope-Lance
>www.popelance.com

Yup. Starting in 1939 or 1940 the serial numaber has a two letter prefix. These stand for the last two digits of the year. The code word is:

C A M E R O S I T Y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

For example, a lens with the letters ES was made in 1947, one marked RC in 1951.

Older lenses have another system and I have no information about it. Many of Kodak's cheaper lenses do not carry a serial number.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ektars,THE FINEST LENSES (RARE)

ad607@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose) wrote:

>Gee, Ektars and Commercial Ektars are not all that rare, nor are they
>all that spectacular... We aren't talking Gold Dot Artars here!

Its amazing how so many ads start out "Rare". Hardly any of the stuff so called is rare. Generally it means the seller is looking for a gullible buyer
or just trying to get attention.

The Commerical Ektars are probably superior to any Dagor except for coverage. They are much better corrected for zonal spherical aberration,
an inherant problem with the Dagor type. Which is not to say that the Dagor is not an excellent lens.

The ad should not have been posted here anyway and I've sent a note to the poster about it. Since we now have a system of classified
marketplace groups there is not much excuse for posting advertising to the discussion groups.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999
From: "G. Lehrer" jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: [Rollei] Lens Focusing Movements

Andre and RUGers who might be interested:

A while back, Andre asked the question as to which was considered better, total lens movement for focusing, or front element focusing; as the
Rollei 35SE and 35TE are examples of each method.

It should be remembered that when the front element (actually the front group) of a lens is moved forward, away from the diaphragm, the actual
focal length of the lens shortens, giving the effect of a longer "bellows" draw. It focuses closer. This effect was used by the lens designers of
Eastman Kodak in their design of at least three Ektars: the f2.8 80mm as used in the first Hasselblad, f3.5 100mm as used in the Medalist, and f3.7
105mm as used in the Miniature Speed Graphic. These three lenses have absolutely identical elements, they ONLY differ in the spacing of the
groups. This was shown to me by Dr Kingslake in one of the many seminars he gave. These were all superb lenses,and could hold their own
against most modern lenses.

I have compared negatives from my SE and TE, with each type of focusing, and found that for most practical use, NO DIFFERENCE.

So Andre, you will not be unhappy with either.

Jerry

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999
From: "G. Lehrer" jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lens Focusing Movements

Richard Knoppow wrote:

> At 06:06 PM 11/07/1999 -0800, you wrote:
> >Andre and RUGers who might be interested:
> >
> >A while back, Andre asked the question as to which was considered
> >better,
> >total lens movement for focusing, or front element focusing; as the
> >Rollei 35SE and 35TE are examples of each method.
> >
> >It should be remembered that when the front element (actually the front
> >group) of a lens is moved forward, away from the diaphragm, the actual
> >focal length of the lens shortens, giving the effect of a longer
> >"bellows" draw. It focuses closer. This effect was used by the lens
> >designers of Eastman Kodak in their design of at least three Ektars: the
> >f2.8 80mm as used in the first Hasselblad, f3.5 100mm as used in the
> >Medalist, and f3.7 105mm as used in the Miniature Speed Graphic. These
> >three lenses have absolutely identical elements, they ONLY differ in
> >the spacing of the groups. This was shown to me by Dr Kingslake in one
> >of the many seminars he gave. These were all superb lenses,and could
> >hold their own against most modern lenses.
> >
> >I have compared negatives from my SE and TE, with each type of focusing,
> >and found that for most practical use, NO DIFFERENCE.
> >
> >So Andre, you will not be unhappy with either.
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> I am very puzzled by this. The fact is that element spacing has a
> profound effect on corrections. You can demonstrate this with one of the
> optical analysis programs. Even though the ratio of sped and focal length
> come out right its hard to believe a variation of focal length of as much
> as 80 to 100mm could be made by simply respacing elements without a severe
> effect on the lens corrections.
> I also wonder if anyone has definite information about the Hasselblad
> Ektars. I was under the impression they were Tessars, maybe not. The other
> two are Heliar types.
> ----
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles,Ca.
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Richard

Sorry to disenchant you, though the first batch of H'blad Ektars MIGHT have been of 4 element Tessar design, the rest of them were re-spaced
Medalist lenses ( Ref: Kingslake) A friend of mine had the miserable f2.8 Tessar in a 2.8 A Rollei replaced with a H'blad Ektar by (I think) Oscar
Heinemann. (Or was it Marty Forscher?)

Rick Nordin does state that the first lens in the H'blad was a 4 element (Tessar type) which was radioactive. I personally have seen them with a 5
element Heliar style Ektar.

Jerry

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000
From: "John L. Couch" jlc@imatron.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Cc: jlc@imatron.com
Subject: Re: kodak ektar lenses

Dear BobM,

.....

Below is some information I got on the Kodak Ektar lens made in the US for German Retinas. This lens would have been pretty top-of-the-line in
1946.

It has a many bladed-diaphram so the Bokeh out-of-focus spots are round. Of course the diaphram does not have to open and close quickly. The
lens is rather small in diameter. The "outside" of the mount is about 29 mm. Being a rangefinder, they did not have to have a lot of extra glass for
a retrofocus design.

Add lots of new stuff to the web. Your sites are great.

John

----- Begin Included Message -----

From RETINACAM@email.msn.com Thu Feb 17 19:15 PST 2000 From: "David L Jentz" RETINACAM@email.msn.com
To: "John L. Couch" jlc@imatron.com
Subject: Re: Retina Camera with ektar f2.0 lens

The optical design of the Kodak Ektar f2 47mm. lens is 6 elements in four groups in an asymmetrical double-gauss formula.

The 2nd + 3rd and 4th +5th elements are cemented together.

The same design can be found with the Leitz Summar , Zeiss Planar, Schneider Xenon or the Rodenstock Heligon.

Would you email back to me the lens serial number of your camera? It will start EO or ES.

Also, please email back the body serial number. The body serial number is located on the inside of the camera back door adjacent to the film
pressure plate.

The Ektar lens was mounted on Type 011 Retina II cameras that were only sold by the PX system in US military bases overseas.

Best regards,

Dave

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Ross Xpres lens

Richard et al.

I echo the erudite Mr Knoppow in his statements about the Ektar series of lenses as used on the Kodak Medalist and Baby Speed Graphic, as well
as the Enlarging Ektars.

I still assert that the sharpest standard MF lens I have ever used was the f3.5 4inch Ektar on my Medalist.

The Enlarging Ektars were of several designs even of the same focal length. The good ones were of a 5 element design (Heliar type) They can be
identified by the very coarse type of knurling on the diaphragm control ring. The ones with a fine knurling were of a 4 element (Tessar?)
configuration.

On the subject of Ross Xpress lenses; weren't there several families of lenses with that name? Some I recall, were superb. The Brits made some
great lenses, but the cameras were no great shakes. Excepting of course the Reid cameras which were the best Leica copies ever!! I had two
which seemed to be of higher quality than the Leica IIIa or b. For what it is worth, the only Leica copies that were in the same league as the Reid
were the US made Kardons, with a 47mm Kodak Ektar f2 lens as used in the Kodak Bantam and some Kodak Retinas.

But I digress, sorry.
Jerry Lehrer

...

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: torx@nwrain.com (R. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 100mm and 103mm Ektar

There is the potential for some confusion in Kodak's 3.7 Ektars. The 105mm f3.7 (Not 103mm) is a heliar copy. The 103 mm f3.7 is not. It is a 4
element lens.

I asked Steve Grimes for a price to mount the 100 mm 3.7 Ektar from a Medalist in a modern shutter. As I recall it was at least $300 and may have
been closer to $400.

However, it is a sharp lens.

bob

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001
Subject: Kodak Ektar, 207mm, f/3.7 [really 107mm]

There was a question not long ago about this lens. I can't find the original message so I am posting in hope the person asking will see this.

I found the lens. It is listed in the 1940 edition of the lens booklet included in the _Kodak Reference Handbook_, but is not in later editions.

This is a modified Tessar type. It varies from a conventional Tessar in that the order of powers of the cemented elements in the rear component
are reversed. That is, in an ordinary Tessar the negative element faces the stop, in this lens, the positive element faces the stop.

According to Rudolf Kingslake, Kodak found that this form is superior to the ordinary one when high index glass is used.

The lens was sold as a general purpose lens for small view cameras and for enlarging.

The 105mm, f/3.7, sold for similar purposes, is a later design of the Heliar, five element, type.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001
From: "R. Creason" rcreason@zianet.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: New lenses on old Rolleiflex?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com

> I believe this design was used for an f/3.7
> 107 mm lens made for a couple of years but replaced about 1944 with
> Altman's f.3.7 105mm lens, essentially the same design as used on the
> Medalist. Kodak used this form for some front element focusing lenses later.

I have two of these f3.7 105mm Ektars. One made in 1941 (uncoated) the other in 1947 (coated).

I had the newer one CLAed by Ken Ruth about 2 years ago. He did an excellent job and this lens has produced some of the best 6x9 Velvia
transparencies I have ever seen!

I also had a Medalist I that I carried with me during my tour of duty in Germany in the early '50s (that was when I bought my Rollei MX). The
lens on that Medalist was truly outstanding.

Bob C.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Photo Auction 6/23/01 Radford, Virginia

you wrote:

>>{Snip}
>> Depending on age you will find some very fine lenses on these guys. The
>> best of class is either the f/4.5, 101mm Ektar or the f/3.7, 105mm Ektar.
>> The 105mm is a Heliar type essentially identical to those used on the
>> Medalist camera. Pre- WW-2 Mini's usually have Jena Tessars on them. These
>> have a little residual spherical compared to the Ektar but when stopped
>> down to normal stops are about equally sharp.
>> Speed Graphics are my "other" favorite camera.
>> ----
>> Richard Knoppow
>
>Mine has a 101 Trade Graflex Optar Mark
> 4.5 which i guess is a Wollensak as i don't think they made the shutter.
>Not as good as the Ektar??!
>
>
>Mark Rabiner
>
>Portland, Oregon
>USA
>
>http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

Most Optars are Wollensak Raptars. I say most because very late Optars are Rodenstock lenses. These say Made in Germany on them and I think
may have the Rodenstock name also.

Graphex shutters are the same as Wollensak Rapax shutters. These are very good shutters.

The Ektar was/is an outstanding lens even in comparison to modern glass. I've checked only a couple of Raptar lenses and found the 135mm
lenses to have excessive coma requiring them to be stopped down to f/22 to be sharp in the corners of a 4x5 where a 127mm Ektar is sharp at f/8.
The Raptar is very sharp in the center. This may not be true of all Raptar/Optar lenses in Graphics. The lens in my Super-D Graflex is a
Wolensak Optar and is dead sharp all over, buit is an f/5.6 lens. A Tessar type but a different design. Wollensak was capable of making excellent
lenses but some seem to have been dogs. I don't know of any Kodak dogs.\

BTW, the 15" Raptar/Optar telephoto lens is excellent and will cover a 5x7 film.

The main problem with Kodak Supermatic shutters is weak drive springs. If the shutter has a good spring it is quite accurate and quite reliable.
Wollensak Rapax/Graphex shutters are rather more complex but are also capable of being very accurate and reliable. They also have some nice
features like the flash synch arrangement and method of providing press focus.

The Supermatic seems to have been designed to replace Compur shutters which stopped being available in the US around 1940. The
Rapax/Graphex shutter came out around 1946 or 47.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: shuuter/lens combo ?
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001

>buzzmarr <buzzmarr@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> Hello,
>>
>> another newbie here. I am doing the 2x3 speed graphic thing and I have
>> picked up an ektar 100 3.5 for a kodak medalist. I think it will make a
>> good user, but I need to know what shutter to put it in (size) and if
>> there is anything I need to do other than screw the thing in.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Buzz
>
>isn't it in shutter already? i mean, the lens was mounted, in
>shutter, on the front of the medalist's focusing helical.

The Medalist lens fits the shutter in the Medalist. A slightly
different version of this lens, the 105mm, f/3.7 Ektar, was supplied
in #2 Supermatic shutters. Its possible the cells from the Medalist lens may also fit this shutter but the spacing may be different. The
#2 Supermatic is the shutter used for the 127mm, f/4.7 Ektar and
203mm, f/7.7 Ektar. You may be able to find a junked one or at least
find one you can use to check the threads with.

If it threads in the image quality will tell you if the spacing is
off a lot. Usually spacing is pretty critical. I don't have specific
infor on correct spacing. You would have to find a complete Medalist
and measure it.

Sorry to be discouraging. You can't loose much by trying to make the
thing work and will have a very good lens if you can.
This is a very good lens if you can get it to work.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Re: [Leica] Did Kodak at one time beat Leica in terms of lens quality???

B. D. Colen wrote:
>Marc- NOT to start anything, but how do those Kodak lenses, which are
>found in a slew of still operation cameras, standup by today's optical
>standards. Not necessarilly when compared to the latest generation of
>Leica lenses, but when compared to the average lens in their focal
>length?

The better Kodak lenses are still really competitive, and a lot of them are
still being used profesionally in LF and MF cameras. I have a
Tessar-derived Ektar in my Baby Speed Graphic which I am itching to try
out, once I find a film back and cut down some film.

For large-format cameras, Goerz, Zeiss, and Kodak still hold the edge for
inexpensive lenses -- the newer lenses (Rodenstock, JSK, Nikon, and Pentax)
ARE better but are also a true Leica-sized kick in the pocketbook.

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001
From: "tlianza" <tlianza@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: [Leica] Did Kodak at one time beat Leica in terms of lens
quality???

The answer is that Kodak has beat Leica MANY times in terms of lens quality.
I own a Kodak Ektra Camera as well as a number of Medalists. The Ektra was,
and still is an amazing 35mm camera. It had some of the following features:

1 Interchangable backs
2 Variable FOV view finder (adjustable from 40mm to 254mm)
3 shutter speeds from 1 to 1/1000 sec
4 A wide range of interchangeable lenses
5 an extremely high magnification rangefinder, suitable for the 250 mm lens.
(the range finder was separated from the view finder.

I have some pictures of these systems on my web site
www.lianza.org/tlphotos/ in the camera collecting section.... The web site
is a work in progress and any comments, good or bad are welcome.

The lenses were designed by some of the finest lens designers in the world
(with all due respect to Leica) and there were no compromises made in the
design. The cameras didn't sell well because of their expense. On the down
side, the shutter was a maintence nightmare and 95% of the existing cameras
don't work. Mine does and I'll take it out for a test run against my new
Summicron 50 f2 this fall and I'll put a series of side by sides for the
group if there is an interest.

The Kodak Medalist was a tremendous camera and it still commands relatively
high prices amoung working pros. It is a 620 based camera and has a 100mm
Kodak Ektar lens which has beautiful imaging characteristics. Many users
have had the camera modified to accept 120 film, but I collect them so I
purchase re-rolled film from www.filmforclassics.com . Not cheap, but I get
to use the old machines in their original form. I still can get verichrome
pan for those machines. It's a beautiful imaging combination. The medalist
is a 6X9 horizontal format machine that yields 8 exposures on a 620 roll.
It's a great machine.

Unfortunately, Kodak stopped taking the camera business (from the domestic
US side) seriously after the second world . There were still fine cameras
made after the war in Germany by Kodak.

Today, it is a different story. Fortunately for all us, Leica has
concentrated it's talents on building a few very good lenses. I hope they
keep doing it....

Tom Lianza
Technical Director
Sequel Imaging Inc.

From: Michael S. Briggs (MS.Briggs@cwix.com)
Subject: Re: Commercial Ektar - how good?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 1999/04/12

Photoart88 wrote:
>
> I thinking of buying something like a 12" or 14" Commercial Ektar for 8x10
> color work. I'm going to do landscapes and some table top at about 1/3 life
> size. How good are these lenses compared to today's lenses (G-Clarons,
> Apo-Symmars, Rodenstock Apo-Sironar's, Nikon, Fujis, etc.) for color work,
> subjection to flare, and at infinity vs close-up, using the usual f-stops of
> f/22-32?
> If I'm enlarging an 8x10 color neg, or transparency to say 30x40, or just
> closely inspecting the transparency with a 4x or 8x loupe would I notice much
> difference in contrast, color saturation, tonal gradation, etc? I'm very
> picky.

An article in the October 1997 Phot Techniques magazine compares a 10
Wide Field Ektar with two 240 mm modern lenses, a Rodenstock Apo Sironar
S and Apo Sironar N for use on an 8x10. A few of the conclusions: "The
Ektar is sharp; is resolution is all you'd need." The author liked
the additional coverage of the Wide Field Ektar. On the other hand, he
found "flare was a serious problem with the Ektar" and middle values had
less contrast.

Back issues may be available--try to find the article.

If you are very picky, you'd probably prefer a modern lens.

--Michael

	Subject: Kodak Ektar Lenses Original Site: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/ektar.html	Notes: The site still exists, but many of the pages seem to be no longer maintained and available and I have not been able to reach the original site developer, Robert Monaghan, who collected and edited the following information from use net postings. This was restored from a copy I made in April 2002; Bob may have added to or edited this page after that.