Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,565   Posts: 1,545,348   Online: 1002
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,212
    Images
    47
    I've had a 10" wide field and am sorry I ever sold it. It's now going to cost me double to get one back. I also have a 240 G-claron. It's sharper, but more contrasty. Definitely a different flavor to each. Not as sharp as does not mean it's not sharp. When shooting chrome in uncontrolled light sources, the WFE will kick the modern multi coated lenses' ass. The Ektar Commercial lenses are extremely sharp.

  2. #12
    JG Motamedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by SPS731 View Post
    ...I once read that older process type lenses like Red Dot Artars do not increase the depth of field as they are stopped down. Is this correct?
    No, you probably read that process dialytes like the Artar or the Ronar do not increase in coverage stopped down.

    I have been using a 135mm WF Ektar for the past few weeks and have been very happy with it. Sharp coverage at f32 is about 235mm, just enough for a bit of movements with 5x7 and huge movements with 4x5. Like Jim I have been a bit dissapointed with the Ektars' limited aperture; f32 with the 135mm WF Ektar. However, this hasn't really affected me, just a theoretical limit.
    Last edited by JG Motamedi; 07-26-2007 at 10:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    I have had a handful of Kodak lenses. The 203 and the 12" have been my favorites. The 12" needs a shade bad as the lens's image circle is very large and the coating less developed than modern lenses. Images on 4x5 can lack contrast or worse. The 12" has a very pleasing out of focus area and works well as a slightly long portrait lens. The 203 is really a wonder lens, big image circle, very sharp, good contrast,and it works very well with colour films. All in a very small little package. The lack of a threaded filter ring is very annoying. The price of these lenses can cure many annoyances

    *

  4. #14
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,290
    Images
    20
    All lenses increase DOF as you stop down. Artars are no exception.

    If f:45 isn't a small enough minimum aperture for you in some circumstances, you could always make a smaller aperture disk like Weston did and insert it in the lens as needed. I haven't found a need to do so with my 10" WF Ektar.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Allegedly the Fuji L lenses are modern copies of the Kodak Ektars. If you can find a Fuji L 300mm I doubt it'll be any more money but will be in a #3 shutter. I'm not sure if thats a plus or minus :rolleyes:

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    fairfield county, Ct.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,817
    Images
    24

    Ektars

    have owned a 152mm Ektar for as long as I can remember. there is something exquisite about the way it works with polaroid film. spent quite a while working this combo when I did not have darkroom. VERY underrated lens....
    Best, Peter

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,030
    I have and use both the 250mm 10" Wide Field Ektar and the 14" Commercial Ektar on my 8x10. I love 'em both. They are two different designs as "Ektar" is a a "brand" (you'll find tessar, double gauss and dialyte "Ektars" for example) rather than a single design (like a "Dagor"=double anastigmat.) The Wide Field is a double gauss and the Commercial is a tessar.

    The only real downside is they'll sometimes command collector prices which can up the ante so much that newer optics make more economic sense---but newer optics are rarely as fast (if thats an important consideration to you.) Of course they are also larger and heavier and live in #5 Universal shutters but compared to something like a 165mm f8 Super Angulon these Ektars begin to look like Twiggy OK maybe not Twiggy, more like Sophia Loren

    The Universal shutters require some finesse and a sense of humor helps. If you tend toward the ubermensch mentality they will likely drive you farther off the deep end. OTOH, I have learned to love them.

    With both a 14" Commmercial Ektar and a 10" Wide Field Ektar you've got 8x10well covered. Over the years I've added a 19" Artar as my "long" lens and a 159mm Wollensak Yellow Dot as an "ultra wide" and a 240 G Claron and 12" Dagor as "back ups" to my kit (either the Wolly, the Dagor or the G-Claron fit nicely inside my folded camera with the lens board reversed, which is nice for hiking while the thought of the Ektars being carried that way just don't jive with my 'comfort zone') but if they were all to dissolve into wishful thoughts tomorrow I could get on with 8x10 life quite nicely with just the Ektars.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by SPS731 View Post
    Does anyone have experience with Kodak Ektar large format lenses? Specifically the Wide Field 250mm f6.3 and the Commercial Ektar 14" lenses? How do they compare to modern day lenses?

    Thanks for your help in advance.
    I might as well refer back to your original question! Both these lenses are single coated, not MC. They do perform nicely with color film---the Commercial Ektars were, after all, commercial studio "standards" before and during the 50's and early 60's. With B&W performance is legendary and IMHO the equal to any modern lens and in some ways better, if you happen to enjoy creamy skin tones (think Yousef Karsh) and contrasty intimate landscapes (think Ansel Adams) these lenses have been long famous for.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,030
    One more thought. Slip-on series filter adapters are nearly impossible to find in the sizes these lenses require. I use the Lee rubberband thingy with 4x4 filters in Calumet cardboard holders with excellent results. The Wide Field really needs a lens shade most of the time and a hat works fine for that job.

  10. #20
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,402
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by John Kasaian View Post
    ...these Ektars begin to look like Twiggy OK maybe not Twiggy, more like Sophia Loren
    Somehow I just never thought Sophia Loren and a Kodak Ektar would be compared.....LOL Eleanor Roosevelt maybe?
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin