Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,958   Posts: 1,522,998   Online: 1180
      
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    sun of sand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    10

    Kodak Signet or similar RF with a 44mm F/2.8 EKTAR?

    Ektar not Ektanon. 44mm F2.8 Ektar. SN# is RM693 which makes it 1953. I've seen a SN# _ _693 before on a production camera so it's not unusual. It's quite far in, though. There must have been quite a few cameras made with this Ektar branded lens.

    I can't find a 44mm 2.8 Ektar camera.



    I contacted Prarielist about 2 years ago ..John Wallen? I can't remember his name. He didn't know.
    But protoypes were not numbered like that.


    Anyone seen one? This is just the front element that I have. Found it loose in a box of small junk camera stuff and Ektar and 44mm seemed a good combination
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails P1080970.JPG   P1080972.JPG  

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    790
    'Tis a mystery. The lens on the Signet 35 is, of course, a 44mm f/3.5 Ektar, and all the 44mm f/2.8's on other Kodak models seem to be Ektanars. The Vade Mecum has no reference to an f/2.8.

  3. #3
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,243
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Could it have been off a Retina ? Most of the 1's were f2.8 lenses, IIRC, and then there were some IIs and IIIs that had 2.8 lenses as well.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    790
    I *think* the fixed-lens Retinas were mostly 50's, with perhaps a 45 or two. Do we have a Retina expert lurking here?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    I think all of the folding Retinas were 50mm. The Retina IIS has a 45mm Xenar and only a Xenar, and I'm not sure about subsequent models.

    Maybe this came from one of the Pony cameras. I can't remember what lens the used. Maybe an Anastar or something else.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    108
    There was a 47mm Ektar on a version of the Retina too, but no 44 that I know of (though I'm no Retina-head).

    --nosmok

  7. #7
    sun of sand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    10
    any chance it's just mislabeled?

    It looks like a Signet lens the way it's written out on the beauty ring "Kodak Ektar Lens" and not just "Kodak Ektar"

    How about a Motormatic 44mm f/2.8 tessar Ektanar that was changed from front cell focussing to unit focussing making it Ektar quality and not 2nd tier Ektanar
    I guess the problem with that is the 1953 date.

    maybe military? "speculation exists that this camera was a civilized version of a camera originally designed for the military"
    There are army/air force signet 35's but perhaps there were earlier cameras before even those came out that the Signet 35 was based ..but then 1953 is 2 years into the 35's production

    Brian Wallen
    Early 50mm f/2.8 Aluminum signet lenses. have several 4-5 one is incomplete
    A couple are tagges "master" SNs are all zeros.


    Kodak assigned serial numbers to Anastigmat Special/Anastar and Ektar lens. Prior to about 1940 it used a single numeric sequence, 54321†, while serial numbers after that were alpha-numeric, two letters and three or four numbers -- ES3682. The letters in the U. S. were mapped to the word (sic) "CAMEROSITY", while in England, the mapping was to "CUMBERLAND".

    Chance it's 1963? What does CUMBERLAND means? There were lenses/cameras made in UK? Also France/Brazil ...?
    End of the line for Signet series was the 80 1962 with their Thorium Ektanars which were triplets


    My element appears to be tessar front two elements group

    I took the front element off the 814 and the second element threads on to the first unlike mine which can't be or is very hard to unscrew
    When the 814 is threaded on the reflections act exactly like my front element
    so a tessar design which I know the 814 to be
    The 814 uses a 38mm f/2.8 "Kodak Ektra Lens"

    Coating is the yellow/pink looking variety like on the Instamatic 814 1968-1970 using Thorium which stains



    and of course SN#'s don't simply begin at 1 so who knows ..but seems odd.

  8. #8
    sun of sand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    10
    It will fit a series 5 lens hood from a Retina IIa but is a little tighter than the IIa.
    The back threading etc is not similar to the retina IIa front element ..no "stepping" on the IIa


    I've wanted a 011 Retina Ektar camera but never bid beyond about $75. Would be nice to compare front elements to one maybe

    I don't have a Signet 35 or later series to compare against either. Good camera but not as interesting.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    620
    Images
    25
    The circled L denotes it as a commercial Ektar with "Lumenized" coating. Could this be an enlarger or projector lens?

  10. #10
    sun of sand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by elcabezagrande View Post
    The circled L denotes it as a commercial Ektar with "Lumenized" coating. Could this be an enlarger or projector lens?
    I wouldn't think so. Quite sure it would say Projection or Enlarging on it even if not meant for the public. It's very similar in size to 35mm camera lenses. Retina/Instamatic/Signet.
    Most Ektars and many lesser lenses were coated or Lumenized Think they just dropped the L at some point.
    Turns out I do have a Signet 40. I forgot that this element was in a box next to a box with the Signet 40 so I picked up the Signet box as well not having enough time to check the Signet 40 for a missing element. Didn't belong. The Signet 40 is a cheaper camera than the 35 and you really can't even remove the front element on it ...i tried.

    I'm still stuck on it being for an otherwise front element focusing "2nd tier type" rangefinder that was made to focus as whole and so they termed the lens Ektar instead of Ektanar
    44mm f/2.8 Kodak Ektanar
    How simple it would be.
    But where is the camera/s?
    Maybe it WAS an Ektar but needed a cheaper line

    Space race camera? 7-10 years too early to compete against the the "ansco" autoset Rokkor 45mm f/2.8



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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