Kodak Ektar

[joe_s6]

I recently purchased an 1946 Kodak Ektar 127mm lens after seeing what great images it produces

at the Ektar group on Flickr.

 

The lens arrived today, and the shutter speeds seem a bit stiff to move. Is that normal with

this lens? It's veryy clean, and the speeds seem to be functioning alright. Am going to test

it out this weekend.

 

What are anyone else's takes on this lens? I've been searching for more examples of images

made with one, but not finding much out there. I know Ektars seem to be in demand, and

hold their value well.

 

Is there any other Ektar I should be on the lookout for? These seem nice, but more expensive

than even my standard German lenses!

 

Any/all help appreciated.

 

Joe

[mark_sampson]

I'd bet that the shutter hasn't seen a lot of use for some years. Flash Supermatics do tend to be a bit stiff; eventually you'll want to have a CLA done. The 127/4.7 Ektar was designed for the old 3-1/4"x4-1/4" format. (A 3x4 Speed Graphic was my first LF camera, with that exact lens) The lenses were also supplied on 4x5 Graphics. They are very sharp in the center but have little extra coverage on 4x5; many people report soft corners... I never saw that when I moved up to 4x5 with that lens, but you can run out of coverage pretty easily. You'll want a "Kodak series VI adapter ring 1-1/2 in.- 38mm" to put filters on- it's an aluminum press-fit on thefront of the lens.

All the Ektars are fine lenses- enjoy!

[randall ellis]

I use the 127mm and 203mm Ektars, and just sold a 152mm Ektar. They are all great lenses for backpacking because they produce nice results and weight next to nothing. I sold the 152 for lack of use, but it was a great lens too.

 

As far as changing shutter speeds goes, all of mine were slightly firm to turn, but not what I would call stiff or hard to turn. With some use it may loosen up, but all of mine are a bit stiffer than say a Copal shutter, even after years of use. Still, they work very well and I've never felt the need to get anything different. I carry mine all the time on longer trips so the light weight is a huge plus for me.

 

Other than the 152 and 203, I would also suggest the 100 wide field, which is difficult to come by, and quite a bit more expensive than the others, but certainly a nice lens.

 

- Randy

[brucecahn]

The shutters are the problem with these vintage lenses. They are rarely accurate and if so don't remain accurate for long. You either spend a lot of money to have them mounted in contemporary lenses, or you learn to live with it. You can have the shutters CLA'd but they still are a problem. You have to determine what shutter speeds work with what meter settings and it is viable. The better Ektars are the Commercial Ektars. You mentioned that the lens was expensive. Kodak Ektars are a bargain compared to the alternatives. You may have overpaid.

[jtk]

Shutters are easily brought back to normal speeds by squirting a little lighter fluid into them. Softens hardened lubricants. You should remove optics to do that.

[randall ellis]

Although I understand what Bruce is saying, I have to disagree, at least to a certain extent. I have used a number of vintage shutters and not had any problems. I have seen modern shutters that vary slightly in speed over the course of a number of activations, and I have seen the same from vintage shutters. The minor variance in speed when operating a shutter with speeds no faster than 1/100th of a second is minor, and most people have no need for a $600 shutter considering what they do. Hell, I use lenses with NO shutter and I still get great results. Unless you are talking about very fast shutter speeds working in a setting where the slightest variance is critical to the results there is little reason to be concerned about variations in speed. For $50 you can get it cleaned properly and not have to worry about it again for 5-10 years, if not more. I'm certain that some the shutters that I have have NEVER had a CLA, ever, and they work fine.

 

- Randy

[dan_fromm2]

Ektars more expensive than standard german lenses? Which standard german lenses do you have in mind? I ask because, for example, 135/5.6 Symmars (convertible) usually sell for more than 127/4.7 Ektars. 135/5.6 Symmar Ss go even higher.

[jtk]

He may be talking about Commercial Ektars, which certainly can outperform Xenars and convertible Symmars and are more beloved.

[d_purdy]

I have used a 127 ektar from a speed graphic and it was very very sharp. I now have a 135

wide field ektar for 5x7 and it also is extremely sharp.

[brucecahn]

Randall: this is a large format camera store. We formerly sold vintage lenses. We do not anymore because the shutters are so unreliable. We ended up losing money on them. It just does not pay unless there is a repair person on the premises. Yes of course you do not need a shutter, but few of the people on this forum would be willing to use a barrel lens.

[golden]

i also have an ektar 127, i use it on my 4x5, though i dont have much movements, the images are sharp as a razor. when i use my film back, i have all the movements i need, the 127 is a great lens.<div></div>

[golden]

here is another 127mm ektar image, you can see here that i was further away from the subject, up near the top and around the sides the image starts to get soft, the lens was stopped all the way down f32 with a #25 filter<div></div>

[golden]

and yet another...... both of these i shot today,<div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I have 4 127mm Kodak Ektars for speed graphics. The shutters usually work well; they often just need abit of exercise. The oldest one is from 1940; the newest from 1957. Every one I got even off of ebay has been ok. One of mine I tested shot 85 line pairs per mm on film on axis; but it poops down to about 14 to 22 at the far corners of a 4x5. Its really a 3x4 lens. One of my 127mm is in compur shutter. For 4x5 press usage the 127mm ektar is a fine lens. With a 16x20 the corners of a 4x5 tend to show. For a 11x14 the corners still appear sharp. One can often buy a 4x5 speed graphic and 127mm ektar off of ebay for not much money; say 200. I have bought several even for 150.

[engelgrafik]

I have two Kodak Ektar 127mm lenses and I compared them on Polaroid 664 to my 135mm Optar and the Ektars both appeared to have a bit more sharpness of detail in the images. Both were the exact same shot focused on groundglass from a tripod, no filters, f4.7 or thereabouts and the Ektar just seemed to have more overall definition to the details in the image, while still retaining the contrast. The bokeh wasn't as creamy as the Optar, but even the Optar's bokeh isn't as nice as my 1.8 Nikkor 50mm on my dSLR, so relatively speaking the Ektars are a bit better than Optars I think. ;) They shouldn't be expensive. I picked up a Pacemaker Speed Graphic w/ektar, an anniversary Graphic w/ some other lens, and 1 extra ektar lens for $300. So you shouldn't be paying like $200 for one of these things.

[tom_bowling1664874721]

I'm intrigued by Bruce's comment people wouldn't use a barrel lens. Why wouldn't they?

(serious question, not rhetorical)

[steve_hamley1]

Joe,

 

Lenses don't make great images. Photographers do.

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

 

Steve