Is this Kodak Ektar lens all present and accounted for?

[marc_rochkind]

Just got a Speed Graphic via eBay (returnable), and I can't get it to focus on the ground glass. Looking at the

lens, which I'm not at all familiar with, it seems that much of it might be missing. Can someone look at the

photo and let me know?

 

The second photo is from the back.

 

Thanks!<div></div>

[john_shriver]

<p>You are missing the rear group.<br>

You definitely deserve a refund (after return), or a discount of about $90 to buy another lens.</p>

[marc_rochkind]

Thanks, John. A rear group would make all the difference, no doubt. ;-)

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Marc, if this is a 5x4 camera, then that 127mm lens wouldn't even cover the format properly, even if was complete! So before you go to the hassle of sending it back, consider that the 127mm f/4.5 Ektar isn't a top-drawer lens anyway, and you'd probably want to replace it sooner or later. What you decide to do depends on how much you payed and whether the description was fraudulent I suppose.</p>

[nbg90455]

<p>Just for the record and somewhat off-topic to the OP's question -- properly centered and stopped down (say f16), the 127 lens will cover a 4x5 sheet at infinity, and most certainly at closer distances. I have a few 4x5 sheets to prove that :-) -- although none that are scanned and ready to post online...</p>

 

[nbg90455]

<p>Oh, and, yes, the rear lens group is missing..</p>

[john_golden2]

<p>the 127 was my first LF lens and i had no problem with it covering 4x5, and its very sharp too</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>FWIW -</p>

<p>The 127 Ektar is on my Crown Graphic (4x5) and I have no coverage issues even with some tilt and shift.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I was just going by the specification of the lens. The 127mm Ektar is a Tessar type lens with a stated coverage angle of 52 degrees, giving a consequent image-circle diameter at infinity of 124mm. This is well short of the 153mm image circle needed to cover 5x4.</p>

<p>I have a similarly designed 135mm f/4.7 Schneider Xenar, which when stopped well down will just cover 5x4 with no room for any shift. Maximum aperture is only useable for focusing, and while central sharpness is adequate it just doesn't compare with the likes of a Sironar or Symmar, or even an old Dagor. </p>

[nbg90455]

These old lumenized Kodak lenses are very special beasts, which a lot of people don't know :-)

[tom_cheshire]

<p>The front end looks hazed over or cloudy. The back end is missing.</p>

<p>The standard lenses for Graphic 4x5 cameras were the 127mm Ektar, 135mm Optar, and, later on, 135mm Xenar.</p>

[nbg90455]

Someone will probably correct me but I think the 127 Ektars were actually the standard lens for the 3x4 graphics, with

the 152 Ektars being the standard for the 4x5 version. Having said that the 127s were popular with journalists on 4x5

cameras since they are effectively wide angles.

[mark_l6]

<p>Mike I believe you are dead right, the 127 was for the 4 1/4 x 3/1/4 graphics and the newspaper guys loved them on 4x5 because of the wide angle and the final photo published was probably cropped anyway, so who cared about the corners. I have bought and sold two examples and both were very sharp in the centre and very poor in the corners and somewhat liable to flare. I finally bought a 125mm f/5.6 fujinon with the 52mm filter size and adjusted my crown rangefinder and at last I have happiness. It's the sharpest lens I've ever used even when at maximum rise and it stays attached when I fold the crown.</p>