PDA

View Full Version : Kodak 305mm f/2.5 Aero-Ektar, what do I do with this doorstop?



Eric Woodbury
30-Mar-2017, 12:59
I had a 305mm Aero-Ektar land in my lap. (Not really, or it would have broken me.) This thing is a monster. Must weigh 20#. 13in image circle, designed for 9x9 aerial camera. There is no iris, so it is 'wide-open' all the time. Glass looks good, clear, no fungus or separation. Single coated. 1943. If I could mount the thing, it would break any camera I have. Right now, it is a conversation piece. Are there any practical uses until my U2 spy plane shows up?

Thanks. EW

Leigh
30-Mar-2017, 13:12
Mount a camera on it.

- Leigh

Pfsor
30-Mar-2017, 13:44
Without the corresponding shutter your best option is the U2 spy plane coming to your door.

Eric Woodbury
30-Mar-2017, 14:17
Pfsor, OK, I'll lengthen the driveway this weekend.

If this was on an aerial camera, then it should be good quality optics, correct?

f/# is too fast to use my hat for a shutter. Maybe I could burn ants.

Pfsor
30-Mar-2017, 14:37
Pfsor, OK, I'll lengthen the driveway this weekend.

If this was on an aerial camera, then it should be good quality optics, correct?


One could say that.
And don't burn ants, I like them. More clever than people - they know how to live together for the common good.

Dan Fromm
30-Mar-2017, 14:46
If this was on an aerial camera, then it should be good quality optics, correct?Not guaranteed. The USAF data sheet for it (pp. 7-5 and 7-6) say that wide open it resolved 25 lp/mm centrally and 10 at 27.5 degrees off axis.

Peter De Smidt
30-Mar-2017, 14:54
https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/aero/

http://home.earthlink.net/~michaelbriggs/aeroektar/aeroektar.html

Pere Casals
30-Mar-2017, 16:01
https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/aero/

http://home.earthlink.net/~michaelbriggs/aeroektar/aeroektar.html


Yes, the Speed Graphic is a way to overcome the shutter issue.

domaz
30-Mar-2017, 16:07
Yes, the Speed Graphic is a way to overcome the shutter issue.

The 305mm isn't gonna mount to no Speed Graphic at least not without extensive use of black PVC pipe perhaps??

Pere Casals
30-Mar-2017, 16:22
I had a 305mm Aero-Ektar land in my lap. (Not really, or it would have broken me.) This thing is a monster. Must weigh 20#. 13in image circle, designed for 9x9 aerial camera. There is no iris, so it is 'wide-open' all the time. Glass looks good, clear, no fungus or separation. Single coated. 1943. If I could mount the thing, it would break any camera I have. Right now, it is a conversation piece. Are there any practical uses until my U2 spy plane shows up?

Thanks. EW

I was following the 178mm version, it delivers swirl bokeh. It would be nice if the 305mm also has it, anyway this also can be allways provocated...


https://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/14563709413/in/photolist-https://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/9127232097/in/photolist-dU2xwH-f6W12C-mRk64E-obWPqa-mKn48P-ocMa28-eUxs7D-eUJNRY-f6dS8z-joBySR-HeXVsF-H8pYtN-otbk5v-rUoWTZ-r8Liq5-zt2xHg-NkqPBD-LXYbBU-ubxQ4n-zeCqpg/dU2xwH-f6W12C-mRk64E-obWPqa-mKn48P-ocMa28-eUxs7D-eUJNRY-f6dS8z-joBySR-HeXVsF-H8pYtN-otbk5v-rUoWTZ-r8Liq5-zt2xHg-NkqPBD-LXYbBU-ubxQ4n-zeCqpg/


https://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/9127232097/in/photolist-dU2xwH-f6W12C-mRk64E-obWPqa-mKn48P-ocMa28-eUxs7D-eUJNRY-f6dS8z-joBySR-HeXVsF-H8pYtN-otbk5v-rUoWTZ-r8Liq5-zt2xHg-NkqPBD-LXYbBU-ubxQ4n-zeCqpg/



A good option is mounting an speed graphic on it, because shutter. I see it as a powerful portrait lens.

Pere Casals
30-Mar-2017, 16:33
The 305mm isn't gonna mount to no Speed Graphic at least not without extensive use of black PVC pipe perhaps??


Yes... bellows extension issue has to be solved.

LabRat
30-Mar-2017, 17:22
Astronomical telescope, and/or astrocam...

Steve K

goamules
30-Mar-2017, 17:43
Shoot wetplate with it, at ISO 1-3, you won't need a shutter in medium light.

Eric Woodbury
30-Mar-2017, 17:57
And it has radioactive thorium in it. {reminds me of Doc Strangelove movie, "You've obviously never heard of cobalt thorium G"} Maybe I can make it into a nightlight.

Jody_S
30-Mar-2017, 17:59
You could probably make a 10+ stop ND filter for it from welder's helmet glass. Then your hat would work. Given the stated resolution, I don't imagine image quality would suffer too much from not using $big money Lee filters.

I have a 300mm f2 lens sitting in a cabinet for similar reasons. I have no idea what I might mount it to, unless I got a very sturdy studio camera and decided to do indoor wet plate. Seems like a lot of bother (for me) just to use a lens that's probably garbage anyway.

Dan Fromm
30-Mar-2017, 18:36
Sell it via ebay. Look at sold listings to get an idea of how much they've brought.

Corran
30-Mar-2017, 21:27
Yep, sell it and buy something actually useful.

I had one as well. When I received it the FedEx man complained about the weight. I opened the package, took one look at it, and listed it for sale for what I paid for it. A run-of-the-mill 300mm f/4.5 Tessar will be just about the same speed due to the glass in AE lenses darkening from radiation or whatever, and the extra bokeh is not worth the trouble.

I know of one person that got one attached to an 8x10 but I don't think I've actually seen images from such a contraption. And for good reason...

Pere Casals
31-Mar-2017, 01:44
I think the brown darkening can be reverted by long exposing the glass to UV.

I think this glass can make unique photographs, please see again this 178 example

https://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/9127232097/in/photolist-dU2xwH-f6W12C-mRk64E-obWPqa-mKn48P-ocMa28-eUxs7D-eUJNRY-f6dS8z-joBySR-HeXVsF-H8pYtN-otbk5v-rUoWTZ-r8Liq5-zt2xHg-NkqPBD-LXYbBU-ubxQ4n-zeCqpg/


I'd use it for 5x7", for framings like the one of the sample.

300mm with f/2.5 DOF and movements on LF would render a unique look, something very, very scarce.

So that glass has a really huge aesthetic potential, if one wants to exploit that aesthetics, of course.

And of course it requires a DIY effort.

Perhaps I'd mount it in a CAMBO, using a salvaged speed graphic shutter as rear shutter. So it could be useful for 4x5 and 5x7, and also for 8x10 with little vigneting.

Jockos
31-Mar-2017, 05:33
You could mount a packard shutter and some ND filters!

Here's how I mounted my shutter:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?133469-Mounting-an-Industar-37-with-Packard-shutter-to-a-Szabad-(3D-printing)

You may also want to design some kind of support for the lens, so that it doesn't ruin your front standard.

Corran
31-Mar-2017, 07:45
I think the brown darkening can be reverted by long exposing the glass to UV.


Yes Pere you are right, but I've only seen one Aero Ektar with almost completely clear glass, and it took a long, long time to bleach it. I've had at least 15 AEs in my hands of various types. Even if they are clear the T-stop is not f/2.5 I can assure you. My f/2.8 Xenotar shoots "faster" for sure.

You are looking at 4x5 images with the 178mm. On 8x10 with a 300mm f/4.5 there would be no real meaningful difference in DOF comparatively. The difference with the big 305mm AE would be slight, and the technical hurdles massive. Not worth the trouble. Not surprising you are gung-ho about it when you haven't held one. Eat your Wheaties!

John Kasaian
31-Mar-2017, 08:55
Do you want the K-17 camera and film processor that goes with it?
It's yours for the cost of shipping (or come and get it yourself.) Really.

EdSawyer
31-Mar-2017, 09:58
There's threads here or an APUG where someone has mounted one of these and used it for portraits and such. It's as dreamy and shallow DOF as you would expect.

Apertures could be had and fitted from a place like Edmund Optics.

Generally the U2 and SR71 usually used lenses in the 900mm(+) range rather than 305mm. And they were much larger than this one (and covered the 9x18 format usually.)

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
31-Mar-2017, 10:33
The elements from the 12" f2.5 Aero-Ektar fit into the same barrel as the 13 1/2" f3.5 Aero-Ektar (AKA: Eastman Anastigmat), so you could get another doorstop. The lens should mount on a studio camera. I used to have one on an 8" Deardorff board for an 11x14 studio camera. Even so, I used a brace under the lens to hold it in place.

pierre506
31-Mar-2017, 13:33
The former user of my 12in AE had converted the front and rear groups onto an aluminum barrel. It's lighter than before. But he couldn't add the modern aperture system on it. So, there's a cut on the barrel. Waterhouses work.
My friend has a delicacy 12in AE, too.
B & J converted it. It has the modern aperture system.
Another problem is shutter, shutter, shutter...

来自我的 VIE-AL10 上的 Tapatalk

Pere Casals
1-Apr-2017, 03:06
Yes Pere you are right, but I've only seen one Aero Ektar with almost completely clear glass, and it took a long, long time to bleach it.

I think a good choice it would be placing a LED UV source (very cheap today) inside the box, connected to an external PS.



Even if they are clear the T-stop is not f/2.5 I can assure you. My f/2.8 Xenotar shoots "faster" for sure.

Well, f/ is a geometric parameter, speed depends also on number of groups, coatings and other. I you look at this sample https://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/9127232097/in/photolist-dU2xwH-f6W12C-mRk64E-obWPqa-mKn48P-ocMa28-eUxs7D-eUJNRY-f6dS8z-joBySR-HeXVsF-H8pYtN-otbk5v-rUoWTZ-r8Liq5-zt2xHg-NkqPBD-LXYbBU-ubxQ4n-zeCqpg/

you see circular bokeh, this suggests that pupils are also a limiting factor.

Of course a 150 xenotar is so powerful, but AE 305mm 2.5 is a very different look, with very different bokeh. One may want that or not. I'd prefer the xenotar bokeh for most situations, but the AE harsh bokeh is a different bird, and also an option.




The difference with the big 305mm AE would be slight, and the technical hurdles massive. Not worth the trouble.

305mm AE is only 7 libs(I think), my Symmar 360 convertible is 4. I'm also using a Lomo O-2 600mm, and I'm building a shutter for it, so IMHO I could deal with AE 305 without much problem.

...yes a big lens is a big lens, one have to overcome some issues, when it's worth or not... this is personal IMHO.

Corran
1-Apr-2017, 06:51
305mm AE is only 7 libs(I think),

Pere, the 305mm f/2.5 Aero Ektar is like 40 pounds!! Removed from its housing and machining a new barrel like someone mentioned, perhaps you could shave off 10-15 pounds...but that's still massive.

I had one! For all of like a week, because it was useless. By the way, I thought I was going to use a Speed Graphic as a shutter. Well, even the rear element was too large to fit inside of the "box" of a Speed Graphic with everything removed from it except the shutter mechanism.

Pere Casals
1-Apr-2017, 08:12
This is the 305, not the 306, 307 or 308...

Check it because the the 305 is not 40lbs, there is one at ebay right now, see pictures

Corran
1-Apr-2017, 09:19
Oh okay, I guess I just imagined it. Remind me, you haven't had one right?

I had one. It's not 7 pounds, it's at least 4x that.

Pere Casals
1-Apr-2017, 11:19
Oh okay, I guess I just imagined it. Remind me, you haven't had one right?

I had one. It's not 7 pounds, it's at least 4x that.

Hello Bryan,

Here https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/kodak-aero-ektar-f2-12-inch-305mm-243301142

Says it is 8kg, but it includes the massive metal mount for the aerial camera, that is removed for LF photography and weights some 4.3kg. So just convert 3.7Kg to lbs...

163338

163339

Some Ebay listings also said 7lbs if I recall well, without the aerial mount.

Regards

Corran
1-Apr-2017, 11:42
The one I had was way heavier, period.

Vaughn
1-Apr-2017, 12:13
Make a box to go on the back of the the lens -- attach a film back (5x7?) on the other side of the box. Lenscap shutter. Fixed-focus night images.

Or even an 8x10 back -- just let the night corners go black if there are coverage issues.

Peter De Smidt
1-Apr-2017, 13:36
I'm with Vaughn. If you're interested in messing around with it, make a simple box camera. Take some pictures. That will quickly tell you if it's something that you want to get more elaborate with.

Jac@stafford.net
1-Apr-2017, 13:46
This thread encourages me to dump my aero-ektar which is so sorry, full of dust, scratches from being used as a door-stop. :) Smiling, but serious. I find no virtue in the lens, even when I had one still in the original, unopened military issue box. YMMV!

Vaughn
1-Apr-2017, 14:13
This thread encourages me to dump my aero-ektar which is so sorry, full of dust, scratches from being used as a door-stop. :) Smiling, but serious. I find no virtue in the lens, even when I had one still in the original, unopened military issue box. YMMV!

That would its main virture -- one can leave it exposing a sheet of photopaper at night for an hour or two, go have a beer, and not worry if someone strained their back trying to steal it.

Jac@stafford.net
1-Apr-2017, 14:21
That would its main virture -- one can leave it exposing a sheet of photopaper at night for an hour or two, go have a beer, and not worry if someone strained their back trying to steal it.

Very good! I must look you up when I visit family in Arcata, should it ever happen.
Look up the Staffords. Good people.
.

Mark Sampson
1-Apr-2017, 15:52
Just for the record, the lens in question pre-dates the U-2 and SR-71. Those programs had very specialized camera systems made in very small numbers. But the USAF (and the other parts of the gov't who did reconnaissance) have used many aerial platforms over the years for many very specific purposes... and in fairly large numbers. For example, my father threw an aerial camera with a Kodak lens out the window of his B-17 in 1944, "lightening ship" in an attempt to make it back to England after a mission to bomb Berlin. (They had to ditch the plane, my father survived thanks to the Royal Navy.)

Eric Woodbury
1-Apr-2017, 16:29
Mine tips the scales at 11.5 pounds, no mounting flange.

The glass is absolutely clear, no browning.

goamules
1-Apr-2017, 17:06
I think I hefted on at a friends house once. I weighs no more than a Dallmeyer 4B or about 11 lbs, like you say. Maybe in some alternate universe they weigh a lot more.

Corran
1-Apr-2017, 17:13
If you say so. Mine was in the housing with shutter, if that matters. I vaguely remember the FedEx label saying something like 40 pounds, but I know that is sometimes an "estimate" but that is really high to be an estimate of 11lbs. There also could be some variants for all I know.

I have some big lenses such as the 360mm f/5.6 Symmar, not to mention big telephoto lenses for 6x7 / 35mm, and it was way, way past that. It was not something I would casually pick up with one hand (both of course due to weight and bulk). It was a serious boat anchor.

Anyway, as a side note to aerial recon lenses, if anyone is interested in what was used on the SR-71, the exhibit at the USS Alabama has a detailed description and info from one of the pilots about the Fairchild camera/lenses along with one of the SR-71 planes. Pretty cool stuff.

parleton
1-Apr-2017, 18:17
I have a 300mm f/1.5 but I am not complaining...:rolleyes:

Vaughn
1-Apr-2017, 19:34
Very good! I must look you up when I visit family in Arcata, should it ever happen.
Look up the Staffords. Good people.
.
I live just 5 miles up the river from Arcata -- we have a brewery with a tap room in town!

Pere Casals
2-Apr-2017, 03:12
If you say so. Mine was in the housing with shutter, if that matters. I vaguely remember the FedEx label saying something like 40 pounds,

Bryan, it is clear. 8kg with flange, 5 kg without flange. Weight it can be even lowered to some 4kg.



the SR-71 planes. Pretty cool stuff.


Itek KA-80/A used in A-12, Lockheed U-2 and SR-71[1] reconnaissance aircraft. It is of the Optical Bar Camera type.



Also used as Apollo Panoramic Camera Itek KA-80A derivative with 24" focal length used in Apollo program to map parts of the moon. Used on Apollo 15-17.


Lens 24-inch (610-mm), f/3.5, Petzval
Resolution 135 lines per millimetre, over 80 percent of the detail, no detail less than 108 lines per millimetre at low contrast
Field of view along track 10 degrees 46 minutes (13.5 miles at 69-mile altitude)
Field of view, crosstrack 108 degrees (211 miles at 69-mile altitude)
Overlap Consecutive forward frames and consecutive aft frames overlap 10 percent; stereo pairs overlap 100 percent.
Shutter type Scanning slit
Slit width 0.015 to 0.300 inch (0.381 to 7.62 mm)
Film type 3400, 3414, SO-230, or any other thin base material.
Film width 5 inches (127 mm)
Film thickness 0.003 inch (0.076 mm) or less.
Format 45.24 by 4.5 inches (1,149 x 114.3 mm)
Exposure control Automatic with variable slit
V/H Range 0.010 to 0.019 radians per second
Operating modes Monographic or 25 convergent stereo at autocyle of 4.7 to 8.0 seconds per cycle.
Film Length 6,500 feet (2,005 metres)
Exposures 1,650 total
Weight (camera with film) 336 pounds
Weight (Take-up cassette with film) 73 pounds

Power Requirements 115VAC, 27.5VDC, 234 watts average, 340 watts peak


https://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/itek-pan-camera.html

Corran
2-Apr-2017, 06:12
8kg is still 17 pounds, a far cry from your original 7lb statement. Do you insist on speculating on everything?

Mine didn't have a "flange," it had a whole massive housing. I would not be surprised if the lens was 17 pounds but then the housing added another 10-15.

Pere Casals
2-Apr-2017, 08:32
8kg is still 17 pounds, a far cry from your original 7lb statement. Do you insist on speculating on everything?

Mine didn't have a "flange," it had a whole massive housing. I would not be surprised if the lens was 17 pounds but then the housing added another 10-15.

Bryan, this is, the lens can come with massive metal parts, but you mount 7 to 11 lbs to the LF camera. Lowering weight form 11 to 7 could need a serious DIY effort.

Corran
2-Apr-2017, 11:00
Yes, a serious DIY situation.

Doorstop was the correct usage...:)

DSkorupka
2-Apr-2017, 11:44
With resolution and coverage like that I would use a bigger film than 4x5.
Have you considered a heavyweight 8x10 tailboard camera with a Packard or unusually large air-compound shutter?

Mark Sawyer
2-Apr-2017, 12:27
Also used as Apollo Panoramic Camera Itek KA-80A derivative with 24" focal length used in Apollo program to map parts of the moon. Used on Apollo 15-17...

Weight (camera with film) 336 pounds

But on the moon, that's only about 55 pounds. Hiking with ULF equipment is much more practical on the moon! :rolleyes:

Pere Casals
2-Apr-2017, 12:39
But on the moon, that's only about 55 pounds. Hiking with ULF equipment is much more practical on the moon! :rolleyes:

Better than that, at moon orbit (where it was used) they had zero weight result...

For sure... ULF Hikking is for astronauts :)

Paul Kinzer
2-Apr-2017, 12:53
I just re-read A Man on the Moon. That camera was one of the main duties of the astronaut who stayed aboard the command module. I don't remember which flight it was, but one of them had technical issues that shut the camera down. If I recall correctly, he was then limited to using other cameras, including a handheld Hasselblad. They were especially interested in getting photos of future landing sites.

goamules
2-Apr-2017, 13:19
That's the alternate universe I was talking about earlier.