What to do with a 7inch Aero Ektar

[Martin Courtenay-Blake]

I have just purchased a 7inch Aero Ektar. Like many of my other purchases (my old Minolta original spot meter for instance) I have always wanted one but haven't really a real use for it.

Obviously it's aperture makes it useful in low light situations...but for what. I know it was designed to cover 5in x 5in aero film format but what is the overall coverage. Would it be of any use on my old half plate Kodak field camera (although I have doubts as to whether the front standard would appreciate the burden).

Could anyone with experience of using these lenses let me know of any special characteristics they may have. I am thinking of making a small and simple rigid 5in x 4in for it where the lens slightly longer than standard focal length may be quite useful. The idea of a 6 x 9 or 6 x 12 roll film camera could be interesting to follow. I know that they have been used quite extensively for large format wide field astro photography at full aperture where lens movements are not required.

Now I have this thing I'd really like to use it....if it's worth the effort, so any feedback on it's characteristics and idea's for a good use would be warmly appreciated.

Thanks to all in advance.

Martin

[Dan Fromm]

Bleach it, put it on a 4x5 Speed Graphic, and don't look back. A mount adapter will be required, also a crutch to support it. www.skgrimes.com has done at least one fairly recently.

Note that the lens is not in a usable shutter. Putting it in one will, if feasible, be expensive.

For what? Look up the work of David Burnett, on of our finest press photographers. Don't overlook his having sold pictures taken with a Holga.

[John_4185]

Your post triggered a site I've had marked. See: www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakAeroEktarGall.htm (http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakAeroEktarGall.htm) and envy the custom machining.

And this: home.earthlink.net/%7Emichaelbriggs/aeroektar/aeroektar.html (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emichaelbriggs/aeroektar/aeroektar.html)

Methinks mounting it in a shutter will be more $$$ than it is worth.

[Frank Petronio]

I had Grimes mount one to a Speed Graphic this spring. I think a handy DIYer could cobble it together and forego Grimes, which cost an easy $500 (but they did their usual elegant job). JJ's links are wonderful, I wish I saw them before I got into it. It's such a heavy lens that you have to do a good job with the mount or it will wind up on the ground.

In the end, trying to shoot portraits on 4x5 at f/2.5 is really hard. I now use a D2X and careful gaussian blurs through gradiant masks.

[John Kasaian]

Keep in mind the thing is radioactive. I wouldn't sleep with it ---unlike my 10" WF Ektar which I've affectionately nick-named "Ektarina" but thats my problem, not yours ;-)

[William Barnett-Lewis]

That's an easy one. Since I am getting the impression it is not in a shutter, you should get it mounted on a Speed Graphic (for the focal plane shutter) and go all Weegee sans bulbs with it. More seriously look up what David Burnett has done with one recently. Eventually my 1942 Anniversary will have one especially since I hand hold probably 90% of the time. Tri-X, a 7"/2.5 lens & Diafine is available light like no-one will believe can be done with a 4x5.

You have me sincerely green with envy. :)

William

[Craig Wactor]

I too have wondered about these lenses. I imagine aerial lenses would be designed to have great resolution at close to infinity. I wonder about coverage though. Any ideas about the angle of view?

[Struan Gray]

Get two, mount them face to face and make a telecentric macro lens for use with roll film backs.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I had one of the 7" models at one time. Never heard anything about radioactivity till I came to this site. That was in the early 80's. I used it on a speed graphic with a 6X9 roll holder at the first suppercross (motorcycle race in the kingdome) here in Seattle. Paid a big whoppin 75.00 for it.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I have oen of these lenses - still not mounted, but a few thoughts:

1) yes, on many of them, the rear two elements are radioactive - thorium salts. (spelling?) Anyhow, my Aero Ektar sets off my geiger counter.

Store the lens face up, not face down, and you will eliminate a lot of athe radiation right there. keep it in a metal box, a heavy metal box, not something made of nearly tin foil, and the radiation count drops right off to near nothing. It's not that dangerous as long as you are not stupid about it.

However, if you want to do something really cool & fun, in your darkroom, or in a light tight back, take out a sheet of film - higher speed the better, place it on top of a table or countertop, emulsion side up. Place your Ektar lens on it, the rear on top of the film, careful not to scratch the emulsion, and of course, all of this in total darkness.

Leave the lens & film in palce for 24 hours, or at least overnight. Develop the film next day, and see what you get. Kinda like little fireworks. Pretty cool to see (alright, I am easily amuzed :).

2) Many of these lenses, especially WW2 vintage, have not so good blue range focus. Fine lenses for B&W, but not for colour.

The reason is, most recon films used during WW2 - and even up to modern times, is red sensitive, near IR or even plain old IR. Works like this, roughly speaking:

The "textbook" definition of human colour vision range is 400 nm (blues) to 700nm (reds). Most B&W films cut off around - oh, 650nm, give or take. Tech Pan used to go to 690nm. "Traffic films" used in red light cameras, such as the type of film Ilfords SFX is based on/from, go to around 720, 740nm (ish) - into the near infra-red.

Most of your aerial recon films were red sensitive to around 700nm, or more. Again, depends on time frame the fim was sold, brand, etc, etc. I think an aerial 70mm version of Kodak's plus-X was still sold (special order) up until a few eyars ago. Somebody correct me on that, but I remember it went to around 700 to 720nm ish.

As a result, the aerial recon lenses were designed quite often to focus more sharply in the red end of things. Works like this: a "normal" apochromatic lens would focus three colours at one point - blue, green and red. But for an Aerial recon lens, the three "colours" that make it apochromatic might be green red and infra-red.

That's why these lenses were often sold/supplied with yellow and red filters - to cut off the blue end of the spectrum.

So if you plan on B&W and use a yellow filter, probally will work great. But some of them will nto work very good on colour. There is a variation on them.

3) Use the C A M E R O S I T Y code - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 to date your lens. My lens is serial number is EM as the starting letters, ergo EM = 43, so my lens was made in 1943. I cannot say for 100% certian, but I find you are more likely to have a radioactivbe lens if it is WW2 vintage as opposed to post 46/47. Don't quote me as gospel on that, but in the few I have seen, that's how it seems to go.

Lastly, neat lenses, but mounting is problematic. Yes, it will cover 4x5, and how many large format lenses out there are as bright as F2.5? So I would say have fun with it, enjoy it, just be smart about using it, and don't expect miracless
have fun

joe

[fred arnold]

When I was a kid, those were sought after for astrophotography. Emission Nebulae reproduce very well in B&W with them. Might not be your cup of decaf, but certainly a thought.


Personally, I'd get a second one, a pair of 87A filters, and some Maco IR in sheets, then go shoot IR stereopairs.

[John_4185]

Store the lens face up, not face down, and you will eliminate a lot of athe radiation right there. keep it in a metal box, a heavy metal box, not something made of nearly tin foil, and the radiation count drops right off to near nothing. It's not that dangerous as long as you are not stupid about it.

Not quite. The radiation from the lens that one has to be concerned with is gamma rays and x-rays which are not shielded by the body of the lens, nor a lead foil, nor a steel box. Turning it upside-down shields only alpha and beta radiation, which is of relatively trivial concern. Just putting several feet between the lens and yourself and sensitive materials is all that's necessary to minimize the gamma-ray & x-ray radiation issue. It's the old inverse-square thing.

Yes, it will cover 4x5, and how many large format lenses out there are as bright as F2.5?

Is the lens still F2.5 after some of the glass has turned brown from radiation?

[Martin Courtenay-Blake]

Hi all

Looks like I'll have plenty to do with it. JJ's links were excellent (I can feel the need for tool room lathe coming on...something to use my many years precision engineering experience on).

I am into astronomy but have not tried astrophotography, but itsounds like it could be a good tool for this.

First task though a small lead lined box...just in case it's a hot one. And maybe I will get a second. The IR film suggestion makes a lot of sense especially in view of the info provided by Joseph.

Thanks to everyone for their input

Martin

[Dan Fromm]

Martin, they're all hot. The 7"/2.8 Aero-Ektar's specifications call for thoriated glass in the last, I think, two elements. Just don't carry it in your pocket or store it under your bed. And don't worry too much, either.

Cheers,

[Michael S. Briggs]

Every Aero-Ektar that I have measured has been radioactive. As jj says, for most, the most reliable protection against the radaition will be distance. The highest energy gamma from the thorium decay chain is 2.6 MeV, which is fairly penetrating. Most of the emission is much lower energy, and can be stopped with less shielding. The Aero-Ektars are to some extent self self shielding. The 7 inch f2.5 model has 7 glass elements in 4 groups. The rear cells has 4 elements in 2 groups. The thorium glass is the 2 inner glass elements of the rear cell, and so the radiation is somewhat shielded by the metal of the cell and the rear most glass element. Numbering the elements 1 to 7, front to back, elements 5 and 6 include thorium.

The very common and much smaller Pentax 50 mm f1.4 screw mount Super-Takumar has a similar surface radiation level, probably because the outer glass uses thorium. There are many other lenses besides Aero-Ektars with thorium. LF lenses with thorium include Repro-Clarons and early Xenotars. A brown or tea color is a hint that a lens might contain thorium glass.

The bleaching that Dan suggested is to expose your lens to UV light. This will clear the color centers and mostly restore your lens. I have used BLB fluorescent bulbs with exposure times up to one month. Direct sunlight also works.

Kingslake says that the f2.5 Aero-Ektars were designed for night time flashbomb photography. The 12 inch model seems to have been used for this purpose. They were also been used extensively for daylight photography. The WWII period literature that I have found makes no mention of filters or of IR film.

[Richard Kaye]

Mine's mounted on a Sinar (I did this myself) and I use the Sinar shutter which is just big enough if you get it close enough to the rear element. The lens has nice wacky bokeh when focused up close. It's not the sort of look I would want all the time, but nice when I want something different.

[Louis Pacilla]

Hey Richard, Did you take notice of the last post on this thread was Oct of 2005.
I would think most of the original posters have either sold theirs or not thinking much about this lens at the moment. I'm pretty sure Frank has sold his( as I remember).

[Ramiro Elena]

I would think most of the original posters have either sold theirs or not thinking much about this lens at the moment.

...or dead from the radiation.
I just mounted mine five minutes ago.

[Frank Petronio]

Having been there and done that, I'm unimpressed by them so my current advice is to resell it (at a profit) to the next trendster who has to try one ;-)

I don't understand why people see David Burnett's (or now Mark Tucker's) photos and have to go and copy them? And while I'd admit to doing my share of soft-short focus portraits and sometimes getting something "nice", I am left with the feeling that they will never be anything greater than just "nice" because there isn't that much to them... skin pores and sharp eyes arising out of some grey mush aren't very meaningful, even if you print them on rare handmade paper sensitized with unobtainum salts.

[Chauncey Walden]

I'm with Frank on this one. I put one on a Speed Graphic and tried a star shot. The off axis coma was so bad I was shocked. I gave it away.

[Richard Kaye]

Hey Richard, Did you take notice of the last post on this thread was Oct of 2005.
I would think most of the original posters have either sold theirs or not thinking much about this lens at the moment. I'm pretty sure Frank has sold his( as I remember).
I did, but this thread is indexed by the search engines and must still get plenty of hits - I thought it would be a good idea to point out that the speed graphic and a focal plane shutter really is NOT the only way to go with this lens on 4x5. Take care!

[Ramiro Elena]

How did you work it out Richard? I was also thinking of trying the Aero Ektar on my Sinar Norma. Did you fabricate a lens board for it?

[Richard Kaye]

My set-up is shown here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/richard314159/5519911322/

The lensboard is a normal aluminium one I filed to size. I made a very tight-fitting wooden ring to support the mount which you can see. The lens pokes out maybe 2mm on the other side of the lensboard - this makes it front heavy but there's no other option if I am to use the sinar shutter (also shown). The shutter fits perfectly like this. The whole lot is epoxy glued into place. I reckon there's plenty of surface area for the glue to be mechanically strong enough, and the front standard seems OK with it too.

This lens is fun. I am not taking portraits with it, and so am not using it to copy other people's work, which would definitely be boring. I do not expect or get hi fi images from it. I generally do grungy BW pictures of plants etc., this is a good example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/richard314159/5306749071/ . If I had spent a lot of money on the lens and/or a lot of money getting it professionally mounted I would have been disappointed. However I didn't (in this I am quite lucky) and for some of the things I do it is perfect. As the lens itself was a gift I feel duty bound to use it and not sell it on, and I am glad I mounted it for next-to nothing.

[Ramiro Elena]

Thanks Richard, I was wondering how you did it so there's enough space for the shutter. I had thought of using a wooden piece aswell. Nice examples too.

[Lynn Jones]

I still have two ot them, one in a Nikon SLR mount, and one in a shutter for LF. There were certain advantages to having been VP and mgr of the B&J Lens Bank.

Lynn

[Ramiro Elena]

I still have two ot them, one in a Nikon SLR mount, and one in a shutter for LF. There were certain advantages to having been VP and mgr of the B&J Lens Bank.

Lynn

It'd be cool to see some pics of that :D
How did you focus with the Nikon and which shutter did you have it mounted on?