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

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.

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.)

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

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/maciek...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pere Casals

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

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/worthoped...05mm-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...

Attachment 163338

Attachment 163339

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

Regards

The one I had was way heavier, period.