Buying a Commercial Ektar

[nightbringer]

Hello, I've been spending the last couple of weeks researching the Kodak Commercial Ektars, specifically the 8.5" f6.3 one, to use as a portrait lens.

I've got a few of questions:

1) I COULD get a Nikkor 210mm f5.6 W for a bit less, but I've been really fixated on the Ektar. Is there a benefit to the newer lens aside the coatings and the modern sync port? I will be mostly shooting in the studio.

2) Is newer necessarily better? I've seen some older examples on ebay that look fairly clean and some newer ones that look rather ordinary. Also, should I be worried on account of the age of most of the shutters?

[Craig Roberts]

I am neither an expert or a scholar on lenses. Now that we have that out of the way, I am a great fan of the commercial Ektars. My mentor told me that i couldn't go wrong with a commercial ektar and as a young, impressionable youth I accepted that. Years later, I am more convinced than ever about the ektar line. They are sharp but... there is something about the image that is not "clinical" like a Nikor. I have and use both in the 8-1/2 inch focal length. No science here just application.

[John NYC]

I had a 14 inch commercial Ektar for 8x10. They have a great, older look to them. Smooth and with more open shadows and desaturated colors. Now that I am only doing 4x5 I am thinking I should have bought an 8 1/2 CE instead of the 210 APO Symmar I bought. Nice to have both though, and I will probably pick up an Ektar at some point and still keep the Symmar.

[Mark Sampson]

The Kodak has lower contrast than a modern multi-coated lens. As a result it renders tones a little differently, which may help with portraits. The flash sync issue is solved with a Paramount bi-post to PC cord- cheap. The optics and shutters were the same throughout the production run, c.1945-66. Buy the best one you can find, many were used hard for decades. The shutters are easily repaired/maintained, so that should not be an issue. I worked professionally for many years with an 8-1/2/6.3 CE and would happily shoot with one again.

[C. D. Keth]

I think the rounder aperture is more pleasing than the 5-sided copal aperture.

[nightbringer]

Thanks for all the replies, so it definitely seems like the Commercial Ektar is the way to go judging from all the rounding praise for it.

The Kodak has lower contrast than a modern multi-coated lens. As a result it renders tones a little differently, which may help with portraits. The flash sync issue is solved with a Paramount bi-post to PC cord- cheap. The optics and shutters were the same throughout the production run, c.1945-66. Buy the best one you can find, many were used hard for decades. The shutters are easily repaired/maintained, so that should not be an issue. I worked professionally for many years with an 8-1/2/6.3 CE and would happily shoot with one again.

Thanks for the distinction and advice. I'll definitely be picking up a cord from Paramount when I buy the lens.
What do you mean by 'best?' As in most pristine condition lens? The ones listed on eBay vary from scratched up with holes in the lens ring, to only slightly scratched up and very clean glass.

[Mark Sampson]

Kodak's lens coatings were relatively soft and many lenses have 'cleaning marks' or other damage to the coatings. I suppose that would lead to more flare and less contrast. That wouldn't make them useless but obviously a clean one is better... just like ones with abused/non-working shutters should be avoided. I admit that it was easier to make such distinctions when you could walk into Ken Hansen or Lens&Repro and see a choice of used Ektars, but I'm sure you take my point.

[nightbringer]

Yeah it is a lot harder when all you have to go on are images on a website and whatever the seller happens to describe.

[nightbringer]

On further reading, it seems that the ones marked 'Lumeinzied' with the circled L on the lens meant that it was hard-coated and therefore a lot less susceptible to the coating coming off from cleaning and whatnot.

[Mark Sampson]

nightbringer, all the post-1945 Ektars were coated. Not all had the circle-L on the nameplate. Here's a link to the most authoratative site on Kodak lenses:
http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakTech3.htm
I worked as a photographer at Kodak for almost 20 years, most of them in the building where these lenses were made, and there's more info on that site than I ever learned before.