Buying a Commercial Ektar

[Bernice Loui]

Might want to borrow a modern 210mm plasmat to try and compare to a good condition Kodak Commercial Ektar to get a better understanding of what the difference between these two lens designs are. Note the difference in how the out of focus areas are rendered at the larger apertures. Once the lens is stopped down beyond f16, the differences becomes less. Do compare actual sharpness using a microscope if possible and do not get fooled by higher contrast. Higher contrast is not higher resolution. Do note the overall contrast range and rendition as they will be quite different. Color rendition is another thing to consider. Ektars tend to have very neutral color rendition. These are some of the parameters that make up the personality differences in lenses.

The Kodak Commercial Ektar certainly has a personality and look that is it's own. They are what I favor to this day over modern designs of similar focal length.

Beyond the Commercial Ektar, Kodak also made the Ektar lens in f4.5 -vs- f6.3. The larger aperture may be desirable for portrait work over the f6.3.

Of the Lens manufactures I have tried, Kodak appears to have very good consistency and fewer duds once the lens is of known good condition. It is best to be able to test the lens before purchase. Most all of the Ektars in the collection still have pencil marks from when the lens was made.

Another lens design to consider is the Schneider Xenar which has similar qualities to the Ektar. The other triplet design that has endured is the Heliar.

The Ilex shutters common to Kodak lenses will likely need some service if they have not been maintained. They work fine when the mechanicals are in good condition and properly calibrated. Still, Ilex shutters are not as accurate overall as the modern Copal shutter. Another plus to Ilex shutters is the round iris made up using far more blades than the modern Copal shutter.



Bernice

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?

[BrianShaw]

The Kodak Commercial Ektar certainly has a personality and look that is it's own. They are what I favor to this day over modern designs of similar focal length.

Another lens design to consider is the Schneider Xenar which has similar qualities to the Ektar. The other triplet design that has endured is the Heliar.

I totally resonate with these two thoughts. My two favorite lenses of anythat I have ever used are Kodak CE and Xenar. But nitpicking... neither the Xenar or Heliar are triplet design.

[E. von Hoegh]

I totally resonate with these two thoughts. My two favorite lenses of anythat I have ever used are Kodak CE and Xenar. But nitpicking... neither the Xenar or Heliar are triplet design.

Nits breed lice, nipicking is good. They're both descendants of the triplet, or could be considered so - and both have three groups. (winking smiley)

[Bernice Loui]

Triplet evolved into Tessar & Heliar and.....


Bernice

[C. D. Keth]

It's never a bad idea to compare an older lens like that to something modern. It's educational and you will probably prefer one over the other. I find commercial ektars smooth and having a composed character about them. They produce a look that is very balanced between being sharp but not so sharp. It doesn't appear sharp to the point of looking nervous and wiry like some modern lenses and neither does it look soft and mushy like a portrait lens or an older lens too wide open.

[Michael Graves]

It's never a bad idea to compare an older lens like that to something modern. It's educational and you will probably prefer one over the other. I find commercial ektars smooth and having a composed character about them. They produce a look that is very balanced between being sharp but not so sharp. It doesn't appear sharp to the point of looking nervous and wiry like some modern lenses and neither does it look soft and mushy like a portrait lens or an older lens too wide open.

I think you just caused me to have an epiphany. For years, I've favored older lenses such as Ektars and Ilex Paragons for landscape and people shots. But when it came to architectural shots or rendering of detail, I pulled out one of my Fujinons. Your "nervous and wiry" description hits the nail on the head.

[Bernice Loui]

Lens choice also says a bit about the photographer as the final image is very much the sum of not just the tools used to create the image, it also contains much of the photographer's personality and who they might be.

I'm very fond of lenses like the Ektar, Heliar, Xenar and .... But when it comes time for a wide angle lens, out comes the Schneider XL and all other modern multi-coated lenses..

Knowing the tools and their individual personalities and capabilities is part of the image making art & craft.



Bernice

I think you just caused me to have an epiphany. For years, I've favored older lenses such as Ektars and Ilex Paragons for landscape and people shots. But when it came to architectural shots or rendering of detail, I pulled out one of my Fujinons. Your "nervous and wiry" description hits the nail on the head.

[BrianShaw]

Triplet evolved into Tessar & Heliar and.....

Right... that is what I was referring to. At some point the evolutionis recognized as a new design. Hence Xenar = Tessar design (4 elements in 3 groups vs Triplet's 3 element in 3 groups).

I was self-reflecting when writing the original reply and, as I as picking nits, recalling how apes became Neanderthal and then Homo Sapien. Personally, I'm hairy enough to be either of the predecessors (and have the table manners to prove it) but most would still call me a homo sapien... but nonetheless I'd agree that we are all still rather simian.

[Hermes07]

Triplet evolved into Tessar & Heliar and.....


Bernice

Right... that is what I was referring to. At some point the evolutionis recognized as a new design. Hence Xenar = Tessar design (4 elements in 3 groups vs Triplet's 3 element in 3 groups).

I was self-reflecting when writing the original reply and, as I as picking nits, recalling how apes became Neanderthal and then Homo Sapien. Personally, I'm hairy enough to be either of the predecessors (and have the table manners to prove it) but most would still call me a homo sapien... but nonetheless I'd agree that we are all still rather simian.

While we're nitpicking, technically the Tessar evolved from the Unar which evolved from the original Zeiss Anastigmat. The Cooke Triplet came after the Zeiss Anastigmat and had its own independent development. The Heliar, Dynar, e.t.c. came from the Triplet though...