Aero Ektar vs. Leiz Hektor (plus radiation) question

[Jbuck]

hello..
since a while im trying to get my hands on a Aero Ektar.. i love its fingerprint, the rendering and the bokeh, the DOF..

As an alternative i read u can find the projection lenses Hektor..
as far as i found comparison on the Internet i could tell that there is a difference.. the Leiz rendering is super compressed and there is no nice transitions, but most of the Leiz pics on the Internet are made on Fomapan film, which has this compressed look i get when i use it... so im asking if anyone had a hands on comparison on the Aero Ektar and the Leiz projections lenses..

My second question is about radiation.. i know this has been discussed number of times, and everybody has a different opinion..
but since i dont have a studio where i could store the Aero, my option is to keep it in the hallway (the corridor) or the kitchen of my apartment..

is this distance long enough to avoid radiation?

thanks alot!

[Dan Fromm]

Re radiation, read this: http://home.earthlink.net/~michaelbr...aeroektar.html Data, not opinion. You don't want unfounded opinions.

Re Hektor projection lenses, I have no data therefore have no opinion. I do know that projection lenses don't have diaphragms.

[Greg]

another article that mentions Aero Ektars:
http://www.arnecroell.com/voigtlaender.pdf

[Wayne Aho]

My aero ektar is 2 millirem on contact with the rear element. The legal limit for the public, for dose from a nuclear plant for a non-radiation worker, is 100 millirem (mr) per year (No one gets anywhere near that limit from a nuke plant). The way to reach that limit with the ektar is to cuddle up with it for 50 hours.

Radiation drops off exponentially, 10 feet away would drop the radiation by about 1/100. Hallway would be a good spot, a bedroom would not. No problem using or carrying the lens around for shooting.

Wayne

[Drew Bedo]

The radiation from any photographic lens that I have ever heard of is too little to be an issue to anyone. Thorium and Lanthanum (radioactive elements) have been used in optical glass for decades—60-70 years—and health concerns for daily users have never been an issue.

If you have anxiety over this, sell what you have and get another lens.

Best wishes

[EdSawyer]

Hold out for the AE if it's what you want. Most of the fast projection lenses are triplets, definitely not in the same class as the AE optically. Others worth considering if you can't find a nice AE: the 8" pentac f/2.9, 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar, and various aerial f/2.8 lenses (Which will all require some sort of adaptation to work on a LF camera.)

The AE is great but it's heavy and not the easiest lens to shoot, particularly anywhere near wide open (since DOF is so shallow)

-Ed

[Don Dudenbostel]

Let me help put the radiation question in perspective. Last year I underwent Palladium 103 seed implants for prostate cancer. Im now completely free of cancer, PSA 0.28 now, but during the treatment decided to run a little experiment. I do x-ray imaging as an art form and have several monitoring instruments including an old GM survey meter. Check out the count on the least sensitive scale while sitting on the GM tube.

Next I decided to take some HP5 sheet film and place it in a cardboard film holder and tape some coins to it. I sat on the film holder during lunch and dinner for a couple of days and processed it. I exposed film with the gamma rays emitted from the palladium seeds within my body.

Have no concern about the tiny amount of radiation emitted from lenses. The massive amount emitted from within my body wasn't sufficient to be any hazard to people around me or to me.

Hope this puts things in perspective.

[Jim Graves]

Don ... I like that ... it gives a whole new perspective on "sitting" for a portrait.

Glad to hear the treatment was effective ... even though a certain Disney character seems to show up in the portrait ... did someone slip you a Mickey?

[Amedeus]

The AE's I've tested run between 1.8 and 2 millirem ... so as others have stated, 50-60 hours/year close proximity will put you a the limit of what is considered "no risk".

I once left a box of 809 polaroid sitting on my road case with the AE lens in it and that film got fogged in a few days (ISO 80) .... all 15 negatives on the same spot ... more fogging at the bottom than at the top.

As for lenses and health issues, I tend to agree somewhat when it comes to occasional photography. On the other hand, there are quite a few microscope users in the 50's that developed major health issues because the oculars they were using 8 hours/day were made out of glass containing few % thorium. Not benign.

Keeping distance is the best protection if you have a concern. Shielding for gamma rays is not an easy thing to do.

And indeed, the article quoted by Dan Fromm is a must read for all AE users.

Just my 1 cent.

Rudi A.

As usual, your mileage may vary ...

The radiation from any photographic lens that I have ever heard of is too little to be an issue to anyone. Thorium and Lanthanum (radioactive elements) have been used in optical glass for decades—60-70 years—and health concerns for daily users have never been an issue.

If you have anxiety over this, sell what you have and get another lens.

Best wishes

[Jbuck]

thanks soo much for the answers.. its something that makes me think..

so as far as i understand.. the most critical is focusing and composing time..
luckily i found a storage place for the lens when and if i get it..
and having a 5 hour shooting every second month should be ok, right?

but what i still dont understand is how some people keep using it nowadays 5 days per week, every week