I'm looking at two used 14" lens at local shops in my area. I have narrowed my c hoices down to a 14" Commerical Ektar in VG condition for $500 and a 14-3/4" Ile x Calumet Caltar lens in E++ condition for $300. Does the Commerical Ektar in it 's condition justify the $200 greater cost over the Ilex lens? Both are in Ilex Universal #5 shutters. I will be using the lens to make 8X10 B&W contacts and an occasional 8X10 color transparancy. Thanks!
Ron: According to an article in View Camera magazine a few years ago on lens design, the 14" Caltar was a three element design. Three elements used to be considered the least number of elements which could be fully corrected. According to the article, the early 14 inch three element lenses were not all that great, but later ones were o.k. The Commercial Ektar was a four element lens and is one of the legendary large format lenses. I personally have used a 14 inch and presently own a 12" Ektar. They are good lenses. For contact work though, you probably won't be able to tell much difference, especially if the lens is one of the later Caltar three element lenses. Both lenses were quite popular for 8x10 work. Hope this helps, Doug.
The same article states that the Ilex-Caltar 14-3/4" were only "ordinary" in quality, whereas the other Ilex-Caltar lenses were "spectacular." What does a "very good" rating mean for the vendor selling the Ektar? Usually, this rating can imply brassing, imperfections, etc. Based on most ratings I've seen, I wouldn't purchase anything below an excellent. Will they send the lens "on approval", allowing you to return it if it doesn't meet your expectations? $500 seems like a lot for a "very good" Ektar.
"$500 seems like a lot for a "very good" Ektar."
True. I wasn't going to say anything, but since someone said if first. In the last year, Ive bought two 14" CEs in EX+ condition (NO scratches, VERY few light cleaning marks) off of Ebay for less that $400 each. Some camera stores are asking very high prices however - $600 and up in some cases. Look around.
Neal: I couldn't find the article on the 14 3/4 Ilex Caltar when I wrote my reply to Ron, so thanks for filling in the info on the other Ilex Caltars. I was writing from memory. Thanks for filling in the info on the other Ilex Caltars, which were four element lenses. Agree that the price is too high for the Ektar in VG condition. The three element lens, or even a two element, could give decent results with 8x10 contacts due to the size of the neg. Doug
Thanks to all for the comments! The Commerical Ektar has nice glass but has a ding (been dropped) around the filter ring area. The shutter will need to be CLA'd because slow speeds are way off. The Ilex Calumet Caltar lens is in very pretty condition, both glass and shutter. Shutter seems to be close to accurate but has not been tested on a shutter tester. How can I tell a 3 element from a 4 element Ilex Calumet Caltar. The serial number on the Ilex lens is 1531. I was told it was late 1960's. I have seen some 14-3/4" Ilex Caltar Acutar lens that do sell for a little less. Could this be the 3 element lens? By the way, I'm looking at local camera shops because of some bad experiences I have had with buying on EBAY. What you get is not always as described and shown on EBAY.
Thanks again!
There are good places to shop and mail-order on the internet. For example, I've always had good luck with Midwest Photo and Kenmar. Check out Phil Greenspun's site at WWW.PHOTO.NET/NEIGHBOR for information on good and bad mail-order sites. neil
My first 8x10 lens was a 14 3/4 " Ilex Caltar in an Ilex #5 shutter. The lens really suprised me. It is extremely sharp and very snappy. I have no complaints.
I wanted to bump this thread to make a comment. I have been very satisfied with my 14-3/4" Caltar, and wondered about the three-element description, which is always used as a convenient dismissal of the lens as a cheap and inferior product. Then just now it occurred to me that this would be easy enough to check. I took mine out and compared the internal reflections with my 190/4.5 Paragon (Tessar-type). The series of reflections is exactly the same. Both components front and back, have two elements, the front separate and the back glued, as you'd expect from a straight Tessar. I add this up, and I get four elements, total, not the alleged three. I don't know why this three-element rumor started, but it's not true.
In both lenses because of the glued pair in the back the middle interface reflection is very dim and far away, but it's definitely there. I didn't see it with the lens together, because of visual interference from the shutter, but removing the back component and looking against a plain background, it was immediately visible.
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
Mine's a Tessar too, just like the Commercial Ektar. The lenses are so similar that I've always had a suspicion that when Kodak discontinued its Commercial Ektars, the whole production line and labor force just moved a few blocks to Ilex and went back to work. I've never been disappointed in an Ilex lens.
On the other hand, triplets, if well made, can be very fine lenses too. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to sell me their (triplet) Cooke Portrait Lenses at a discount!
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks