Forgive me for posting another "one vs. the other" question which may have even been covered already. I could not find any direct comparison threads pre-existing.
Has anyone had any direct experience or read any third party experience with the performance of a Kodak 100mm f6.3 wide field ektar vs. an Ilex Calumet 90mm f8 wide field caltar, in regards to sharpness, coverage, single/multicoating, etc. Thanks in advance.
The Kodak 100mm WFEktar f/6.3 is an 80 degree lens. It covers 4x5 with limited movements. Inside those 80 degrees everything is sharp and contrasty.
The 90mm f/8 WFCaltar, OTOH, could be one of the early "wide angle" 100+ degree coverage optics. It should handle 4x5 with movements at f/16 or f/22 and weigh more than the Kodak.
The 90/8 Ilex WF Caltar, although designed and made in Rocester, is very very similar to an f/8 Super Angulon. Chris, make a note of this.
I don't have one, do have a 65/8 Ilex and am very happy with what it does for me on 2x3. The 65 covers a little more than 150 mm, so the 90 should cover 5x7 with no movements.
Dan,
So the Ilex WF Caltar is a Biogon design wide angle, eh? Indeed it should provide outstanding coverage on 4x5. To hit the corners of 5x7 with 90mm means it's capable of 105degrees of coverage.
Nice.
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Chris, it is a 6/4 lens much like the f/8 Super Angulons. I don't think it is even approximately correct to lump these with Biogons. I mean, Biogons are much less symmetrical, have more elements in front of the diaphragm than behind, have more elements in more groups, ... , are faster, and have less coverage. Biogons have much less back focus, roughly .5f as opposed roughly .7f for f/8 SAs, too.
I don't know why people lump all sorts of wide angle lenses with Biogons. Especially modern Biogons that derive from Roosinov's Russar.
Anyway, Schneider claims 100 degrees, 216 mm, for the 90/8 SA. See http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/ar...an_su_1967.pdf And I'm sure that as soon as I post this someone will report that his/her/its f/8 SA covers 180 degrees because Schneider's coverage claims are too conservative.
Cheers,
Dan
Somewhere around here I have a bunch of 5X7 sheets I did with an Ilex f8 90. It's a fine lens. Caveats to think about in your "camparison" are that it probably weighs twice as much as the Kodak. If you were a backpacker and wanted the lens to fold up inside your camera, it'd be a no brainer. Kodak. If you are an architectural photographer and need to get tall buildings in a single leap, the Ilex would win in spades. BTW that Ilex performs very nicely right out to the edges on the 5X7. It's a good modern optic. You can't screw filters onto it which can drive you crazy. Both lenses are single coated. I've never been able to get worked up about the Kodak double gauss wide field lenses for some reason, and I've had several around here.
Jim, on 2x3 the 80/6.3 WF Ektar is a real sweetie.
Not mine, needs a shutter: http://cgi.ebay.com/Calumet-Caltar-9...QQcmdZViewItem
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks