Ektar f:3.7/105mm what's the story?
My B&W prints from this legendary lens are really beautiful, almost three-dimensional, and yet when the negatives are examined closely they are very soft, with almost no fine detail. Negatives from my 100mm Symmar-S MC are far, far sharper, but the final prints lack that presence from the Ektar.
Could someone explain what's going on? Thanks.
Congratulations, you have discovered that "sharpness" is not to sole criteria for beautiful photos!!
"Could someone explain what's going on?"
American ingenuity
Although mine turns out good enough prints, I was just not that impressed with that lens the first time I used it. For all I had heard about this lens, I really expected better from it. This particular lens is not the one that's so raved about, however. The one everyone is loony over is quite similar numbers wise, but not the 105/3.7. I can't remember exactly, but I think it's a 107mm. I'd have to look it up.
Glen, the cult lens is the 105/3.7. It was the most expensive, i.e., top of the line, standard-issue normal lens for 2x3 Graphics, is a version of the 100/3.5 Ektar used in Kodak Medalist cameras. The 100/3.5 is another cult lens.
I was quite disappointed by my first 105/3.7, went back to using my 101/4.5 Ektar and sold the 105. Last year I picked up another 105 just to make sure, one of these days I'll have its shutter repaired and try it out.
Cheers,
Dan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks