12" Com Ektar f/6.3 vs f/4.5

[Andy Eads]

I'm looking for a 12" lens. I've seen both f/6.3 and f/4.5 Commercial Ektars on the market. Are there performance differences between the two lenses? Or, shoul d I save my money and buy a 300mm Nikkor M?

[Doug Paramore]

Andy: The 12" f/6.3 Commercial Ektar is a great lens. I cut my teeth on one in a studio years ago, and I currently use one on my 8x10. I haven't seen an f/4.5 version of the Commercial Ektar, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. One of the advantages of the f/6.3 version of the Commercial Ektar is that it is sharp wide open. It is still used in many commercial studios. However, it is an older lens, is big and heavy, and is not multicoated. Mine does every thing I want it to do and does it well, but you need to decide what you are going to shoot and whether you would be more comfortable with a newer lens such as the Nikon. Also, if you are going to be shooting a lot of stuff and need a modern shutter, the Nikon might be a better choice.

Regards,

[Duane]

Well, the Nikkor will have a newer shutter and multicoating but it may not be radically better than the f/6.3.

I have a 10" f/6.3 Comercial Ektar that I use with a medium format camera as a tele lens but I haven't used the f/4.5. The images are good but not quite up to the quality of the Zeiss lens made for that camera - a consequence of the lens being made in 1946 I'm sure! I also have the lens book from Kodak printed in 1946 that talks about the two series of lenses. It mentions that both series are designed for commercial and studio applications and are a Tessar type design of high quality. The book notes that the f/6.3 was designed primarily for color work whereas the f/4.5 makes no mention of this.

I understand from my research that the f/6.3 is the better overall piece because it was better corrected for color ie., reduced lateral chromatic aberrations. With color film these aberrations show up as fringing while on B&W it appears as a less sharp image.

Perhaps someone else will have more experience with all three lenses.

Good luck & cheers,

Duane

[TAN K H]

I was interested in acquiring a Tessar once and asked around about f6.3 versions versus the 4.5 ones. FWIW, the f6.3 aperture Tessars are better than the 4.5 ones because they can be made to be better corrected (the glass has to curve a lot less than the f4.5 versions).

I'd buy the f6.3 Ektars based on reputation alone.

A 300 Nikkor M is actually a Tessar-type as well too. If its cheaper than the 12" Ektar (you seem to suggest this?), and if you want modern coatings, the Nikkor would be the way to go. The shutter would be a lot more reliable I'd imagine.

[Andy Eads]

Thanks all for your input.

[phoward]

The 12 inch 4.5 Ektar is not a Commercial Ektar, and seems to have a softer focus. I have both the 12 in 4.5 Ektar and the 12 in 6.3 Commercial Ektar, and always use the 4.5 for portraits. The commercial ektar is better for landscapes

[Michael Jones]

The 12 inch 4.5 Ektar is not a Commercial Ektar, and seems to have a softer focus. I have both the 12 in 4.5 Ektar and the 12 in 6.3 Commercial Ektar, and always use the 4.5 for portraits. The commercial ektar is better for landscapes

Ditto. And remember, these lens were made when Eastman Kodak spared no expense manufacturing photographic equipment.

Mike

[rdenney]

The 12 inch 4.5 Ektar is not a Commercial Ektar, and seems to have a softer focus. I have both the 12 in 4.5 Ektar and the 12 in 6.3 Commercial Ektar, and always use the 4.5 for portraits. The commercial ektar is better for landscapes

I'm sure Mr. Eads, now 10 years after he asked, is grateful for the information.

(By the way, for the benefit of future surfers, the above is also true for the f/4.5 Paragons and the Ilex/Calumet f/6.3 lenses, both of which are made by Ilex and which are similar to the Kodak lenses from which they were "derived". The Ilex/Calumet was made specifically because Kodak stopped making the Commercial Ektar. I have a 12" f/6.3 I/C that I'm looking forward to trying out.)

Rick "who also sometimes forgets to check dates when sporting around in the archives" Denney

[John Kasaian]

I don't think its possible to go wrong with a Commercial Ektar is good condition. AFAIK, the 6.3 has a better reputation for sharpness and coverage. The gentleman who mentored me in the ways of 8x10 did a lot of food photography in the 40's, 50's
and 60's and the Commercial Ektar was his favorite lens--I guess that rubbed off on me!
I've got a 14" Commercial Ektar that's my favorite, but my 12" lens is a Dagor (which you ought to consider as a fourth option) I also have a Nikkor 300mm M which is dedicated to a Gowland Aerial camera. It is extremely sharp and multi-coated (not an issue for me though as I shoot B&W)
The old Kodaks in Universal shutters take some getting used to, but I prefer mine--I've used it for so long I've gotten the hang of it and I like the self cocking feature.

[John Kasaian]

I'm sure Mr. Eads, now 10 years after he asked, is grateful for the information.

(By the way, for the benefit of future surfers, the above is also true for the f/4.5 Paragons and the Ilex/Calumet f/6.3 lenses, both of which are made by Ilex and which are similar to the Kodak lenses from which they were "derived". The Ilex/Calumet was made specifically because Kodak stopped making the Commercial Ektar. I have a 12" f/6.3 I/C that I'm looking forward to trying out.)

Rick "who also sometimes forgets to check dates when sporting around in the archives" Denney

Congos are the hier apparent to the Commercial Ektar throne since both Kodak and Ilex have apparently "run out of glass"
Do they still make Congos?