Commercial Ektar vs Ilex

[charleymeyer]

I agree about the 375mm Ilex/Caltar, I have the late Ilex Version with it's unusual colored coatings. It appears to be a clone of the 360mm Ektar. The 3 element 508mm was an entry level 8X10 lens. Here's a quote from 2004:

ILEX-Caltar 508mm 20" Lens

Lynn Jones, who was involved at the time these lens were made for and sold by Calumet, briefly mentions them in an article in the Jan/Feb 1996 View Camera magazine. It was designed to be an affordable lens for a 8x10 camera and so is presumedly designed for studio to far subjects rather than optimized for 1:1 like a process lens. The design is a triplet and L. Jones comments "The early offerings were variable in quality but by 1967 they were uniformly excellent, covering about 35 degrees."

[John Jarosz]

Does anyone have an idea where in the serial number sequence of this lens changes from 'early' to 'late'?

Thanks
John

[Mark Sampson]

I will agree with the positive reviews of the 14-3/4" Ilex-Caltar. We had one in the studio at Kodak, and once we made a beautiful 12x enlargement from an 8x10 negative made with that lens. As in 8 feet square. The Ilex-Calumet Caltars were introduced after Kodak discontinued the production of large-format lenses in the late 1960s. And Mr. Sawyer, the designs were similar to Kodak's, but the Ilex lenses were made at ilex by Ilex personnel... Kodak's optics people just went on to other things. When I started there in the mid-80s, the optics dept. was still in the Hawk-Eye plant where I worked. To my surprise a grade-school classmate of mine was an optical engineer there. I told him that EK should re-introduce the Ektars, and his reply was that the market would be too small, more modern designs would out-perform them, and that that they would cost too much to make for there to be any profit in it. In fact later on we acquired a Sinaron (Rodenstock) 210mm, and it did produce better results than our 1953 8-1/2 Commercial Ektar, but you had to look very carefully for the improved resolution. As good as they were, and as much as I like the Kodak lenses I used there (and the ones I still have), lens design has advanced since 1946.
The only recent, American-made 3-element lens I can think of is the 508mm Ilex-Caltar from the 70s. That was supposedly meant for 8x10 table-top work. I've never seen or used one, though.

[Bernice Loui]

Some time during the mid-1980's got a 8-1/2" Commercial Ektar. At that time the most frequently used lens on the Sinar 4x5 was a Sironar N. The comparison was made. Much to my surprise, the CE not only equaled or exceeded the Sironar N in resolution (Agfachrome 50 & microscope) the color of the CE had better overall balance than the Sirinar N. This test was repeated using other color transparency films with much the same results. Beyond resolution, the overall contrast (lower and smoother gradation, if this is due to flare, it does not matter, the results do) and image rendition of the CE appealed far more to me than the Sironar N. Other modern Plasmat designs were compared from Schneider to Fuji to Nikon, with the CE continually producing a more pleasing image, specially in out of focus rendition. All this got me thinking and re-evaluaing what optics were to be the preference. That was when it occurred to me that the modern high contrast, hard color saturation, apparent resolution, every item in the image "sharp" was what the market demanded. As more film was burned, that image orthodoxy became less and less appealing. In time, only the modern wide angle lenses remained with the rest being Kodak Ektar, Xenar, Dagor or Artar. This is not a choice for everyone, it is not the type of image results some image makers are seeking. This is just another data point in the world of image making. Bottom line, like many things that blend science, technology and art, what is considered technically better or advanced is in the eye or perception of the user.

Essentially, use what every optic meet one's creative image making needs.


Ilex was not the only one who carried on the CE tradition, Osaka Commercial, Komura Commercial, and others were variations and copies of the Kodak CE after Kodak stopped production of the CE.


Bernice

[Greg]

Have owned and used a 508mm Caltar in an Ilex shutter for many years on my 11x14. Even though its maximum aperture is f/7.0, the image it projects on the ground glass more resembles the image projected by a f/5.6 lens. My 11x14 negatives are only contact printed for silver gelatin prints or scanned to make 1:1 Digital negatives for printing Platinum/Palladium. Once I shot the same scene with a 14" Dagor, a 12 3/4 inch Protar, a 355mm G-Claron, and the 508mm Caltar, all set at f/64. Dagor and Protar images were a tad bit less sharp and little less contrasty, but then they are vintage optics and probably 80-100 years older than the G-Claron and the Caltar. Caltar and G-Claron images were more contrasty and under magnification sharper. BUT since I only contact print my 11x14 negatives, all 4 lenses give me excellent negatives to print from. I have been using a 508mm Caltar since the middle 1980s, and it has never let me down. Several years ago sold my ULF 11x14 camera outfit which included my first 508mm Caltar and shot only LF film. Then about 3 years ago missed not shooting ULF so bought a new 11x14 view camera to replace the one I sold. Replacing the 508mm Caltar wasn't that easy. Took me almost 2 years to find one in excellent condition. From little bits of information from here and there over the years, believe that only about 200 508mm Caltars were ever sold. For contact printing, I can 100% recommend the 508mmm Caltar optic.

[cowanw]

There have been a few sold here
Serial numbers 4082, 4079 and mine- #133. apparently one of the poor early ones; I am unsophisticated, so I think it is a fine lens.

[Greg]

Found that View Camera article. What stumps me is that when I shine a high intensity flashlight through the front and rear elements, I get the same number of reflections as with my Dagor (Dagor has 6 elements in two groups). I'm very sure that the Caltar optic is not the Dagor formula, but reflections tell me that it has 6 elements in 2 groups. Who knows.... I love and regularly use the 508mm lens and that's what counts in the end.

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting. If the lens is a triplet, as we all believe, you should see two strong reflections from one cell and four strong reflections from the other. No weak reflections from either. A Dagor will have two strong and two weak reflections from each cell.

[Greg]

Lesson learned: Never check for reflections with a multi-celled LED flashlight under an in-ceiling fluorescent light fixture that has a clear gridded plexiglass diffusor.

Went back to carefully check for reflections with ceiling lights off and...
front cell: 4 strong reflections
rear cell: 2 strong and one weak.

Looking it up in my little Photographic Lens book, and looks to be of an Ektar design.

Totally open to comments.....

[mdarnton]

Interesting. If the lens is a triplet, as we all believe, you should see two strong reflections from one cell and four strong reflections from the other. No weak reflections from either. A Dagor will have two strong and two weak reflections from each cell.

Yes, this is why I revived the thread; because the "what we all believe" is wrong.