View Full Version : Kodak Ektar 127 mm f4.7 shutter opening size?

2-Mar-2013, 11:06
Does anyone know the exact type of lenboard I need to mount a Kodak Ektar 127 mm f4.7? Or if they are available for Sinar? I thought it was a Copal #1 but the sizes don't seem to match up and I cant find the specs.

Dan Fromm
2-Mar-2013, 11:16
Which shutter is it in? Graphex or Supermatic?

I have a 127/4.7 Ektar in Graphex in front of me. The shutter's rear tube's outer diameter is 33.65 mm across the threads. This is the diameter of the smallest hole it will fit. Compur and Copal shutters' retaining rings have centering ridges so their mounting holes are larger than the rear tube's diameter. Not so for Graphex shutters, whose retaining rings have no centering ridge.

Sorry, I don't have the info needed for the size of Supermatic that would hold a 127/4.7 Ektar.

You need a board that will fit y'r Sinar bored to ~34 mm (for 127/4.7 Ektar in Graphex) or who-knows what (for 127/4.7 Ektar in Supermatic). Boards are camera front standard-specific, not shutter-specific. I send boards to skgrimes for boring. There are other machinists who can do the work.

2-Mar-2013, 11:20
#1 Flash Supermatic:

f/4.7 127mm Flash Supermatic,
Supermatic X #1‡ Tessar 38mm slipon adapter ring, Ser VI.
Magnesium fluoride coated-'Lumenized'
Mounting hole: 1 1/2 in; 38.1mm
Back Focus: 113mm

From: http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakEktarsDB2.htm

2-Mar-2013, 11:30
Sorry forgot to add that, its a Supermatic (X) shutter. Darn it, i was hoping to avoid having to have someone make me one.

Leonard Robertson
2-Mar-2013, 13:06
Ryan - I'm not sure if you already have a 127mm Ektar or are looking at buying one. The 127mm is reputed to just cover 4X5 with very little extra image circle for camera movements. I'd be interested what Dan or anyone has to say about "real world" coverage though. I recall once using a 127mm Ektar with full front rise on a 4X5 Anni Speed Graphic and getting black corners. I guess I'm saying be careful not to pay too much for a 127 Ektar, or if you already have one, don't pay more than the lens is worth to buy a Sinar board and have it bored to size. You might be on your way to paying for a more modern lens like a 135mm Symmar with a larger image circle. Not saying the Ektar is a "bad" lens, just not much coverage.

I measured the rear threads on a 127mm f4.7 Ektar serial number ET48xx Luminized in a Graphic Supermatic X shutter (top speed 1/400). I'm measuring across the outside of the threads as approx. 34.5mm. KEH has a couple of Sinar boards listed with "35 hole" which might work with the lens I have, but maybe not for yours. If you already have a 127mm you can take an actual measurement. KEH also has a "40 hole" board if yours measures the 38.1mm given in the link Jody_S posted. To add to the complexity, some shutter retaining rings are flat on the face next to the lens board, and some have a step machined to go into the hole in the board, so for a stepped ring larger hole is needed than what the threads measure.


2-Mar-2013, 13:19
Yea when I started looking for one I never realized it was an odd sized hole by today's standards. I don't plan to use movements with it but at all at this point its not looking like its going to be worth the trouble to use it. Sigh, I will prob have to end up getting some more modern to get me by for now.

Jon Shiu
2-Mar-2013, 13:20
Although the Supermatic shutter comes with a flange, you can use the flange reversed as a lockring on the back of the lens board. Therefore if you are willing to do that, a Copal 0 hole (~35mm) will work.


Dan Fromm
2-Mar-2013, 18:25
Len, I'm the wrong person to ask about coverage. I shoot 2x3 (going on 6x12 soon, all being well) so can't address whether a lens covers more than 2x3.

Your experience with a shifted 127/4.7 Ektar is consistent with what I've heard from others.

2-Mar-2013, 18:35
I got mine with my 4x5 Speed Graphic wedding photographer's kit (I know he was a wedding photog, because there was a typewritten list from the 50s of the 9 shots he was supposed to get during the wedding). I don't imagine he used a lens that left dark corners on his negs, but I've never personally tried it. Don't know why, it's supposed to be a fine lens. I thought the 127 Ektar was sold as essentially the 'kit' lens for press and wedding (4x5) photographers?

Dan Fromm
3-Mar-2013, 10:22
Jody, the story is that press photographers preferred the 127/4.7 Ektar to the equally good 152/4.5 Ektar because framing wasn't as critical with the shorter lens.

You raised an interesting point, though. Did wedding photographers sell contact prints or enlargements back then? I vote for enlargements.

Leonard Robertson
3-Mar-2013, 12:45
It occurs to me if we could go back in time and ask a working press photographer if it worried him his corners weren't especially sharp, he would probably laugh at us, then blow cigar smoke in our faces. I suspect most press photos and maybe wedding photos were shot "loose", since the framing with optical finder or wire frame finder wasn't absolutely accurate. Cropping could always be done to turn the 127mm image into effectively a longer FL. If a longer FL (i.e. 152mm) were used, but due to lack of working room the entire scene couldn't be included then the photographer was sunk. His editor wouldn't care how sharp the corners were from the 152mm, if key parts of the scene were missing.

I saw the work of a local wedding photographer who shot with a 4X5 Crown Graphic (probably with a 135mm, but I don't remember), working in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He showed me a stack of 8X10 glossies of weddings he had done. Beautiful prints, although mostly done with flash so they had that "flashy" look I don't care for myself. I imagine he did some bigger enlargements when the customer ordered them.


Mark Sampson
3-Mar-2013, 19:47
The 127 Ektar is quite a sharp lens. You can find information about that through the front page of this site. It does cover 4x5 with a little room for movement; I used one happily for my first seven years with a 4x5. No one told me I wasn't supposed to shift with it; I just accepted the small image circle until I tried a 135 Wide-Field Ektar. The press and wedding photographers who the 127 was meant for didn't use camera movements much, if at all, and so its image circle was sufficient for them. If you're planning on shooting architecture there are better lens choices, but the 127 is certainly worth a try.