Serial # question on Kodak Wide Field Ektar

[Robert Ley]

I recently picked up a very sweet 135mm Wide Field Ektar. The serial # is 0-RE208 which from what I know was made in 1954, but what is the significance of the 0 prefix. The lens has the L in a circle following the serial number and I know that that means the lens is luminized or coated. I guess this is not a really important question, but I am curious. I have searched but have not come up with an explanation for the 0 prefix. Any help on this question will be appreciated and will raise everyones knowledge level.

[David Richhart]

Hi Robert... tha answer to your question about serial numbers can be found here...

http://www.toptown.com/nowhere/kypfer/camerosity.htm

The L in a circle means that your lens has been lumenized. That is an early form of coating. The coating is soft and easily scratched, but I have been successfully using Kodak Ektars with slight cleaning marks for years. My 10 inch WF Ektar is the lens I seem to use the most, and I wouldn't want to be without it. - Dave

[Robert Ley]

Dave, Thanks for the help on the web site. It certainly has all the info you could want on Kodak cameras, but not much on their LF lenses. This is my second 135 WF Ektar. The first has glass that looks like it was cleaned with steel wool. This new one is pristine. I was told that the early coatings were a little soft and prone to scratches, but the later coating (lenses from the fifties) was harder and more durable. My first lens was a '48 and this new lens is a '54. I posted a question previously on my '48 and the coating marks and the general feeling was that it will affect the image quality, but not as much as you would think. I think that I will try to run some side by side comparisons of the two lenses just to see what affect it will have. How would you go about running a test such as that? BTW I sent Chris Eve an e-mail question on that serial number prefix and will post the answer if he replies.

[Dan Fromm]

Robert, I'm a little puzzled about your news to the effect that early Lumenized Ektars have soft coatings. I have an 80/6.3 WF, s/n EI... (1948), and a 101/4.5, s/n EI... , and both lenses' coatings have survived careful cleaning very well. I haven't taken their cells apart, there's been no need, but I've cleaned both ends of both cells. Not with steel wool, though.

Cheers,

Dan

[N Dhananjay]

Actually, I think lumenized was Kodak' trade term for hard coating. Early Kodak lenses were soft-coated, and sometimes only on the outside surfaces, not on the inside ones. As for the 0- designation on the serial number, I don't have an idea, although I think sometimes prototypes or quality control samples were given such designations. As regards testing, photographing a USAF test chart or a sheet of newspaper and comparing the results (in the center and corners) with a high powered loupe might be the first place to start. Cheers, DJ

[e]

I just spent $25.00 on a Kodak 105mm f3.7 from the "50's". It is mint except for the shutter needs a cla. Has anyone had experience with this lens? What are it's qualities, color, etc?

[Dan Fromm]

That's a very very good snag, Emile. Congratulations. Did you buy it from a widow or an orphan?

The 105/3.7 Ektar was the top-of-the line standard issue lens for 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics. Heliar design, ever-so-slightly-long normal lens for 2x3. According to Chris Perez (see http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html) a very sharp lens that covers 4x5. This last is very much against the odds and common wisdom. EVERYONE knows that a heliar barely covers its focal length, Chris' lens must not have been paying attention when this news was handed out.

In practice, I don't know. I've had one, eventually sold it in favor of keeping my 101/4.5 Ektar. For me, my 101 took nicer pictures. Another instance, I think, of the need to ask the lens in hand how well it does instead of asking others how well theirs do. BTW, mine had a somewhat shorter flange-to-film distance at infinity than my 101, a surprise. Yes, I know, different designs, rear node to flange distances need not be close.

Yours is certainly worth getting the shutter a CLA. If you have a Speed Graphic, try it out with the FP shutter before its Supermatic has been attended to.

Regards,

Dan

[David Richhart]

Hi again Robert... The word "CAMEROSITY" is used to date the large format lenses, not just cameras. More information can be found here...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/classic-experts.html

[e]

Yes Dan, the 105mm Ektar does indeed cover 4x5. And so does the 240mm f5.5 Xenar that came with it. Not a bad deal... two lenses and 2 4x5 metal crown graphic boards for $50.00 total!

[Dan Fromm]

Sweet deal indeed, Emile, and the news that Chris' results with the 105/3.7 are real -- not that I doubted them, but surprising results always need to be checked -- is equally sweet. Not surprising that the 240/5.5 Xenar would cover 4x5, its a slowish tessar type and should cover 5x7 easily.

Naturally I hate you, as I've told you its been a while since I've had such luck shopping.

Regards,

Dan

[Diane Maher]

I guess Dan would hate me too. ;) I got a 203 mm f7/7 Kodak lens a few weeks ago in a Kodak Flash Supermatic shutter for $49.95 in a local camera store.

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, Diane, I hate you too <g>. Good snag!

Cheers,

Dan

[Mark Erickson]

Just a quick note on Chris Perez' 105mm F3.7 Ektar test. According to an email from him to me, he tested the "edge" performance of the lens 2.25" from the center of the image circle. The corner of a piece of exposed 4x5 film is about 3" from the its center. Since Chris' results show significant resolution falloff by 2.25", I would be very surprised if the image resolution was acceptable 3" out.

[Mark Sampson]

The 105/3.7 Ektar was made for the 2x3 Medalist camera, was it not? I can't imagine that lens doing well on 4x5 even if it covers the format- just too wide. The 100/6.3 Wide Field Ektar was Kodak's design for that job.

[Mark Erickson]

From what I understand, the 105/3.7 was made for the high-end 2x3 graflex press cameras. The Kodak Medalist and Medalist II shipped with a 100/3.5 with a similar (if not the same) optical formula. From my web research indicates that there seems to be some debate regarding whether the 105 and 100 used the same elements with slightly different spacing or not. My 105/3.7 is mounted in a Kodak Flash Supermatic shutter and sports the "Graphic" brand name on it.