Ektar 203 7.7 & 127 4.7 Rear Element/Cell & Mounting

[sceptic]

Hi Everyone,

Still new to LF, so forgive me if I have some dumb questions.

I was suggested to, and able to pick up an Ektar 203mm 7.7. I was able to find one, along with a 127mm 4.7 for under $150. It seemed like a deal- although the shutter on the 203 appears to need a CLA - it is a little stiff.

The rear cell/element on the 127 has these weird marks -dirt/scratches? in the corner. The rear element on the 127 and the 203 appear slightly different- however have the same threading and fit each other. Would I be able to use the rear element from the 203mm on the 127?

I read a little bit on mounting these lenses but to be sure I will ask- I plan to mount the lenses on my Horseman 45HF. I have a lensboard with copal 0 on its way. From my understanding, with the flanges on these lenses there shouldn't be too much of an issue mounting them? Or perhaps the hole on the copal may need to be slightly opened? OR maybe I can just have an undrilled lensboard sent over and have someone put the correct size in. Regardless- I wanted to ask if anyone thought there would be any foreseeable issues mounting theses lenses onto the Horseman.

Thanks in advance!!

[Liquid Artist]

When I started investing in large format lenses I also invested in the tools to make my own lensboards out of wood. (A tablesaw, drillpress and a holesaw set) it was the best investment I could have made, and now allows me to make custom lensboards whenever i add another camera to my list.

As for switching the rear elements on your lenses. I may be tempted to try it if I had both lenses and see what the results are like. You may or may not love them, but you will never know unless you try it.

[Doremus Scudder]

Hi Everyone,

Still new to LF, so forgive me if I have some dumb questions.

I was suggested to, and able to pick up an Ektar 203mm 7.7. I was able to find one, along with a 127mm 4.7 for under $150. It seemed like a deal- although the shutter on the 203 appears to need a CLA - it is a little stiff.

I recommend Carol Flutot for a CLA. Steve Grimes is also good. Once you get the lens in working order, it should last for years. I love mine.


The rear cell/element on the 127 has these weird marks -dirt/scratches? in the corner. The rear element on the 127 and the 203 appear slightly different- however have the same threading and fit each other. Would I be able to use the rear element from the 203mm on the 127?

The rear elements are not interchangeable optically, even though they have the same size threads (that's because they are mounted in the same shutter). The marks on the rear element of your 127mm will likely not affect the image if they are only a small portion of the total area of the element. Try the lens out and see. If it is an issue, you can probably pick up another 127mm (or a more modern 135mm) relatively cheaply.


I read a little bit on mounting these lenses but to be sure I will ask- I plan to mount the lenses on my Horseman 45HF. I have a lensboard with copal 0 on its way. From my understanding, with the flanges on these lenses there shouldn't be too much of an issue mounting them? Or perhaps the hole on the copal may need to be slightly opened? OR maybe I can just have an undrilled lensboard sent over and have someone put the correct size in. Regardless- I wanted to ask if anyone thought there would be any foreseeable issues mounting theses lenses onto the Horseman.

Thanks in advance!!

The Supramatic shutter that both your lenses are in originally came with a retaining ring that had a shoulder. The shoulder was supposed to go between the lens board and the shutter threads, thus protecting the threads. This requires a 1.5 inch hole (38.1mm). The Copal #0 hole is 35mm. You can mount the lens into a 35mm hole, but then the shoulder on the retaining ring will not fit in. Best solution is to simply sand or file the Copal #0 hole out a bit till the retaining ring fits properly. Many, however, just turn the retaining ring around and mount it with the flat side against the board and leave the hole as is.

Making your own lensboards out of Masonite or the like is not difficult. And, the hole doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to not leak light when you mount the lens.

Best,

Doremus

[sceptic]

Thanks for the detailed response! I guess ill only post in one area from now on haha. Thanks again!

[jbenedict]

I recommend Carol Flutot for a CLA. Steve Grimes is also good. Once you get the lens in working order, it should last for years. I love mine.

I always figure these old lenses have been sitting in a drawer for forty years so expect them to be really stiff. One low cost way to free them up is to fire it numerous times. Sometimes it has to be fired 40-50 times to loosen it up. Sometimes it never loosens up and a CLA would be necessary.

In spite of the price, a CLA is a good idea, too.

[Jim Jones]

If the lens cells are physically interchangeable, try swapping them. If they can form an image it will be awful by most standards, but funky enough to please some.

[Carsten Wolff]

[...]
(ed.) The Supermatic shutter that both your lenses are in originally came with a retaining ring that had a shoulder. The shoulder was supposed to go between the lens board and the shutter threads, thus protecting the threads. This requires a 1.5 inch hole (38.1mm). The Copal #0 hole is 35mm. You can mount the lens into a 35mm hole, but then the shoulder on the retaining ring will not fit in. Best solution is to simply sand or file the Copal #0 hole out a bit till the retaining ring fits properly. Many, however, just turn the retaining ring around and mount it with the flat side against the board and leave the hole as is.

Making your own lensboards out of Masonite or the like is not difficult. And, the hole doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to not leak light when you mount the lens.

Best,

Doremus

These lenses were also originally sold in Copal 0 sized (e.g. Epsilon, Prontor) shutters. The threading of those lens cells is different and those lenses would have had "Mount 370" or such engraved on them. You seem to have the same type of course, so this point it mute.
And +1 on the cell incompatibility and shutter service suggestions. You may also have separation on that damaged looking lens; this usually can be lived with if its not serious, or fixed.