Ilex universal #5 question

[hubanya]

Hello everyone,

I recently acquired an Eastman Ektar 14'' f6.3 lens mounted in an Ilex universal #5 shutter. According to what I have learned, this lens should be the early version of the more familiar commercial ektar 14'' lens.

The shutter works reasonably well, but it is a little different from what I have expected. Especially, a ''tube'' is mounted on the shutter and then the from element of the lens is mounted on the tube. On the barrel of the tube, it reads "Made in U.S.A by Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester N.Y.". It seems to me that this tube is just an adapter for the lens, the lens thread on the tube is roughly 2.75'' which is different from the usual dimension of 3''. Yes I know that Ilex shutters made for Kodak usually have different dimensions, but I'm still wondering if this tube is an integrated part of the shutter or it may be separated. Because there is no Kodak mark on the shutter itself and the outer diameter of tube is just a little larger than 3'', it suggests that the shutter itself was made according to the usual dimension, but tube was then mounted to the shutter for the lens. If I can separate the shutter and the tube, I'll be happy since I can then mount my Petzval to the shutter, otherwise the tube is smaller than needed.

I have tried to turn the tube, but it is very tight. Does anyone have experience with this kind of shutter?

Thank you all!

[Jim Noel]

The "tube" is a spacer to place the front element the correct distance from the diaphragm and rear element. I belieeit should be removable. a drop of "Drop'l do it" should loosen it.

[c.d.ewen]

Your shutter may or may not have Kodak threads. You've got an early version of an Ilex 5, which are usually black-faced (see below). Later versions, made for Kodak, have Kodak's name on the shutter faceplate. It's quite possible you have a standard-threaded Ilex 5 with a Kodak-manufactured adapter. The only way to tell for sure is to unscrew the adapter.

Be very careful unscrewing it, as it sounds like you'll need a lot of force to take it off. You don't want to deform it.

Charley




112949

[hubanya]

Thank you Jim and Charley for your help. I will try to unscrew it again and let you know what I get.

[Bernice Loui]

This ring is very to extremely difficult to remove without special tools and penetrating oil. This ring is also quite fragile due to it being made of thin aluminum with fine threads.

Know the difficulty of removal is due to bare aluminum threaded into bare aluminum which tends to gall or seize if the threaded parts are abused or over torqued even just a tiny bit. Over time, this aluminum joint tends to bond itself together.

This ring is specially sized to this specific set of lens cells and not going to be easy to replaced if damaged.

If there is no really-really good reason to remove this ring, it would be best to leave it alone.


Bernice



Thank you Jim and Charley for your help. I will try to unscrew it again and let you know what I get.

[hubanya]

This ring is very to extremely difficult to remove without special tools and penetrating oil. This ring is also quite fragile due to it being made of thin aluminum with fine threads.

Know the difficulty of removal is due to bare aluminum threaded into bare aluminum which tends to gall or seize if the threaded parts are abused or over torqued even just a tiny bit. Over time, this aluminum joint tends to bond itself together.

This ring is specially sized to this specific set of lens cells and not going to be easy to replaced if damaged.

If there is no really-really good reason to remove this ring, it would be best to leave it alone.


Bernice

Thank you Bernice for your warning.

I actually only tried to turn it by hands, and it seemed impossible.

I think I won't use any tools unless I am 100 percent sure the shutter and the tube are safe.