PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Wide Field Ektar 250mm coverage for 11x14



Vaughn
16-Feb-2016, 23:33
According to numbers, no, it will not cover (422mm and I need 450mm). But it is one of the few lenses I have that might come close and is in a shutter.

But has anyone exposed some 11x14 film with one? Closed down and focused a little closer than infinity, is there any chance of all it will cover? I am heading into the desert in a couple days and something with a shutter would be appreciated -- the rest of my lenses are barrel lenses.

Thanks...

Lachlan 717
17-Feb-2016, 00:01
Vaughn,

Why not put a piece of 4x5" film in the corner of the 11x14" holder and test it?

Quick, easy, cheap and definative for YOUR lens.

Oren Grad
17-Feb-2016, 00:26
I've only ever used the 250 WFE on 8x10. But the Kodak Ektar lens catalog 1953 on the Camera Eccentric website specifies 11x14 as recommended negative size "without swings". Also, IIRC, Carl Weese has used it successfully on 7x17.

Doremus Scudder
17-Feb-2016, 03:58
Vaughan,

I can confirm what Owen says about the Kodak Ektar brochure. Additionally, the info states the angle of view (sic. - I'm sure they mean angle of coverage) at 59x71 at infinity focus and at maximum aperture. Coverage is likely to increase as you stop down and will certainly if you focus closer than infinity.

Have fun in the desert (I'm envious),

Doremus

Dave Ogle
17-Feb-2016, 07:14
Use photographic paper and and make a paper negative to check coevrage. rate @ asa 2, I think.

Vaughn
17-Feb-2016, 09:38
Don't have time to test! Leaving tomorrow and I am still packing for two-weeks of desert photography and camping -- and preparing for a carbon printing workshop I am giving in San Diego in the middle of the two weeks.

I am going to bring the lens and use it -- sounds like it just might work. I'll definitely use it closed down all the way. I will assume that the 1/50 second is slow...by a stop probably.

In barrel lenses, I will be bringing the 19" and 24" RD Artars, a 300/9.0 Konica Hexanon GRII, a 25" Cooke Series V.A. (I haven't used it yet) and maybe even the E. Suter Basle No.6 (16x13), but that might be a bit much, but I did like the one portrait I did with it. Even the Cooke is too close to the 24" RD, but it might fun to try.

I have never tried the "Galli Shutter" -- might be time to try! I use FP4+, but also have some Efke 25 I might load up. But most of my time will be with the 8x10 since that at least fits into a backpack. Below is the 11x14 -- the Suter looks pretty nice on it!

Jim Fitzgerald
17-Feb-2016, 12:28
Vaughn, looks good. I have the same E. Suter lens. Bryce is lookin good! June and I will wave as we drive by on our way to Vancouver!

John Jarosz
17-Feb-2016, 13:19
Here is lens data for Wide Field Ektars from the Kodak Publication "Camera technique for Professional Photographers" dated 1952, First 1962 printing. The bottom table 'Optical Data' shows how the 'Circle of Good Definition' changes with focus distance. And it does say that with no swings or tilts it's good for 11x14. I knew there was a reason I keep saving these old Kodak pamphlets
146757

William Whitaker
17-Feb-2016, 13:42
I have used a 250 WFE on 7x17 and it covered fine, so I wouldn't hesitate to use it with 11x14. Yes, I actually made an exposure. :)

Vaughn
17-Feb-2016, 16:40
I very much appreciate all the help and info! A bit excited about finding an image worthy of the lens and camera!

John -- nice to see it in writing!

Jim - when are you heading up? I'll be traveling thru the Columbia River Gorge in early May.

Jim Fitzgerald
17-Feb-2016, 18:50
Vaughn, we will be there "officially" on the 24th. So I'll send you the address. We have two guest rooms so take your pick!

Drew Bedo
18-Feb-2016, 06:06
HMMMM . . . .I have never worked in ULF so my remarks are just coffee-fueled early morning vapors. Please correct me if this is not right.

So then: No front swing or tilt for sure but: If a little front tilt is needed, won't tilting the whole camera down a bit and using rear tilt (backwards) achieve a similar effect without vignetting? I recognize that tilting a ULF camera may present challenges, and that using rear tilt (if available) may introduce changes in the shape of objects at the film plane. I have used this technique with a Kodak 2D for table-top work.

Vaughn
18-Feb-2016, 09:11
HMMMM . . . .I have never worked in ULF so my remarks are just coffee-fueled early morning vapors. Please correct me if this is not right.

So then: No front swing or tilt for sure but: If a little front tilt is needed, won't tilting the whole camera down a bit and using rear tilt (backwards) achieve a similar effect without vignetting? I recognize that tilting a ULF camera may present challenges, and that using rear tilt (if available) may introduce changes in the shape of objects at the film plane. I have used this technique with a Kodak 2D for table-top work.

Correct -- I have to do that with my old 5x7 camera that has no front tilt, also. And if you can tell by the image of me and my camera -- my 11x14 has no front tilt/swing, so that will not be an issue -- I'll just have to watch the front rise/fall.