View Full Version : 8 inch(?) wide field ektar

17-Oct-2005, 16:26
I am going to inspect this les tomorrow. A few questions:
1) Is there such a thing as an 8 inch wide field ektar?
2) Will if cover 8x10?
3) How good is it?


Michael Jones
17-Oct-2005, 16:41
I have never heard or read of an 8" wide field ektar. There is a 190mm and 250mm wide field ektar. Both cover 8x10, the shorter with less coverage. Both are great but tend to have minute cleaning scratches on the front element as the coating is soft. If not too numerous, they have no real effect. Both came in Ilex/Acme shutters which tend to be off, but can be cleaned and adjusted. If that is what you see, either will work (I've had both and would buy them again if I need them.) Good luck.


tim atherton
17-Oct-2005, 17:04
Yes, there is a 190mm 6.3 Wide Field Ektar. I'm not sure if it was ever also referred to as an 8" Wide Field Ektar - more likely a 7 1/2" Wide Field Ektar... (I think I have seen the 250mm referred to as a 10" Wide Field Ektar?)

There were also Kodak f6.3 (Commercial) Ektars in 8 1/2" and Kodak Anastigmat 4.5's in 7 1/2" and 8 1/2" - and the 203mm (8"?) 7.7 among others.

It usually had an integral Series (#? 8 maybe) built in filter ring as I recall

I got one off ebay once - while it was a nice lens it only just/barely covered 8x10 - not enough for my uses. Image circle was probably only aboyt 320mm or so

I settled on having a 210mm and a 250mm lens instead...

And yes, the soft lens coating = lots of fine cleaning marks unless it's been well looked after (you sometimes really need to hold the lens up tot the light and peer through to see them

Heres and old Kodak catalogue:




Nick Morris
18-Oct-2005, 05:57
I believe the WF Ektar was available in 80mm, 100mm , 135mm, 190mm, and 250mm. I have the 100mm and 135mm; and would love to have examples of the 190mm and 250mm, but they are too expensive for me. The 80mm is reported as not covering 4x5, so it would not have been useful to me.