WWII Kodak Aero Lens Usage History

[Tin Can]

I recently got a 7" Aero Ektar. It was matched to a like new 1951 Speed a long time ago, perhaps in the 50's. Same original owner with period mount.

I am wondering more about how these lenses were originally used.

Yes the K24 camera was used, unfortunately the matching original source K24 was lost to me a few years ago, same owner...He has passed and the family have no clue. At that time they could not put all 3 items in the same place.

Searching has found a few websites and we of course have many posting modern portraits using the Aero Ektar.

I am interested in how WWII troops used it. Altitude, f stop, shutter speed, and film speed.

I know they sometimes processed the film inside the aircraft while returning from a mission.

Here are some websites i found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F24_camera

I also have the OE yellow filter, but it's best as lens cap...

Soon as we get good Sun, I will try the Sunlight cure for the browning rear element.

I also have a far worse condition Pentac 8" which is very poor. I think they were both used for similar Aerial photography usages.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7821/40499171733_3de7098643_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/24GLQMB)IMG-2207 (https://flic.kr/p/24GLQMB) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7914/47412215862_baea3fd546_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2feDZXC)IMG-2206 (https://flic.kr/p/2feDZXC) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7832/40499171833_30d5eecfaa_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/24GLQPk)IMG-2205 (https://flic.kr/p/24GLQPk) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

https://web.archive.org/web/20180813014518/http://home.earthlink.net:80/~michaelbriggs/aeroektar/aeroektar.html

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151346-FS-12-quot-f2-5-9-x-9-Kodak-Aero-Ektar-(real-wet-plate-potential)-plus-extras-too&p=1491082&viewfull=1#post1491082

https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/aero/

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2005/06/07/technology/20050605_BURNETT_AUDIOSS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1148293871-GRTHDcE66R0S9potVjVsmw

[jp]

I'd like to know specifically too how these were used.

These two videos are less than an hour and provide a quick overview of some of the early cold war activity regarding aerial surveillance. A scene shows some big film; larger than would be used in a 5x5" AE lens like we have. I suspect as altitudes increased during the cold war, WW-II systems quickly went out of favor. If you want to dive deep into any of the incidents in the video, there are plenty of other resources to watch or read if you like rabbit trails. It appears technology for aerial surveillance changed quickly in the decade after WW-II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKbL-bcq3k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBYI6fXbswM

Even a stop of light lost to darkened thorium glass isn't all a bad thing. Shooting outdoors at f2.5 means pretty high shutter speeds, so a little ND (with gentle yellow filtering) is usually helpful.

[EarlJam]

My dad had a 7" Aero Ektar, a few K24 magazines, and a mirror attachment (45 degree, I think) amongst his things, but no camera. I made an attempt in locating a camera but had no luck, so sold the lens and ended up scrapping the magazines. The only references to camera use that I recall were for aerial photography. My dad told me that one of the benefits of being in a Signal Corps darkroom was that there was always film available. The techs would take the short-ends from the reconnaissance magazines and cut them down to roll film and various plate size widths and lengths, for personal photography.

189200

The Germans had a similarly fast Xenon for their aerial camera, but shot on 4" wide rolls rather than 5", due to more limited resources (or so I've heard).

189201

[Bob Salomon]

I'd like to know specifically too how these were used.

These two videos are less than an hour and provide a quick overview of some of the early cold war activity regarding aerial surveillance. A scene shows some big film; larger than would be used in a 5x5" AE lens like we have. I suspect as altitudes increased during the cold war, WW-II systems quickly went out of favor. If you want to dive deep into any of the incidents in the video, there are plenty of other resources to watch or read if you like rabbit trails. It appears technology for aerial surveillance changed quickly in the decade after WW-II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKbL-bcq3k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBYI6fXbswM

Even a stop of light lost to darkened thorium glass isn't all a bad thing. Shooting outdoors at f2.5 means pretty high shutter speeds, so a little ND (with gentle yellow filtering) is usually helpful.

I was a rec tec USAF photographer from shortly before the Cuban Crises till the Tonkin Gulf incident, our squadron, while I was in, flew Cuba as well as the Universities of Alabama and Mississippi during integration of those schools.

We used 5” for aerial obliques at lower levels and 9” for verticals at high levels.

[Dan Fromm]

The Germans had a similarly fast Xenon for their aerial camera, but shot on 4" wide rolls rather than 5", due to more limited resources (or so I've heard).

Interesting if true. I always understood that the 125/2 Xenon was fitted to the Volk Handkammer, a hand-held aerial camera that shot 7x9 on 80 mm roll film.

I don't know about the 125/2, but the design of early Xenons was licensed from TTH.

[EarlJam]

Interesting if true. I always understood that the 125/2 Xenon was fitted to the Volk Handkammer, a hand-held aerial camera that shot 7x9 on 80 mm roll film.

I don't know about the 125/2, but the design of early Xenons was licensed from TTH.

You're very likely correct on the film size used with the 125/2 Xenon. At the time I was researching it for sale, I knew that it didn't cover 4x5 or 5x5, but never did find a reference to 7 x 9 cm on 80mm film. Thanks for the clarification.

[malexand]

Great thread - look forward to more info. I've got a 12" 9x9 without an iris that inherited from my grandfather that I've been toying with and would love to know more about it. I gave it 4 weeks or so under UV LEDs that improved the thorium yellowing, but not gone completely. I was thinking about cutting a slot on the barrel and making waterhouse stops but am worried it will weaken it too much.

[Dan Fromm]

You're very likely correct on the film size used with the 125/2 Xenon. At the time I was researching it for sale, I knew that it didn't cover 4x5 or 5x5, but never did find a reference to 7 x 9 cm on 80mm film. Thanks for the clarification.

Funny thing is that the 125/2 Xenon might come close to covering 4x5. TTH patented many variants of the Opic, see Eric Beltrando's site dioptrique.info for details, none that covered more than 50 degrees according to Eric. But I have a late 100/2 TTH Opic type taken from a Vinten F.95 aerial camera (shot 6x6 on 70 mm film) that covers 2x3 well.

Sad thing is that years ago I came across a coated 125/2 s/n 6xx,xxx (I'm not being cute, I don't remember all those digits) at a very good price and foolishly didn't buy it.

[jp]

I was a rec tec USAF photographer from shortly before the Cuban Crises till the Tonkin Gulf incident, our squadron, while I was in, flew Cuba as well as the Universities of Alabama and Mississippi during integration of those schools.

We used 5” for aerial obliques at lower levels and 9” for verticals at high levels.

Thanks! Great to learn how the equipment was used. I'd never have imagined aerial photography would have been used in those university integration issues but it makes sense for some good reasons.

[Corran]

Funny thing is that the 125/2 Xenon might come close to covering 4x5. TTH patented many variants of the Opic, see Eric Beltrando's site dioptrique.info for details, none that covered more than 50 degrees according to Eric. But I have a late 100/2 TTH Opic type taken from a Vinten F.95 aerial camera (shot 6x6 on 70 mm film) that covers 2x3 well.

Sad thing is that years ago I came across a coated 125/2 s/n 6xx,xxx (I'm not being cute, I don't remember all those digits) at a very good price and foolishly didn't buy it.

The 12.5cm Xenon covers 3.25 x 4.25 well (a perfect pairing for the now-discontinued Fuji instant film) but not 4x5, at least at normal shooting distances. Of course the usual caveats about edge performance applies...

The lens has a lot of spherical aberrations at f/2 but at f/2.8 and up is very sharp. I haven't used mine in a while but a fun lens. I picked up a couple on eBay, and sold one with a Speed Graphic years ago, and kept the nicer one for myself with bayonet-mount Y and R filters.

I've forgotten all of the information I researched about the Aero Ektar back when I was modding Speed Graphics. I think I owned around 12 or 13, including one that was rebadged for the Harvard Astronomy Dept., used as a telescope. Still have a 6" model on my shelf that is mostly impossible to mount without a lot of custom work. The 7" models were so much bigger, I just never got along with shooting them. Plenty of great results from others in the IS forum.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks! Great to learn how the equipment was used. I'd never have imagined aerial photography would have been used in those university integration issues but it makes sense for some good reasons.

We were flying the campus and the dorms looking for crowd gatherings. When printing 5x5 to 20x20 with a Log E enlarger and putting one probe on a window and then other on a spectral we could actually see into the rooms!

[Tin Can]

In the 70's near where I live now we had large rural parties, kinda like Honeysuckle Rose movie with Willie Nelson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeysuckle_Rose_(film)). A great movie BTW.

But for several years we were aerial observed by the Air Force flying a big airplane very low, very slow. They were using a movie camera hanging out the wide door. Maybe stills too. I have wrote about this on the forum before.

We were skinny dipping in the pond and It looked like the soldiers were going to fall out getting a good look at naked women.

I think Bob commented before on the Air Force base they came out of.

Nobody cared, not us and not the soldiers, but somebody sent that aircraft our way.

Sure they were grabbing license plates and faces. I could clearly see the photographers.

[Corran]

I remembered after my last post that I have a drill press now and hole saws that work on metal. I grabbed one of my spare Pacemaker boards and luckily had an appropriate size. A little rasping to fit the lens in the throat of the camera and a light application of glue and I now have this lens mounted, that I've had banging around for the better part of a decade. I actually had a metalshop look at this lens/camera but he was too afraid of breaking something he never fabricated what I wanted and gave it back.

The 6" AE is much less common from my experience, and I have seen a couple sold at very high prices on eBay. Not sure why. The lens says "4 1/2 x 4 1/2" but I think it will "cover" 4x5. It has pretty bad staining on the rear element so is probably about f/4 in transmission. I'll give it a whirl soon.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/6inaero.jpg

[Dan Fromm]

Bryan, as I calculate it a 4.5" square's diagonal is ~ 6.3 inches. So the 150/2.5 AE should cover 4x5 without movements.

What's wrong with most of the ones offered is that they're fixed aperture. Not what we want for most applications.

As long as this thread is drifting, beware of 6"/2.8 Elcan lenses with serial numbers starting with 138. They are telephoto lenses that cover 6x6 and have very short back focus, > 2".

If you must get a 6"/2.8 Elcan for 4x5, get one with s/n starting with 180. These cover 4x5, just, and have reasonable back focus, a bit less than 4".

Neither is easy to put in shutter.

[Corran]

Yeah this one has no aperture. Of course, if I want to shoot at f/22, I have other lenses :).

[Dan Fromm]

Yeah this one has no aperture. Of course, if I want to shoot at f/22, I have other lenses :).

Funny you should mention that. That's why my 4"/2 TTH stays home most of the time. Its no better than a good tessar or plasmat or ... type from around f/8 down, its heavy and I can use it only on my little Speed Graphic.

[EdSawyer]

I have a couple of those 6" f/2.5 aero ektars (mine are branded by Bell and Howell - several companies made them to the military spec). Also have no aperture, though I think there are some apertures from Edmund Optics that could be made to work. I cleared one of them (mostly) with UV, the other still needs it done. They are a nice lens, a complex design similar to the 7" f/2.5 aero ektar. Heavy beasts. I could spare one if someone was in the market.

Also have a couple of those 6" f/2.8 lenses from aerojet/delft / CAI that were used in the more modern military 5" roll film cameras (I forget the designation offhand...), they have apertures but I have yet to get around to mounting them to use on a camera.

-Ed

[EarlJam]

One of the boxes my dad sent home at the end of the war included several 8x10 prints of what I interpret to be bomb damage assessment images, made in 1944 and early 1945. I suspect the original collages were large enough for squadron review meetings, and the copies were made for reference.

189252
189253
189254