Kodak vs. Rodenstock 135mm

[JimboWalker]

I already own a Rodenstock 135mm F5.6 Sironar-S. How would it compare to a Kodak 135mm F 6.3 Wide Field Ektar? I have a chance of getting the Kodak for a good price. Hate to pass up a margin, but hate to spend money on a lens I may not use. Thanks for all of your forthcoming comments!

[Dan Fromm]

Well, the Sironar-S covers at most 75 degrees, the WF Ektar 80.

[Jim Galli]

Like a 1948 Plymouth and a Maserati. Sooner or later I've had all of the Kodak wide field double gauss lenses; 100, 135, 190, 250 and never kept any of them. There'll be about a hundred mad guys that dis-agree, but that's what makes the world go round. The Sironar S is a sought after lens. Think twice before you get rid of it.

[Mark Sampson]

Having owned and used a 135/6.3 WF Ektar for over 30 years, and with some experience of modern Rodenstock lenses (if not this one), I'll say this.
The Rodenstock will have more contrast, and probably a slight edge in resolution. The Kodak is indeed a very sharp lens with (to my eye) a very pleasing tonality. The WFE's greater coverage may well outweigh the Rodenstock's (slightly) more modern look- if you use a lot of camera movements.
The WFE usually is mounted in a Kodak Supermatic shutter, which is a bit more fiddly that the Copal most Rodenstocks came with. As the Supermatic is likely 50-75 years old, it may require service sooner.
The Sironar will take modern screw-in filters, while the Kodak was made for Series VII drop-ins; I long ago found a S-VII-52mm adapter ring for my lens (and it took a search even then).
They are both fine lenses. I wouldn't trade in my WF Ektar for a Sironar, though, simply because of the Ektar's greater coverage and my long-term familiarity with it.(edit) also note that I am not contradicting Mr. Galli!

[rfesk]

I use my 135/6.3 WF Ektar on my 5x7 camera. So it can do double duty with my 4x5.

[Doremus Scudder]

The Ektar WF 135mm has significantly more coverage than standard Plasmat 135mm lenses. I own both, but when I head out in a city to do architectural work, it's always the WF Ektar that's in my bag.

Compare image circles for a few 135mm lenses: A typical Plasmat in that focal length has about 200mm (208mm for the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S and 214mm for the Fujinon CM-W). The WF Ektar has a 229mm image circle. The only Plasmat that comes close is the older single-coated Fujinon W at 228mm.

I find that bit of extra coverage to be really nice to have when I need lots of movements.

Best,

Doremus

[John Kasaian]

I wouldn't sell the Rodenstock to finance the Kodak.
I would pick up the Kodak if it were cheap enough though.
It's always nice to have a spare, and by golly, it's a Kodak!
The spirit Dr. Rudolph Kingslake may smile down upon you!:)

[JimboWalker]

I will never sell the Rodenstock! The Kodak is part of a package deal with other stuff. I have not even inspected it yet. I have other Kodak lenses that I love. Just thought I would get opinions on both lenses. I'm a sucker for maybe a good ideal!

[Chauncey Walden]

There was a time when I kept running into good buys on 135 WF Ektars. I would test the latest acquisitions against my original one on the AF resolution chart. There was never a difference. They were all the same and great so I just kept my original one and sold the others. Might be my favorite lens on 5x7. This was a period of real quality control at Kodak.

[Bernice Loui]

Neither are equal or better than each other, Rodenstock modern -vs- Kodak Ektar have distinct personalities. Desirability depends on image making needs and goals.

There is a question of shutter. Kodak Ektar lenses in older shutters that need care an feeding is the norm, while a Rodenstock Sironar is likely to come in a modern Copal-Compur or similar shutter which is less needy than a vintage Ilex or similar.


Bernice

[LabRat]

The 135mm WF is one of my go-to WA lenses, as the IC is large enough to slightly exceed the range of movements my 4x5 cameras provide, so can rise as much as I want without worrying about cut-off... And I prefer it over UWA lenses as it is wide enough to move the image around stuff like parked cars and other obstructions without showing too much foreground (like street, curbs etc) if I use it thoughtfully... And behaves like a normal lens with a wider view, full movements, and without the stretched perspective distortion of my (rarely used) wider lenses...

The (not so) down side is the older shutter speeds but there is just a 1/3 stop difference, the old Supermatic shutter might need a CLA but then is VERY reliable for a long time, mine has a slight focus fall-off in the extremes of the IC but stopping all the way down solves this, and the flash connector is the old bi-post but an electric shaver cord works perfectly plugged into a strobe pack so no problem there...

It's sharp enough, but without the brittle hard sharpness of a more modern lens but I like the older lens look.... It is one of my most used lenses, and I love it!!!

Steve K