Portrait & General purpose lens for 4x5? (Goerz vs Kodak)

[6x6TLL]

I've read a bunch of threads and spoken with several people.

At the moment I've closed in on 2 potential candidates, a Goerz Red Dot Artar 356mm f9 and a Kodak Commercial Ektar 305mm f6.3.

Both seem to get great reviews and well suited to my intentions (primarily as a portrait lens for head & shoulders shots shot at wider apertures, as well as to fill out my current lens set of 90/150/210mm for general/landscape photography, where I expect I will shoot more stopped down).

Any thoughts or suggestions on how these two compare?

Thanks!

[Joseph Kashi]

I've read a bunch of threads and spoken with several people.

At the moment I've closed in on 2 potential candidates, a Goerz Red Dot Artar 356mm f9 and a Kodak Commercial Ektar 305mm f6.3.

Both seem to get great reviews and well suited to my intentions (primarily as a portrait lens for head & shoulders shots shot at wider apertures, as well as to fill out my current lens set of 90/150/210mm for general/landscape photography, where I expect I will shoot more stopped down).

Any thoughts or suggestions on how these two compare?

Thanks!

Well, Karsh, one of the greatest portraitist, typically used a Kodak Commercial Ektar to excellent effect.

[maltfalc]

f/6.3 will be easier to focus, and 305mm will be easier to use in tight spaces.

[diversey]

Kodak commercial ektar 12” is a great lens for portraits. I have used it on my 8x10 camera for portrait.

[mhayashi]

I recommend you the followings for 4x5 portraits:
fast tessars, triples and similar optics between 210mm-240mm f3.5 to f4.5 with round iris aperture blades:
heliar, zeiss tessar, schneider xenar, and cooke portrait.
If your camera’s bellows extension allow, 300mm gives shallow dof and more flatness of face.

Of those three brands, very late heliars and xenars are in modern shutters.

[Bernice Loui]

Image aperture needed decides between these two lens types (dialyte Goerz APO artar, Tessar Kodak C. Ektar).

If the image requires using large apertures, the Tessar ala Kodak Commercial Ektar is the choice. Lens iris shape is a factor if in to out of focus rendition is a consideration.
If the image requires using smaller apertures (f16 to f45) the Goerz APO artar is the choice. Lens iris shape is often not that significant given the image need of majority of the image in perceived focus.

There is a significant size-weight difference between these two. The 12" f6.3 Commercial Ektar is significantly larger-heavier than the 300mm f9 APO ronar (same dialyte lens formula as the Goerz APO artar).

228747


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Karsh & 14" f6.3 Commercial Ektar..
228748

Edward Weston & 14" f6.3 Commercial Ektar..
228749

and many others..

Bernice







Well, Karsh, one of the greatest portraitist, typically used a Kodak Commercial Ektar to excellent effect.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, if you want that relatively "harsh Karsh" look, then an Artar or Commercial Ektar might be suitable, or any number of more modern lenses. Many portraitists prefer something less harsh like one of the f/ 4.5 tessar design Ektars instead, a more modern Fuji L series, etc. I landed with an older 360/f9 Zeiss tessar single-coated barrel process lens that seems like the best of both worlds, and was a relative bargain; but I don't have it mounted in a shutter yet. Most of my own intermittent portraiture was done with 14 inch Kern dagors, both single-coat and MC; but those are now quite pricey. I also prefer 8x10 film since it's easier to retouch if needed, and makes a nice contact print as well as serious enlargement. But I did color portraiture mostly 4x5 or something even smaller, depending.

What you need to keep in mind logistically is that some of those classic lenses in big no. 3 over even no. 5 shutters are going to be awfully heavy and bulky at the front of a relatively long 4x5 bellows extension unless you have an especially solid front standard. It might be hard to control vibrations, if the necessary large lensboard even fits. There are plenty of 250-ish and 300 lenses in petite no.1 shutter, even a 360 if you factor in the pricey 360/10 Fuji A, but that's just too long for practical head-shoulders 4X5 use. Something in the 210 or 250 category would seem a lot more realistic for 4x5 format. Also keep in mind that EW and Karsh using 14" lenses on 8x10 cameras had an equivalent perspective to a 180 mm lens on 4x5.

[David Lindquist]

Karsh & 14" f6.3 Commercial Ektar..
228748

Edward Weston & 14" f6.3 Commercial Ektar..
228749



and many others..

Bernice

I wonder if Eastman Kodak sent that 14 inch Commercial Ektar to Edward Weston when he was shooting their 8 x 10 Ektachrome and Kodachrome, not wanting have their flagship color films subject to the vicissitudes of Weston's uncoated Turner-Reich Anastigmat.

David

[LabRat]

The first important thing is your maximum extension of your camera... A 300mm lens requires 300mm (about 12") between iris in lens to film plane to focus to infinity, while close focus (1:1) is double that...

How much extension do you have, and how close do you expect to work at??? True teles require a little less extension, but generally big lenses, funny tilts/movements, + costs are high...

Steve K

[6x6TLL]

I have an Arca-Swiss with extension rail, standard bellows is I think 40cm and I can pick up a longer one at around 60cm.

Also have a APO Sironar-S in 210mm (plasmat), but is simply too contrasty/sharp for portraiture.

So if Ektar is a tessar design, what lens design is Commercial Ektar? I know APO Artars are dialite designs, same as APO Ronars. The APO Ronar I saw recently (in barrel) was huge and heavy, quite different from the one shown here.

Both candidates have round irises in the shutter. One is about 1 stop faster than the other.

Both of the lenses I'm currently looking at are in #4 shutters, Ilex and Acme.

It sounds like the Ektar is the preferred one, I've never heard about "harsh Karsh" before, his portraits are legendary.

[BrianShaw]

Kodak Commercial Ektar, also, was a tessar design.

https://www.surpluscameragear.com/kodak-commercial-ektar-lenses-free-download/

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00346/00346.pdf

[David Lindquist]

I have an Arca-Swiss with extension rail, standard bellows is I think 40cm and I can pick up a longer one at around 60cm.

Also have a APO Sironar-S in 210mm (plasmat), but is simply too contrasty/sharp for portraiture.

So if Ektar is a tessar design, what lens design is Commercial Ektar? I know APO Artars are dialite designs, same as APO Ronars. The APO Ronar I saw recently (in barrel) was huge and heavy, quite different from the one shown here.

Both candidates have round irises in the shutter. One is about 1 stop faster than the other.

Both of the lenses I'm currently looking at are in #4 shutters, Ilex and Acme.

It sounds like the Ektar is the preferred one, I've never heard about "harsh Karsh" before, his portraits are legendary.

"Ektar" was the name Eastman Kodak gave to their "best" taking lenses; they came in a variety of optical designs. In the reference that Brian cites from Pacific Rim Cameras the f/4.5 and f/4.7 Ektars are of the Tessar pattern as are the Commercial Ektars. On the other hand the f/3.7 Ektar on the same page as the f/4.5 and f/4.7 Ektars is a 5 element lens, I think I've heard it described as a Heliar. Then the 8 inch f/7.7 Ektar is a dialyte.

Kodak publication 0-18 "Camera Technique for Professional Photographers" is a good reference for these lenses. It includes drawings of the Ektars, Commercial Ektars, Wide Field Ektars and the Kodak Portrait Lenses. This may be available on the camera eccentric website. I'm fortunate to have an original copy.

Just checked, the portion of this publication containing lens data is available here: https://www.cameraeccentric.com/catalogs?page=15, it's mis-labeled " 'About Lenses' Eastman Kodak 1921." I see there is still a problem with the security of this website.

David

[Drew Wiley]

What specific camera are you using? Unless your 4X5 is built like a tank, how are you going to even fit and keep steady a 14 in lens in no.4 shutter on it? As for "harsh Karsh", all I was implying is that he gravitated toward highly detailed rather high contrast results. Looking at his prints is a totally different experience than, say, the manner Hurrell rendered the rich and famous. Some of that had to do with Karsh's direct lighting and specific printing; but no telling what lens he might choose today. It might make sense to try out a particular lens before committing to purchase it, or else have a guaranteed right to return it. Artars can be distinctly on the clinically sharp side. And unless you are thinking about moving up to 5x7 or 8x10 format, the angle of view a 14 inch lens on 4x5 will give you will be equivalent to a 720 mm lens on 8x10 ! You'd need to back way off to get "head and shoulders".

As far the Ektar selection, the large format ones, that is, my brother once sold them along with Linhof cameras. "Commercial" Ektars meant just that - marketed for general pro usage, being somewhat sharper and generally higher contrast than the faster series of Ektars with wider apertures intended for mainly just portraiture. But there were also quality distinctions at that time - at least that's what he told me - with the best examples of the Commercial lenses selected out for Linhof. I've alway found the background blur of some Commercial Ektars a bit annoying, depending on the setting. In studios they generally had background fabrics without detail anyway, just to prevent background distraction. The last of the LF tessars were the uber-crisp and contrasty multicoated Nikkor M's. But portrait studios naturally preferred the single-coat Fuji L's instead.

[Bernice Loui]

Carefully made sheet film images will reveal (using a high quality optical microscope, NOT scanner or loupe) Kodak Ektars are equally "sharp" as any of the last generation production view camera lens, the difference is not in "sharpness" the difference is in contrast rendition and in to out of focus transition and out of focus rendition. Last generation view camera lenses like APO Sironar, APO symmar, CM-W fujinon (plasmat), Schneider Super Symmar HM and XL are specifically designed to produce higher contrast color images with the vast majority of the image in perceived focus optimized about f22. This was what the market for view camera lenses demanded/expected as the vast majority of images made were for commercial ADs.. which were much about hard edged "punchy" color marketing images. View camera lens manufactures simply designed and produced what that market wanted/expected.

This hard edge, high contrast, majority in focus look might not be ideal for portrait work.

Kodak f4.5 Ektar, Kodak Commercial Ektar Schneider Xenar (Tessar formula) and Many other Tessar formula lenses are from a different image goal era with different demands and needs. Kodak "legend" has it that one of their technical folks C.E.K. Mees
https://iphf.org/inductees/c-e-kenneth-mees/

did visual testing with large groups of folks to figure out what was visually appealing in still images. This figured into the design process for Kodak Ektar lenses which resulted in the lens personality of Kodak Ektars. There was a time when Kodak lenses did have a quality and production lens to lens variation problems until the arrival of Prof. Rudolf Kingslake as head of Kodak Optics. He altered Kodak lens production resulting in remarkable lens consistency and quality overall. Of all the view camera lenses owned/tested/used over the decades, Kodak Ektars have been the most consistent unless the specific lens has been damaged. These are a few from the pile:
228774

Negative with all these "vintage" lenses are their shutters, they typically demand proper service upon purchase as neglect or abuse is very common. These older shutters will be slow at their highest dial speeds and not as accurate/precise as modern shutters like Copal, Prontor Pro and.. on the plus side, these vintage shutters commonly have a nice round iris, again reflection of market needs and expectations from that era.

This is why these Kodak Ektars are in barrel used with a Sinar shutter on Sinar camera.

Kodak Ektars used on the TK23s are in shutter, which is less consistent and desirable. These limitations are tolerated, just.

Last item, Kodak Ektar/Commercial Ektar were specifically designed for color film as Kodak was into Kodachrome and other color materials were being developed. Kodak used Lanthanum optical glass lots, made little if any marketing"hay" about this, compared to Voigtländer marketing "hay" with their APO lanthar.. which has since become one of those "mythical lenses..

This Kodak promo film might be of interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpziDTklPs0

Kodak's Hawkeye optics division became Rochester Precision Optics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTgX8u-_-rQ

which also produced a mirror for the Hubble telescope, except their mirror was proper unlike the mirror produced by perkin elmer which was..defective.

Regardless, do test lots the specific lens sample to be owned before committing to owning it. These days view camera lenses have become mix and blend of questionable results driven by what s posted on the web as the "ideal_legendary" view camera lens to have/own.


Bernice






I have an Arca-Swiss with extension rail, standard bellows is I think 40cm and I can pick up a longer one at around 60cm.

Also have a APO Sironar-S in 210mm (plasmat), but is simply too contrasty/sharp for portraiture.

So if Ektar is a tessar design, what lens design is Commercial Ektar? I know APO Artars are dialite designs, same as APO Ronars. The APO Ronar I saw recently (in barrel) was huge and heavy, quite different from the one shown here.

Both candidates have round irises in the shutter. One is about 1 stop faster than the other.

Both of the lenses I'm currently looking at are in #4 shutters, Ilex and Acme.

It sounds like the Ektar is the preferred one, I've never heard about "harsh Karsh" before, his portraits are legendary.

[David Lindquist]

Thank you for these links Bernice. In the Kodak promo film at 19:15 we get a good look at what must be about the biggest jig bore machine that Société Genevoise d'Instruments de Physique built being used at the Hawkeye Works. Would have liked to have gotten a better look at RPO's present day kit. I think I got a glimpse of a Mori Seiki... Anyway I'm glad to see the Hawkeye Works in a sense survived.

David

[6x6TLL]

Hi Drew,

Arca Swiss monorail camera. One lens is 305mm (12") and the other 365mm (14").

I don't mind detail, was just looking for a bit less contrast/smoother rendition compared to typical modern plasmats. From my reading and discussion with others it seemed that tessar and dialite designs would suit my needs well.

Maybe you all have places where you can borrow lenses to try them out, I don't know of any places around here that will do that.

It seems the 305mm (12") will be a better fit for my camera and use, although now I'm wondering if a regular Ektar might be better than the commercial version, if indeed it offers slightly lower contrast.



What specific camera are you using? Unless your 4X5 is built like a tank, how are you going to even fit and keep steady a 14 in lens in no.4 shutter on it? As for "harsh Karsh", all I was implying is that he gravitated toward highly detailed rather high contrast results. Looking at his prints is a totally different experience than, say, the manner Hurrell rendered the rich and famous. Some of that had to do with Karsh's direct lighting and specific printing; but no telling what lens he might choose today. It might make sense to try out a particular lens before committing to purchase it, or else have a guaranteed right to return it. Artars can be distinctly on the clinically sharp side. And unless you are thinking about moving up to 5x7 or 8x10 format, the angle of view a 14 inch lens on 4x5 will give you will be equivalent to a 720 mm lens on 8x10 ! You'd need to back way off to get "head and shoulders".

As far the Ektar selection, the large format ones, that is, my brother once sold them along with Linhof cameras. "Commercial" Ektars meant just that - marketed for general pro usage, being somewhat sharper and generally higher contrast than the faster series of Ektars with wider apertures intended for mainly just portraiture. But there were also quality distinctions at that time - at least that's what he told me - with the best examples of the Commercial lenses selected out for Linhof. I've alway found the background blur of some Commercial Ektars a bit annoying, depending on the setting. In studios they generally had background fabrics without detail anyway, just to prevent background distraction. The last of the LF tessars were the uber-crisp and contrasty multicoated Nikkor M's. But portrait studios naturally preferred the single-coat Fuji L's instead.

[Bernice Loui]

Contrast between the f4.5 Ektar -vs- f6.3 Commercial Ektar is the same, difference is in full aperture and the results of the larger full aperture.

Might already have the lower contrast lens you're seeking in the 270mm f5.5 Tele Xenar. Get this lens mounted (Arca Swiss lens board sized to the shutter as needed, likely via the local machine shop), then try it before considering another lens.


Bernice




It seems the 305mm (12") will be a better fit for my camera and use, although now I'm wondering if a regular Ektar might be better than the commercial version, if indeed it offers slightly lower contrast.

[6x6TLL]

Thanks Bernice,

I'm still looking for a lens board to fit the new Tele-Xenar, looking forward to testing it out.

[Bernice Loui]

If the 270mm Tele Xenar is in a Compur# 2 shutter that requires a 52.5mm mounting hole
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?169366-What-lensboard-size-hole-for-50-s-Compur-shutter-2-X&p=1649814#post1649814
Post# 4

on the lens board. Finding an exact Arca Swiss lens board with a 52.5mm hole is not likely at all as it would be non-standard. Far easier to take a Arca Swiss lens board with a hole that is smaller than 52.5mm to a machine shop or machinist with a proper lathe to bore out the existing hole to 52.5mm.

Then proceed to mount this Tele Xenar...


Bernice


I'm still looking for a lens board to fit the new Tele-Xenar, looking forward to testing it out.