PDA

View Full Version : Nr. 32 Kodak 6 3/6 inch 4.5 Anastigmat



John Cahill
28-Apr-2007, 16:38
Just acquired the above lens. Seems to be nice and clear. It's in a Supermatic shutter. Can anyone tell me anything about it? Is it worth keeping?

Jim Jones
28-Apr-2007, 18:05
I suspect you'll find it a decent lens for its age. A lens hood helps control the flare in these old uncoated lenses. It is a Tessar design, similar to the later Ektars. Kodak recommended it for up to 4x5. When shooting infrared, extend the lens .023" beyond the visual focus position.

Dan Fromm
29-Apr-2007, 04:19
To see what Kodak said about your lens, go here: http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KA_KASDocPro.htm I find the site hard to navigate so I sent you to the page you need most. Looking around on it won't hurt you at all.

Until tried out and found wanting, yes your lens is worth keeping.

I don't know why people persist in asking others whether a lens is good when they can ask the lens directly. This seems wrong, and for several reasons. Standards differ. What's good enough for me might not be good enough for you. And vice versa. Used lenses are frequently not in as good condition as they were when new, and this can affect performance. You have YOUR lens, no one else does. General answers are often wrong. Quality control isn't aways very strigent. When new, lenses of the same make and model aren't always equally good.

Good luck, have fun, if the rant fits wear it,

Dan

BrianShaw
29-Apr-2007, 07:40
I use a No 31 (5-1/2 inch) Kodak Anastigmat and did like Dan suggested - I "asked" the lens. As mentioned earlier, it is uncoated and definitely flare-prone. Other than the pictures I have taken have a very nice Tessar look. I have even used it fairly open (f/5.6) and been quite satisfied with the definition and field flatness.

It was once a pro-level lens and you'll notice this right away unless there is something dreadfully wrong with it or the shutter.

I just recently fitted it with a Series adapter and lens hood - I think this will help a lot for controlling flare! The table that Dan refers to is quite useful... especially in terms of adapter size, etc. For my No 31, I ended up putting a Series VII on it because the Series VI, which is cheaper and easier to find, seemed like it might vignette. I guess I was wrong!

Bottom line: I support all earlier suggestions to keep it.

John Cahill
29-Apr-2007, 07:42
Many thanks to each of you and especially to Dan for the link. The illustration in the Kodak ref book looks like the illustration in a later book for my 151 Ektar. I might assume, therefore, this Nr. 32 is nought but an uncoated Tessar-formula Ektar, made in 1942, according to the date code on the lens.

Having in the past owned some "gems" like a Zeiss Novar, a Meyer Domiplan, and a Steinheil Cassar, which did not disappoint in fulfilling their reputations as mediocre lenses, I posted the question concerning this lens about which I knew nothing.


Time to load some film......

BrianShaw
29-Apr-2007, 08:01
... The table that Dan refers to is quite useful... especially in terms of adapter size, etc. For my No 31, I ended up putting a Series VII on it because the Series VI, which is cheaper and easier to find, seemed like it might vignette. I guess I was wrong!

... or maybe not...

I just noticed that there might be an error :eek: in the Kodak guide: my No 31 doesn't use a 39.5mm adapter, it has a 44.5mm adapter, like the listing for the No 32 lens.

John, out of curiousity, can you measure yours?

John Cahill
30-Apr-2007, 16:12
Hi Brian,
I measured the Kodak 32; outside seems to measure 44 mm; inside (screw in) 42 mm.

Glenn Thoreson
30-Apr-2007, 20:33
I have a couple of #33 versions. I often wonder if these were all the same design for a given number. The number 33 lens is 190mm and covers 5X7 very nicely. Very even illumination all over the screen. One odd thing I noticed is that one of them has too many reflections to be a Tessar clone. It has 7 or 8 reflections, so I don't know what it might be. These were from the days when Kodak cared about their products, and were fine lenses in their own right.