Ektar 203/7.7

[gflanslo]

What is a fair price for a good example (7/10 and above) Ektar 203/7.7 in compur? I'm interested in getting one but I haven't seen consistent pricing. Is there anything I should look out for when buying one of these? Pricing I've seen ranges from $100 to $300 or $400.

[Bill_1856]

$150 if it's clean and the shutter accurate. What a GREAT lens!

[Dave Wooten]

There was one posted awhile back on APUG.

[John Kasaian]

I think if you can find a good one (great glass and working flash supermatic) under $200 you've got yourself a good deal!

[JOSEPH ANDERSON]

I Have Two Of Thes Lenses. One In A Dead Shutter, And One In A Good Working
Shutter. I Paid $100 For First One And I Think $80 Or $90 For The 2nd One.
When My First Shutter Deid.the 2nd One Had A Good Shutter,but Had The Classic Cleaned With Brillo Look. However It Had No Effect On The Negatives.
Go Figure,these Are Great Little Lenses That Hold Up Very Well To Todays Modern Lenses. I Think Bill's Estimate Of $150 Is Right On Given The Shutter
And Glass Are Good.

Joe A

[gflanslo]

thanks for the replies everyone. It seems like 300 or 400 is way too much for these. I'm surprised that I've seen them go for that much.

I'll probably be looking to buy one soon (I'll probably post wtb in the classified section) but if anyone know of someone who is looking to get rid of one send me a pm.

[venchka]

Everytime the 203mm Ektar comes up for discussion, it reminds me that I want one! Late serial number. Clean glass. Supermatic (X) shutter. Speed Graphic board. I know there's one out there with my name on it.

Cheers!

[Andy Eads]

I've got two of these. One in a Supermatic shutter from about 1955. The other is in a Graphic Compur. Both are terrific lenses. I pulled the old one apart and cleaned up the internal haze. The newer lenses are permanently sealed. They can be opened but it is tricky business beyond my courage horizon. The slight haze in my newer one does not seem to affect sharpness or contrast appreciably. I've made side by side comparisons with a 210 Symmar and found no difference except for angle of view and of course image circle. For a nice light field lens, it is very hard to beat.

[Andy Eads]

I forgot to mention, a nice 203 in a Compur went for $282 on our favorite auction site just yesterday. That seems about right to me.

[Ernest Purdum]

The 203's in a shutter other than the Supermatic go somewhat higher, because in case of shutter trouble you can screw the cells into a brand new Copal, or another shutter made to the current size dimensions.

I have one in a Prontor shutter. If it should ever give up, I'd put the cells into a "Press" type shutter, since to me any camera that sits on a tripod all its life is better fitted with a self-cocking shutter.

[gflanslo]

that is the pricing that I've been seeing lately. I'll only heard great things about this lens so I guess it's probably worth it. Especially considering they seem to be hard to come by these days. The 203 gets a lot of good press, are there other Ektars out there that are in the same league?

My current lineup includes a fujinon 135 w and a 210 Caltar II N. I haven't been that happy with the Caltar and have been thinking about selling it and getting the Ektar.

[Ernest Purdum]

Other Ektars in the same league? Not really, but both the "Wide Field" and "Commercial" Ektars are well regarded. A lot of the popularity of the 203 is due to the small size The other Ektars are less small, downright big in the longer focal lengths.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

This is a great lens! I picked mine up a while ago. In a Syncro-Compur shutter for $125.00 with caps. A great deal I think.

Jim

[John Kasaian]

Ektar is a name only, not a design. A few, like the 203mm f/7.7 Ektar is a dialyte like the legendary Goerz APO Artars. The Wide Field Ektars were Gauss designs IIRC. Most of the Ektars however were tessars (and the Commercial Ektars were some of the best tessars ever IMHO)
So all Ektars are not created equal!
There is some excellent information on various Ektars on the LF Home Page on the blue banner at the top of this page, so if you're serious about adding more Ektars to your fleet it might be worth a look! :)

[aduncanson]

And then there are those few Heliar type, five element Ektars. At 105mm or 100mm, they are not really LF lenses, but they are legendary and I keep being distracted by them even though I don't really need one.

After selling the camera it came on and paying SK Grimes for a CLA on the Supermatic shutter, I had about $140 in my 203/7.7 Ektar. But all of this was early in this decade.

[Pete Watkins]

Nobody has mentioned that it's great on 5x7 as well as smaller formats. Love mine!
Pete.

[John Kasaian]

And then there are those few Heliar type, five element Ektars. At 105mm or 100mm, they are not really LF lenses, but they are legendary and I keep being distracted by them even though I don't really need one.

After selling the camera it came on and paying SK Grimes for a CLA on the Supermatic shutter, I had about $140 in my 203/7.7 Ektar. But all of this was early in this decade.

Oops! I forgot about the heliars---I've probably supressed them in my mind so I won't lust after one!:D

[Glenn Thoreson]

I don't really think there is such a thing as a "bad" Ektar of any flavor. I use numerous Ektars from the small ones that only cover 2X3, up to and including the 203, and the 14" Commercial Ektar. I have nothing but good things to say about them. At one time Kodak had a top notch lens manufacturing facility and these were their best of the best.

[John Kasaian]

I don't really think there is such a thing as a "bad" Ektar of any flavor. I use numerous Ektars from the small ones that only cover 2X3, up to and including the 203, and the 14" Commercial Ektar. I have nothing but good things to say about them. At one time Kodak had a top notch lens manufacturing facility and these were their best of the best.

Glenn,
I didn't mean to imply that there were any bad Ektars, only that there are different designs that Kodak labeled as Ektars which might benefit the OP to be aware of.

[Peter De Smidt]

My 203 was a great lens. The strange filter size (I made an adapter to use 52mm filters) and Supermatic shutter were it's only negatives, and they weren't big deals. I ended up selling it to get one of the plasmat 210s. My pictures aren't any better, but my pack is a little heavier.

[E. von Hoegh]

I've always liked this lens, and sometime soon I'm afraid the LGM will be paying me a visit.(I hate those visits; I either have to impregnate some wierd looking alien chick, or get that damn probe, or buy a "new" lens. Too bad there's not a "do not visit" list.) Small, light, sharp as my Ralph Bone Bowie, and a steal pricewise.

Thank you guys for giving me a heads up on the real-world pricing of these lenses.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Glenn,
I didn't mean to imply that there were any bad Ektars, only that there are different designs that Kodak labeled as Ektars which might benefit the OP to be aware of.

Not to worry, John. I didn't take it that way. You are correct about the name vs. design thing. A lot of folks assume they're all the same design. No. Ektar, as you said, is merely a trade name from a time when the yellow father actually cared about photography. :D

[Jim Graves]

I have both the 203mm f7.7 Ektar and the 203mm f7.7 Anastigmat ... shutters are identical Supermatics (both working well) ... I can't tell any difference between them? Does anyone know if it was simply renamed Ektar when Kodak starting using that name?

[Dan Fromm]

Jim, that's it.

[Ernest Purdum]

The ones without the Ektar name are probably uncoated. This is somewhat more than usually important, since there are eight air-to-glass surfaces.

It's a pity, because the older lenses were made also in at least one other focal length, (170mm) probably more,

[Glenn Thoreson]

I have one of those Kodak Anastigmat 170mm lenses. It has a nice "self coating" bloom about it. I should mention that the first Ektars without the circle L appear to be uncoated, and that is a popular belief, but not entirely true. The first production Ektars were coated only on the interior surfaces, as the coating was too soft to stand up on outer surfaces. Some people argue that this is not true. Kodak's data from the time reaffirms the coating on the interior and states that all Ektars are coated. When a coating was developed that could endure on the outside, they became "Lumenized" I love 'em. :D

[Diane Maher]

I found mine in a local camera store some five or six years ago now for $49.95 in a Supermatic shutter. It seemed to work fine, but I had a camera repair shop do a quick CLA on it just to make sure. I use mine on whole plate, 8x10 and 5x12. Mind you, on the latter two, it is stopped down all the way and there is some minor vignetting on a couple of corners and softness around the edges, but it can be a nice effect and the center is still tack sharp.

[al olson]

This thread has piqued my interest in the origins and design parentage of the Kodak
Ektar lenses. I have in my library two Kodak Data Books:
Kodak Lenses, Range Finders and Shutters copyrighted 1946
Kodak Lenses, Shutters and Portra Lenses, 4th ed., copyrighted 1952.

Both of these books have diagrams of the various lens designs. I will try to identify
them by referencing to the designs cited in Kingslake, Rudolf, Lenses in Photography (The Practical Guide to Optics for Photographers), 1951, Garden City, NY, 246 pp.

I used the year of the relevant publication in the following lists as a reference to the source. Obviously these are not all inclusive sources because there are many Ektars that do not appear in either of these Data Books, perhaps because they were not produced during these years. For instance, there is no 203mm lens (or 8 in.) listed in (1952).

I am summarizing the data on the Ektar and Anastigmatic lenses as listed in the two Data Books, omitting the Cine versions and the designs that were dedicated to special comsumer camera lines such as the Bantams, Retinas, Medalists, Ponys, Signet 35s, Tourists, etc., but I will mention the Ektars that were designed for the Ektra cameras because they were also available for other uses and because these designs were probably marketed for other applications.

I should mention that in (1946), I could not find mention of coatings for any of the listed lenses. However, in (1952) all of the lenses except the Ektra group are cited as Luminized. I should also mention that in very few cases did I find a symmetrical design.

The Ektra group (1946) of Ektar lenses:
50mm f/1.9 (7 elements/4 groups) ... could not reference a comparable design from (1951).
50mm f/3.5 (4/3) ... similar to the Tessar except the curvature between 3 & 4 is reversed.
35mm f/3.3 (5/3) ... Dallmeyer Pentac from comparison in (1951)
90mm f/3.5 (3/3) ... similar to but not exactly like the Cooke Triplet
135mm f/3.8 (4/2) ... in (1951) as Kodak Ektar design
153mm f/4.5 (4/2) ... not identifiable in (1951)

Ektar 105mm f/3.7 (1946) and (1952) (5/3) ... Dallmeyer Pentac (used for small press cameras and Enlargers). [I own one of these lenses pre-1940]

Ektar lenses for small and medium-size press and similar cameras. All (4/3) Tessar design.
101mm f/4.5 (1946, 1952)
127mm f/4.7 (1946, 1952) [I have one of these lenses, serial EO dating it to 1948.]
152mm f/4.5 (1952)

Ektars designed for for color work (1946). All (4/3) Tessar design and all f/6.3.
8 1/2 in., 10 in., 12 in., 14 in.

The Anastigmat group (1946) for press, commercial and studio cameras. All (4/3) Tessar design and all f/4.5.
5 1/2 in., 7 1/2 in., 8 1/2 in., 10 in., 12 in.

Listed separately (in 1946 only) is the No. 70 Kodak Anastigmat 8 in. f/7.7, (4/4) Dialyte symmetrical design. Curiously this lens in not shown in (1952), but possibly became the Ektar 203mm f/7.7. [I have one of these with a serial of RI that indicates it was produced in 1958.]

It is notable that between 1946 and 1952 the selection of Kodak lenses listed in the Data Books dropped off sharply. More of the lenses in (1952) were dedicated to Kodak's consumer lines of cameras. The (1946) listed many Cine lenses, but they do not appear at all in (1952).

[Ernest Purdum]

I think the title "Shutters and Portra Lenses" is the clue to why lenses for view cameras are not included in your 1952 list.

Yes, the Ektar 203mm superceded the K.A. 203mm. Same basic lens.

[eddie]

Everytime the 203mm Ektar comes up for discussion, it reminds me that I want one! Late serial number. Clean glass. Supermatic (X) shutter. Speed Graphic board. I know there's one out there with my name on it.

Cheers!

me too! been wanting one for years...i do not NEED in, only want it!

(stay focussed....too many lenses already......)

e

[venchka]

Everytime the 203mm Ektar comes up for discussion, it reminds me that I want one! Late serial number. Clean glass. Supermatic (X) shutter. Speed Graphic board. I know there's one out there with my name on it.

Cheers!

Perhaps I need to amend my search criteria. Good working shutter. I wasn't aware of the lenses fitted in Compur shutters. A nice 1950s 203mm Ektar. :) :cool: