Coverage of 8 1/2" Kodak Commercial Ektar

[Jon Vincent]

I have a 10 1/2 Widefield Commercial Ektar, and it is a beautiful lens for my 8x 10 photography. I am considering looking for an 8 1/2" Commercial Ektar to use w hen a slightly wider angle lens is needed.

Is the coverage of the 8 1/2" len s adequate for 8x0 photography with some limited movements??? Thanks to all!!!

[mitch rosen]

I've used this lens for 4x5 work but don't think it is suitable for 8X10. The info I have states that the image circle is only 270mm at f22.

[Chuck_1686]

This lens is not listed as covering 8x10. One option is getting a 190mm WideField Ektar which should just cover 8x10. But probably not much in the way of movements.

[Corran]

I know this thread is older than dirt but it's the first Google result under "Commercial Ektar 8 1/2 coverage"

I wanted to simply state that I just got one of these in an Ilex #3 shutter and it covers 8x10 with room to spare. Quite an interesting discovery considering. I estimate the IC at probably over 320mm (!). It does have some falloff on the edges...no surprise there.

I bought it for 4x5 but was just curious as to how much movement it would have so I mounted it on my 8x10. Apparently, a lot!

[E. von Hoegh]

I know this thread is older than dirt but it's the first Google result under "Commercial Ektar 8 1/2 coverage"

I wanted to simply state that I just got one of these in an Ilex #3 shutter and it covers 8x10 with room to spare. Quite an interesting discovery considering. I estimate the IC at probably over 320mm (!). It does have some falloff on the edges...no surprise there.

I bought it for 4x5 but was just curious as to how much movement it would have so I mounted it on my 8x10. Apparently, a lot!

"Cover" and "illuminate" are two different things.

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/kodak_4.html

[Corran]

It was pretty clearly covering, with movements. I checked the corners. I will shoot some film and post the results. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the corners are unsharp, but that is certainly better than black.

[E. von Hoegh]

It was pretty clearly covering, with movements. I checked the corners. I will shoot some film and post the results. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the corners are unsharp, but that is certainly better than black.

Unsharp corners means it does not cover.

[Corran]

Well then the 159mm Wollensak doesn't cover 8x10 despite everyone saying it does, since the corners are bloody awful...

I'll shoot some film and get back to you.

[E. von Hoegh]

Well then the 159mm Wollensak doesn't cover 8x10 despite everyone saying it does, since the corners are bloody awful...

I'll shoot some film and get back to you.

My 159 was sharp to the corners. What aperture are you using?

[Corran]

f/45! Ditched the lens because it was so terrible.

[E. von Hoegh]

f/45! Ditched the lens because it was so terrible.

I'm willing to bet someting was wrong, perhaps reassembled improperly. I had an uncoated series 3, the f9.5 one, and it was pretty damn good. I traded it off because of flare, but sometimes I wish I'd kept it.

[Corran]

Fair enough, I don't know. I've read other reports of poor corner performance though on this forum, somewhere. Anyway, different topic, so I will just check out the 8 1/2 CE on 8x10 and report back...

[E. von Hoegh]

One thing, when using front movements with mine, I ran into fuzz pretty quickly. It doesn't really have much if any room for movements, IMHO.