12" Com Ektar f/6.3 vs f/4.5

[Andy Eads]

I'm looking for a 12" lens. I've seen both f/6.3 and f/4.5 Commercial Ektars on the market. Are there performance differences between the two lenses? Or, shoul d I save my money and buy a 300mm Nikkor M?

[Doug Paramore]

Andy: The 12" f/6.3 Commercial Ektar is a great lens. I cut my teeth on one in a studio years ago, and I currently use one on my 8x10. I haven't seen an f/4.5 version of the Commercial Ektar, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. One of the advantages of the f/6.3 version of the Commercial Ektar is that it is sharp wide open. It is still used in many commercial studios. However, it is an older lens, is big and heavy, and is not multicoated. Mine does every thing I want it to do and does it well, but you need to decide what you are going to shoot and whether you would be more comfortable with a newer lens such as the Nikon. Also, if you are going to be shooting a lot of stuff and need a modern shutter, the Nikon might be a better choice.

Regards,

[Duane]

Well, the Nikkor will have a newer shutter and multicoating but it may not be radically better than the f/6.3.

I have a 10" f/6.3 Comercial Ektar that I use with a medium format camera as a tele lens but I haven't used the f/4.5. The images are good but not quite up to the quality of the Zeiss lens made for that camera - a consequence of the lens being made in 1946 I'm sure! I also have the lens book from Kodak printed in 1946 that talks about the two series of lenses. It mentions that both series are designed for commercial and studio applications and are a Tessar type design of high quality. The book notes that the f/6.3 was designed primarily for color work whereas the f/4.5 makes no mention of this.

I understand from my research that the f/6.3 is the better overall piece because it was better corrected for color ie., reduced lateral chromatic aberrations. With color film these aberrations show up as fringing while on B&W it appears as a less sharp image.

Perhaps someone else will have more experience with all three lenses.

Good luck & cheers,

Duane

[TAN K H]

I was interested in acquiring a Tessar once and asked around about f6.3 versions versus the 4.5 ones. FWIW, the f6.3 aperture Tessars are better than the 4.5 ones because they can be made to be better corrected (the glass has to curve a lot less than the f4.5 versions).

I'd buy the f6.3 Ektars based on reputation alone.

A 300 Nikkor M is actually a Tessar-type as well too. If its cheaper than the 12" Ektar (you seem to suggest this?), and if you want modern coatings, the Nikkor would be the way to go. The shutter would be a lot more reliable I'd imagine.

[Andy Eads]

Thanks all for your input.

[phoward]

The 12 inch 4.5 Ektar is not a Commercial Ektar, and seems to have a softer focus. I have both the 12 in 4.5 Ektar and the 12 in 6.3 Commercial Ektar, and always use the 4.5 for portraits. The commercial ektar is better for landscapes

[Michael Jones]

The 12 inch 4.5 Ektar is not a Commercial Ektar, and seems to have a softer focus. I have both the 12 in 4.5 Ektar and the 12 in 6.3 Commercial Ektar, and always use the 4.5 for portraits. The commercial ektar is better for landscapes

Ditto. And remember, these lens were made when Eastman Kodak spared no expense manufacturing photographic equipment.

Mike

[rdenney]

The 12 inch 4.5 Ektar is not a Commercial Ektar, and seems to have a softer focus. I have both the 12 in 4.5 Ektar and the 12 in 6.3 Commercial Ektar, and always use the 4.5 for portraits. The commercial ektar is better for landscapes

I'm sure Mr. Eads, now 10 years after he asked, is grateful for the information.:)

(By the way, for the benefit of future surfers, the above is also true for the f/4.5 Paragons and the Ilex/Calumet f/6.3 lenses, both of which are made by Ilex and which are similar to the Kodak lenses from which they were "derived". The Ilex/Calumet was made specifically because Kodak stopped making the Commercial Ektar. I have a 12" f/6.3 I/C that I'm looking forward to trying out.)

Rick "who also sometimes forgets to check dates when sporting around in the archives" Denney

[John Kasaian]

I don't think its possible to go wrong with a Commercial Ektar is good condition. AFAIK, the 6.3 has a better reputation for sharpness and coverage. The gentleman who mentored me in the ways of 8x10 did a lot of food photography in the 40's, 50's
and 60's and the Commercial Ektar was his favorite lens--I guess that rubbed off on me!
I've got a 14" Commercial Ektar that's my favorite, but my 12" lens is a Dagor (which you ought to consider as a fourth option) I also have a Nikkor 300mm M which is dedicated to a Gowland Aerial camera. It is extremely sharp and multi-coated (not an issue for me though as I shoot B&W)
The old Kodaks in Universal shutters take some getting used to, but I prefer mine--I've used it for so long I've gotten the hang of it and I like the self cocking feature.

[John Kasaian]

I'm sure Mr. Eads, now 10 years after he asked, is grateful for the information.:)

(By the way, for the benefit of future surfers, the above is also true for the f/4.5 Paragons and the Ilex/Calumet f/6.3 lenses, both of which are made by Ilex and which are similar to the Kodak lenses from which they were "derived". The Ilex/Calumet was made specifically because Kodak stopped making the Commercial Ektar. I have a 12" f/6.3 I/C that I'm looking forward to trying out.)

Rick "who also sometimes forgets to check dates when sporting around in the archives" Denney
Congos are the hier apparent to the Commercial Ektar throne since both Kodak and Ilex have apparently "run out of glass":rolleyes:
Do they still make Congos?

[Fotoguy20d]

Ten year old thread or not, interesting comment by Rick. I ended up with an Ilex Acutar 215mm f6.3 in Copal 1 (which I have yet to try out). Couldn't find anything much about it except that it might be a Commercial Ektar copy. Rick seems to support this idea. Is it just a Commercial Ektar copy by virtue of being a f6.3 Tessar or is there more to it than that? And what makes a Commercial Ektar superior to the Tessar IIb other than coating and 20 or 30 years of process improvement? Any insight as to how the Ilex compares with the Kodak?

Thanks,
Dan

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, we all refer to Tessar type Ektars, but in fact at least some of them aren't really Tessars. Similar, yes, the same, no.

The difference is in the rear cells. Real Tessars as made by Zeiss and B&L have the rear cell )() . Some Tessar type Ektars have the rear cell ()(. The diaphragm is to the left. Kingslake calls the Kodak version "reverse Tessar."

In addition, Kodak probably -- I can't prove it -- used different glass types than B&L. I have pre-WWI and post-WWII 158/6.3 B&L IIbs. Their outer surfaces seem to have the same curves, which suggests that B&L never redesigned and used the same glasses forever.

The Ilex f/6.3ers, if Lynn Jones is to be believed, were designed in the early '60s and would have taken advantage of modern optical glasses.

[BrianShaw]

Congos are the hier apparent to the Commercial Ektar throne since both Kodak and Ilex have apparently "run out of glass":rolleyes:
Do they still make Congos?

I don't think so. But I've read that their QC was quite variable and their lenses are a bit of a crap shoot. (I hope I'm not becoming one of those internet gossips who reads and repeats false rumor. I, personally, have never shot a Congo.)

[rdenney]

Ten year old thread or not, interesting comment by Rick. I ended up with an Ilex Acutar 215mm f6.3 in Copal 1 (which I have yet to try out). Couldn't find anything much about it except that it might be a Commercial Ektar copy.

Yes, when Ilex sold that design under their own name, "Acutar" was one of the marks they used. But I'll bet the majority of them were sold as Ilex-Calumet Caltars.

My 12" Caltar looks to have been made in perhaps 1970 or so. It's in a late Ilex No. 4 shutter. I haven't taken it apart to study the curvature of the glass to confirm or deny what Dan has pointed out, but this was definitely a lens that Calumet developed with Ilex to replace the Kodak line when Kodak stopped making large-format lenses.

The 1965 Calumet catalog introduced the Caltar lens with these words: "The Caltar Commercial lens is ground to a modified Tessar type formula for use on the Calumet view camera." In that year, they offered them alongside the Kodak Commercial Ektar and the Schneider Symmar. They are shown in different focal lengths (in the case of the 12", only one mm different) which suggests a fresh design and not a straight copy of the Kodak lenses.

By the 1970 Calumet catalog, the Caltar was offered alongside the Schneider lenses and Kodak was no longer represented. It was even before this that Graflex had transitioned to Wollensak-made lenses.

The Caltars were still shown as available, but were not listed, in the 1978 Calumet catalog. That catalog was devoted to the multicoated Caltar II lenses, which looked to be rebadged Schneiders. Later Caltar lenses were rebadged Rodenstocks.

I had thought that the Ilex Actuar (or Acuton) lenses were marketed by Burke and James, but I can't find that reference.

The f/4.5 Ilex lenses were, near as I can tell, always marked "Paragon", and were not offered by Calumet. I have an 8-1/2" f/4.5 Paragon that looks to me like a standard tessar, perhaps dating from the 50's (in an earlier Ilex No. 4 shutter).

Rick "noting that Ilex was a well-respected lens maker in those days" Denney

[Mark Sampson]

I would think that when you stopped down the f/4.5 and f/6.3 Ektars to f/22, there would be little difference between them. I've used many different Ektars but never had a chance to do an A-B comparison. Both the 4.5s and 6.3s I've used were fine lenses.
My 14"/6.3 Commercial Ektar was made in 1967 and must be one of the last ones. It's the newest one I've ever seen; most of the Kodak lenses I've seen are pre-'63.
And a quick check shows that Bromwell Marketing, who used to offer Congo lenses, is no longer listing them. So perhaps another lensmaker has disappeared.

[Dan Fromm]

Mark, f/6.3 tessars have more coverage than faster ones.

I don't know whether Yamasaki Optical is still operating but their site is still up. http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/index_e.html

[c.d.ewen]

Dan:

I went looking, but couldn't find any "reverse tessars" amongst my Kodaks. The rear cells of the lenses pictured below are all "real tessars": )() concave to the iris, convex to the film. All have identical reflections. Same for the 14" and 10" Comm Ektars.

Charley......who can't claim to be a photographer...just a guy with a closet full of lenses...

[BrianShaw]

Charley... please help me understand your pics. What is the difference between the big and little reflections???

[Fotoguy20d]

Dan:

I went looking, but couldn't find any "reverse tessars" amongst my Kodaks. The rear cells of the lenses pictured below are all "real tessars": )() concave to the iris, convex to the film.

I think Dan just wanted to see if I would get fingerprints all over my Acutar. It's not a "reverse" tessar - it's very slightly concave towards the diaphram, convex towards the back of the lens. My lens says nothing about B&J on it, but it did come with an Orbit so its possible. Mine is an old style copal - chrome speed ring.

Dan

[c.d.ewen]

Charley... please help me understand your pics. What is the difference between the big and little reflections???

Lookin' for them four strong reflections, eh? They're not obvious in the photos, perhaps because the pictures were taken close-up, ~8-10in. The light source is a small round florescent mounted around the lens. The four reflections are there when the light source is more distant, as is the magnified one when the light source is really, really close.

The smaller reflections, I'm guessing, are the original ones bouncing back from a flat glass filter on the taking lens and then returning. We'll see if Dan comes up with a better idea.

Charley

ps: Had to try out the new Leica (shhh! D-Lux 5). The fourth reflection isn't distinct; it's mostly covered by the third, inner reflection.

[Dan Fromm]

Charley, your good example encouraged me to look at the rear cells of a 101/4.5 and a 127/4.7 Ektar I had lying around. Both have rear elements that are convex to the film. Plain vanilla tessar types, and now I know it.

When I try to count reflections in a lens' front or rear cell I use a point source, e.g., LED flashlight, or a naked bulb. Weak reflections can be very hard to see and sometimes it takes an effort to see (or is it recognize?) the strong reflection from the front surface. Seeing and counting the things is easier for me when the light source is off the cell's axis and I look at obliquely.

Dan, I unscrewed the two Ektars' cells, one had a flat (or very slightly concave) surface facing the diaphragm and the other was visibly concave. I left no fingerprints. Superior EKCo technology at work, I think, they came out of their shutters very easily. Against that crackpot theory, I have cells from an Oscillo-Paragon on my desk that came out of their shutter easily without my putting a paw to glass.

[BrianShaw]

Lookin' for them four strong reflections, eh?

(snip)

We'll see if Dan comes up with a better idea.


Well, actually... I have no idea what to look for, exactly. I know the obscure art of reading lens reflections has been discussed before but I can't find where it it writtren down. I recall some talk of strong reflections and weak reflections, so I guess that strong reflections come from an air-glass surface and weak reflections come from a cemented lens interface. But that's mostly me just speculating.

Maybe Dan will explain it... probably for the 4 millionth time..

[Dan Fromm]

Brian, you've got it right. No need to explain it again.

[BrianShaw]

Brian, you've got it right. No need to explain it again.

I'd agree from the standpoint that repetition can be annoying, but your wisdom goes unappreciated since I know I'm not the only one who doesn't understand what you are talking about. To me the refusal to repeat basic concepts for others to understand is the difference between a teacher and a technical expert. Unfortunately I work with a lot of technical experts (AKA "brainiacs" in specific technical areas) so I can accept the fact that they do not like teaching. Oh well... I guess I'll continue to just be a "Brian-iac" rather than a "brainiac" in the area of reading optical reflections! ... or was I correct in my guesses stated in post #22? :)

[Dan Fromm]

or was I correct in my guesses stated in post #22? :)You were correct. And that's why there was no need to echo you.

[BrianShaw]

Thanks Dan. I was a little slow interpreting your message.

[Craig Roberts]

Here are the two 12-inch ektars. The F6.3 is marked a commercial ektar, the F4.5 is not.

[fishrdnc]

In talking with Ted Bromwell this morning, he says though he no longer lists the Osaka (Congo) lenses they still can be had from Yamasaki (JA). And, he still has some 120 f6.3s and 210 f6.3s in Pittsburgh. The problem with sourcing directly from Yamasaki is the shipping from Japan involved, and local market competition from used Rodenstocks and Schneiders. Though there have been perpetual (and un-substantiated) rumors on the photo fora of poor quality control, he said that very few of his Osakas were returned. It could be, and I don't want to start any further rumors or talking points, that the reason for return may have been that the customer didn't want to accept some of the limitations of 4-element lenses in small, light shutters. Dunno. Also, it has been written that Ted's Osakas were a better pick of the litter - he says that though he would like to be so honored, that is not true; his Osakas are just re-badged Congos.

The only substantive tests of Yamasakis that I can find are those by Thalmann & Perez, involving Congo 90s and 120s. I recently tested my own three Osakas (120, 210, 400) against the 1951 USAF resolution target and got numbers (line-pairs per mm) somewhat above their results, and a bit better than the 100mm f6.3 WF Ektar they used as comparator. If Yamasaki QC is spotty, Ted and I dodged the spots.