Uncommon Common Lenses

[Steve Hamley]

Folks,

O.K., I have some spare time over the holidays and was thinking about some of the lenses I've tried to find over the years that were "common" lenses, or so I assumed, but never or almost never found. So share your uncommon common lens thoughts.

The first lens I'm still looking for is a Kodak 14" Commercial Ektar with a "RO" number since that's 1956, the year I was born. Never seen one. I have an outstanding RR (1955) lens, but wondered if they made them at all in 1956.

The second is a single coated 135mm f/5.6 Fujinon W. This is the 80 degree lens, and I looked for one fairly often on eBay and never found one until about 10 days ago. Fantastic lens, as are all of this series, but I bought the only one I've ever seen. 125mm W-series are fairly common, 150mm W series less so, and even the 250mm f/6.7 is seen fairly often. That means 135mm W-series lenses are not common even though your intuition might say otherwise. Anyone else have a 135mm single-coated Fuji-W?

Cheers, Steve

[dap]

There was a 14" ektar that just sold on ebay that was a pretty uncommon version of a common lens. It was mounted in a silver compound shutter. I've never seen a 14" ektar mounted in a compound shutter much less a fancy pants factory polished compound shutter (I wonder if it was standard issue for that year or some kind of kodak prototype). I placed a bid but ended up losing out on it - too bad, it might have been the prettiest shutter mounted lens I've ever come across (normally I'm not much of a sucker for the way equipment looks but this thing was gorgeous - too bad kodak eventually moved over to using Ilex shutters).

[Steve Hamley]

Got a link?

Cheers, Steve

[dap]

I don't have a link handy (I don't know how to copy links when I'm using a phone) but I'm sure that if you did a search for "ektar" in the ebay completed auctions you would be able to find it.

[Roger Hesketh]

I have a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 inch Gundlach Turner Reich Anastigmat mounted in a Rapax shutter. I bought the only one I have ever seen and have never heard anybody else ever mention one.

[IanG]

Bought from this forum :D an f5.3 165mm CZJ Tessar in a Compur, both made around 1926. No references in books etc but two older similar lenses have been sold on Ebay.

Ian

[MIke Sherck]

I used to have a single-coated Fujinon 420mm L which was a superb performer but rather large and heavy to carry around. I sold it in favor of a 420mm RD Artar in Ilex shutter, which is also a superb performer but lighter and smaller than the Fuji. Not sure I made the right choice but I see the Fuji so rarely that "what's done is done," I think. One of my favorite focal lengths for 8x10.

I've seen but never owned (but would like to!) the Fujinon 125mm f/8 which almost covers 8x10. I haven't seen one for sale in years.

Mike

[domaz]

Curious is your single-coated Fuji 135mm 5.6 W in a Seiko shutter? Mine was (until I put the cells in a modern Copal 0). I'm wondering if they ever made these lenses in a shutter other than the Seiko. As far as performance, I have used my Fuji 135mm on 5x7 and it covers just fine.

[ic-racer]

Anyone else have a 135mm single-coated Fuji-W?

Cheers, Steve

I don't have that one, but I do have the 180mm Fuji-W with 80 degree coverage. I got it for 8x10 and don't see these for sale that often.

[Mark Stahlke]

I have a 270mm G-Claron. While the G-Clarons are common, the 270mm seems to be a rare bird.

[Steve Goldstein]

The 135mm single-coated Fujinons appear regularly, though not frequently, on eBay. The sellers are most commonly in Japan, so you need to be doing a worldwide search to find them. I see these much more frequently than the 125mm, though there have been relatively a lot of 125s in the past couple of months. I've had a 135mm for years.

Agreed the f/9 270mm G-Claron is uncommon, seemingly much more rare than the Fujinons.

Here's a link to that 14" Ektar that dap mentioned in post #2:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/KODAK-EKTAR-14-INCH-F6-3-LARGE-FORMAT-LENS-in-COMPOUND-SHUTTER-with-BOX-CAP-/290831160156?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item43b6e3535c&nma=true&si=CNtwuzfcZ1arAb2fLBs5I0pnP4Q%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

[Alan Gales]

I own a Caltar HR 300mm f/5.6 lens in a Copal 3 shutter.

I did some research on it and according to what I read on the internet the HR designation stands for Horseman. Topcon made Horseman lenses and also made some lenses branded Caltar. The Caltar branded Topcon 300mm is said to be rare but just because something is rare doesn't mean it's worth a lot of money! ;)

[Mark Sampson]

That Ektar/Compound must be a vey early prototype. When I worked at Kodak I had a 10" 'Eastman Ektar" lens (in barrel) on my desk; it had a 1940 serial# 000 and was uncoated, in its original ebony wood box. (It may never have left the building where it was made.) The 'Anastigmat Ektar' label and the non-'camerosity' serial suggests that this one is even earlier. I've never seen, or heard of, one like that, and I've seen, used, and heard about a fair number of different Ektars. All the Rochester-made ones I've seen had Ilex shutters, and some late 127mm lenses had Compur shutters, but never one in a Compound. Does rare = valuable? That would depend on how many Ektar collectors "just have to have one".

[Bernice Loui]

Does anyone know where the origins of "camerosity" came from?

*Of all the view camera lenses I have used/tried over the years (including numerous modern ones) Kodak Ektars remains one of my all time favorites for a host of reasons.

*While the reputation of a given lens may be know, it's actual performance depends on the specific lens. Ektars that I have tried/tested over the years tend to be quite consistent in performance.


Bernice

[Mark Sampson]

Bernice, when Kodak started making Ektar lenses they used a two-letter + number system. The two letters indicated the year of manufacture via the following code; c a m e r o s i t y = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0. Thus a lens marked RA**** was made in 1952. Tis system was in place from c.1940-1967, Kodak's professional lens-making heyday, and applies to Ektars of all types along with some other, but not all, Kodak lenses. I photographed at Kodak for many years and have used many different Ektars, and agree with your comments.

[Bernice Loui]

Thanks for the info Mark. Have always wondered when c a m e r o s i t y began..

There was a photo I knew who worked at Kodak about this time. His name was Don Tong (earned a Master Craftsman Photographer), by chance would you know him?


Bernice



Bernice, when Kodak started making Ektar lenses they used a two-letter + number system. The two letters indicated the year of manufacture via the following code; c a m e r o s i t y = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0. Thus a lens marked RA**** was made in 1952. Tis system was in place from c.1940-1967, Kodak's professional lens-making heyday, and applies to Ektars of all types along with some other, but not all, Kodak lenses. I photographed at Kodak for many years and have used many different Ektars, and agree with your comments.

[IanG]

Bernice, when Kodak started making Ektar lenses they used a two-letter + number system. The two letters indicated the year of manufacture via the following code; c a m e r o s i t y = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0. Thus a lens marked RA**** was made in 1952. Tis system was in place from c.1940-1967, Kodak's professional lens-making heyday, and applies to Ektars of all types along with some other, but not all, Kodak lenses. I photographed at Kodak for many years and have used many different Ektars, and agree with your comments.

Few in the US probably realise there were Ektars made in the UK as well, Kodak (UK) sold British made lenses on some imprted cameras like Graflexes and usually Zeiss lenses on German made cameras. It's not known if Kodak made the Ektars in house or sub-contracted to Ross a company they had quite strong links with from the early 1900's, Kodak distributed Ross lenses in Australia and New Zealand.

So a lens like the Kodak (UK) f7.7 203mm Ektar doesn't have the same numbering system, in fact there's no serial number, and unlike the US version is fully compatible with #0 shutters, first being sold in a Kodak Epsilon, then Prontor SVS and finally the last type of Compur.

Ian

[Roger Hesketh]

On the subject of UK built Kodak lenses I have read somewhere that the word CUMBERLAND instead of CAMEROSITY was used as an pneumonic when assigning serial numbers to Kodak lenses made in Great Britain.

[IanG]

It's interesting Roger that Kodak don't seem to have made LF lenses in the UK before WWII and they didn't import them from the US, all the adverts I have plus a 1940 Kodak Professional Catalogue show them selling or recommending British lenses from Dallmeyer, Ross and Cooke. The specialist WA whole plate camera used a WA f9 Dagor, presumably made by Zeiss, with a Luc shutter.

Some of their smaller cameras like the Recomar made by Nagel used Schneider lenses and only the Bantam and cine cameras used Kodak Ektar or Anastigmat lenses. The lwer end amateur cameras aren't listed.

Ian

[Wayne Lambert]

Steve,

My 14" CE was made in 1956 (#RO138). I bought it used from Cole Studio in Norman, Oklahoma for $150 in late 1970's. An excellent lens. If you are ever in Colorado Springs, stop by and you can see it.

Mr. Cole also let me have my present 8x10 Deardorff for $300 and threw in a 190mm WF Ektar and a Vulcanite case for free. I was very happy.

Wayne

[Mark Sampson]

IanG, Kodak was a huge global company even that far back, so it's no surprise that the British division did their own thing. (On a related note, it's also interesting that Hasselblad used a similar letter code for their camera bodies and film backs- V H P I C T U R E S = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.)

[Embdude]

There was a 14" ektar that just sold on ebay that was a pretty uncommon version of a common lens. It was mounted in a silver compound shutter. I've never seen a 14" ektar mounted in a compound shutter much less a fancy pants factory polished compound shutter (I wonder if it was standard issue for that year or some kind of kodak prototype). I placed a bid but ended up losing out on it - too bad, it might have been the prettiest shutter mounted lens I've ever come across (normally I'm not much of a sucker for the way equipment looks but this thing was gorgeous - too bad kodak eventually moved over to using Ilex shutters).

One was for sale on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/4618...0499322629146/

I have not seen one of these chrome compound shutters before and am curious if it was specific to the Kodak lens or if anyone knows of other examples?

I have started a new thread here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?175365-Chrome-Compound-Shutter-looking-for-information-on-them&p=1697094#post1697094


244042

[Tin Can]

Find B&J Chicago Lens Database newsprint or copy

Mine is 1963

All WWW II surplus some NOS

more remounted

[AJ Edmondson]

I have one of the Fujinon 135mm f5.6 W lenses in Seiko shutter which has been my favorite lens for several years. I was fortunate enough to find one that was truly "mint" and sent the shutter off to Carol Flutot for a CLA. I can't recall the last time I used a different lens and I have always been amazed by the performance of the lens!
Joel

[MAubrey]

I have a Fujinon A 360mm f/9 that's mounted in a Copal #3 instead of f/10 in a Copal #1.

[xkaes]

Curious is your single-coated Fuji 135mm 5.6 W in a Seiko shutter? Mine was (until I put the cells in a modern Copal 0). I'm wondering if they ever made these lenses in a shutter other than the Seiko. As far as performance, I have used my Fuji 135mm on 5x7 and it covers just fine.

The original W 125mm, 135mm & 150mm Fujinons came in Seiko #0 shutters. All of the longer W Fujinons came in Copal shutters, and the 150mm was eventually sold with a Copal #0 shutter. The 125mm & 135mm did not make the change to Copal -- for some reason -- at least it's not in the literature. Seems odd, but Fuji made a lot of mistakes in their literature, so I would not be surprised if the 125mm & 135mm were actually sold with Copal shutters -- before the later NW versions.

[xkaes]

I have a Fujinon A 360mm f/9 that's mounted in a Copal #3 instead of f/10 in a Copal #1.

Did it come from the factory that way? Seems odd to put that lens on such a larger shutter for so little gain in light.

[Havoc]

The original W 125mm, 135mm & 150mm Fujinons came in Seiko #0 shutters. All of the longer W Fujinons came in Copal shutters, and the 150mm was eventually sold with a Copal #0 shutter. The 125mm & 135mm did not make the change to Copal -- for some reason -- at least it's not in the literature. Seems odd, but Fuji made a lot of mistakes in their literature, so I would not be surprised if the 125mm & 135mm were actually sold with Copal shutters -- before the later NW versions.

Are those mistakes or just did users later just changed the shutters? Or did they somewhere halfway made a batch with other brand of shutter because they could have them faster? Or did they later put cells they had around in shutters they worked with then? Could be lots of reasons.

[xkaes]

Like I said, I'm just listing what's in the literature. It shows that the W 150mm f5.6 switched from a Seiko to Copal shutter, but it does not show the 125mm or 135mm making the same "move". An error? Possibly. Probably not.

[domaz]

Ever since I heard that a 80mm Convertible Symmar existed I've been on the hunt for one to put on a 2x3 camera. I've seen maybe one on Ebay after months of looking. They seem to be rare for such a "common" lenses series at least.

[SimonMaddock]

There was a barrel Rodenstock Ysarex 300mm, I think f4.5, on ebay a few years ago. I made a saved search thinking I might get one should they turn up again. I haven't seen one since. No photos on the googles and I can't find any other info. I didn't realise it was as rare as it seems to be. It's "just a tessar" after all.

[MAubrey]

Did it come from the factory that way? Seems odd to put that lens on such a larger shutter for so little gain in light.

I think it was originally barrel mounted. But its threads are #3s, like many Fujinon lenses.