Modern substitute for Commercial Ektar

[docw]

My main 8x10 lens is a 14 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar. I like this lens for a lot of reasons but the old No. 5 Universal shutter is always a concern. The shutter is also quite limited, going up to 1/25" only (the 1/50" is just not accurate). I would like a little more room and thus I am looking for a lens that has a more modern shutter but will give me the rendition of the Commercial Ektar, which has a really nice bokeh and smoothness (for want of a better word) that I really like. I am guessing that this has a lot to do with it being a tessar. In any case, I am not going to dump the Commercial Ektar. I will continue to use it within its limitations but I would like something in a modern shutter. I think that getting the Kodak remounted in a modern shutter might be very expensive.

Some folks have suggested a 360 Fujinon A but after some preliminary research, I think I have as much chance of getting one of those as I do finding the Holy Grail. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[Peter De Smidt]

A Fujinon 420L is a tessar. It comes in a Copal shutter.

Other options are Congo lenses. If I remember rightly, some of them are based on Commercial Ektars. See: http://www.jck.net/congo/kakaku_e.htm

[Alan Gales]

You might want to read through this thread. http://www.largeformatphotography.in...nd-Experiences

I'll bet it's a lot more than you want to spend but it's an interesting read.

[Maris Rusis]

A Fujinon 420L is a tessar. It comes in a Copal shutter.

Other options are Congo lenses. If I remember rightly, some of them are based on Commercial Ektars. See: http://www.jck.net/congo/kakaku_e.htm

I've had more than 20 years experience with the Commercial Congo 360mm f6.8 lens in a Copal #3 shutter. It's as good a Tessar design as you would expect after more than 100 years of refinement. And it delivers an image quality similar to the Commercial Ektars I've tried. The modern coatings are a bit better and the Congo is remarkably flare free.

[Kirk Fry]

That really nice bokeh may be a function of the nice round diaphragm in that OLD ilex shutter. No 3 Copals have really ugly, lumpy diaphragms....

[Tim Meisburger]

I think Kirk may be right. I remember reading an article once where a guy argued that the primary factor in creating the creamy bokeh we love in old lenses was the old shutters with round apertures, rather than any inherent quality in the glass. It would, perhaps, be a fun experiment to take a lens with Waterhouse stops and make a set with the pentagon aperture to compare directly to the round.

[cdholden]

Other than speed, I'm not sure why you have concerns about your shutter. I don't think you will find a modern shutter big enough to mount that glass. If you have concerns about operation of your shutter, give it a CLA. Other shutters of the past that have many-blade irises with a more rounded aperture to consider might be one of the larger Compound shutters or maybe an Alphax, but then you're back to speed limitations.

[docw]

Other than speed, I'm not sure why you have concerns about your shutter. I don't think you will find a modern shutter big enough to mount that glass. If you have concerns about operation of your shutter, give it a CLA. Other shutters of the past that have many-blade irises with a more rounded aperture to consider might be one of the larger Compound shutters or maybe an Alphax, but then you're back to speed limitations.

The only concern is that there is not a lot of room at the higher end. Other than that, the speeds are not bad with most of them only out by 15-20% at most.

Kirk and Tim, thanks for pointing that out. I had not heard that before. I am re-thinking this although I am still looking into Congo lenses and other tessars. I would love to hear more about Fujinon and Congo tessars.

[Steve Goldstein]

I think Kirk may be right. I remember reading an article once where a guy argued that the primary factor in creating the creamy bokeh we love in old lenses was the old shutters with round apertures, rather than any inherent quality in the glass. It would, perhaps, be a fun experiment to take a lens with Waterhouse stops and make a set with the pentagon aperture to compare directly to the round.

Another interesting experiment, and possibly easier to perform, would be to use the same lens cells in new-style and old-style Copal 3 shutters. The old ones with the nonlinear aperture scale (unequal distance between stop markings) had rounder apertures, something like 10 blades versus the more modern 7. You'd need correct aperture scales for both shutters. The easiest way might be to get a lens in the older shutter with a correct scale and create a scale for the newer shutter. And if you happen to have a Prontor Professional size 3 shutter, those only have 5 blades IIRC.

[sperdynamite]

I have been told by a couple repair techs that the Ilex shutters are basically not repairable. I have a similar Shanel shutter for my Fuji 250 tessar and my repairman was only able to get it to passable working order. Anybody know why this is? Are they really just that dodgy? My Seiko shutters are workhorses.

As for your original question... Have you tried a modern lens like a 300mm Rodenstock? They go for a song and you might be pleased. Plus the modern convenience of the shutter will help you sleep easy.