The 250mm 10" Wide Field Ektar thread.

[John Kasaian]

When I started shooting 8x10, after getting a camera, some film holders and a tripod that could actually hold the thing up, I needed a lens that would cover the format.
I suspect other new 8x10 shooters have found themselves in the same boat.
The big money question of course is, "which lens?"
There are (or were) plenty of fine ex commercial studio lenses such as Symmars and Commercial Ektars, which, not that long ago, were considered "state of the art" for product shots and when the format passed from common usage these lenses could be had very reasonably. I don't know what the prices are like now but few things equating with large format are "cheap" and the larger the format, the more costly the gear tends to become.
There are certainly newer designs from Congo, Fuji, and Nikkor to tempt you and I think any of the better known 8x10 lens are worthy contenders, and some classic lenses like Dagors, Cooks, Wollensak and Artars have deservedly (IMHO) achieved a cult status but none of them are, or have ever been magic bullets.
I think that probably one of the most important considerations when evaluating which lenses you decide to put on your shopping list to buy is by looking at the photographs other photographers have taken with the same lens.
Does the image strike a chord with you sensibilities? Not the subject, but rather how it records the subject? I prefer to look at examples used to photograph subjects I don't appreciate as much as I should just so I'm not swayed by dramatic mountains or heavily filtered Wagnerian cloud phenomenon.
I'm also not that fond of the way photographs appear on computer screens. I'm of the opinion (maybe wrongfully) that I can get more out of an original print---or failing that a carefully printed book--than I could looking at the same image on a screen.
So I was thinking about one of my favorite lens, the 10" 250mm Wide Field Ektar.
Ansel Adams has four examples of photographs taken with this lens in The Making of 40 Photographs

Edward Weston, Carmel Highlands, CA 1940
Merced River Cliffs, Autumn, Yosemite National Park circa 1939
Silverton, Colorado, 1951
Early Morning, Merced River, Autumn, Yosemite National Park circa 1950

Another published portfolio featuring the 10" 250mm Wide Field Ektar exclusively is The Mad Broom of Life by
Takahashi, Kyoji


I'm sure there are many other photographers who shoot with the 10" 250mm Wide Field Ektar and who have published portfolios using the lens.
If you know of any please post them here for the edification of any newbie 8x10 shooters trying to decide on which glass to invest in.

It might be interesting to have other threads cataloging published examples of other commonly found lenses as well since we have links to excellent lens tests, but little to correspond the data with actual images.

[Drew Wiley]

It was the lens Meyerowitz claims to have used exclusively on his Dorff for the Cape Light project. I've seen many of the prints, not just the book.

[Michael Graves]

It was the lens Meyerowitz claims to have used exclusively on his Dorff for the Cape Light project. I've seen many of the prints, not just the book.

Back in the day, I saw the exhibition of dye transfers of that project that circulated the country. I remember being in total awe of the quality of those images. I loved the simplicity, but the actual image quality would take your breath away.

[ic-racer]

I highly doubt anyone can pick out a photograph shot with an Ektar 250mm compared to any other modern design 250/240mm lens. That is among large format photographers. In terms of a potential viewing audience, the don't give a rats ass what lens you use; use any lens you like.

[John Kasaian]

I highly doubt anyone can pick out a photograph shot with an Ektar 250mm compared to any other modern design 250/240mm lens. That is among large format photographers. In terms of a potential viewing audience, the don't give a rats ass what lens you use; use any lens you like.

Perhaps, but this is for new guys who will be shelling out hard earned $$ for a piece of glass. I think they deserve to see what a given design can potentially add to the broth, so to speak. Certainly Yousef Karsh had an appreciation for what the 14" Commercial Ektar adds to the party. Others swear by Dagors.
My premise is to provide a list of examples a lens buyer con go to to see what a print from a given lens(this thread focusing in on the 10" WF Ektar) actually looks like in addition to the data inked to on the Large Format Home Page.

[goamules]

Interesting talk, thanks for starting it. I started out liking the older lenses, just because I am a history buff. With Petzvals being my main lens, the speed useful for wetplate, I got the contrast I wanted. But when I moved to the anastigmats, some uncoated lenses were not contrasty enough. Though I learned I could fix that in printing, of course. I gravitated to Dagors, for their higher contrast.

I haven't shot the Commerical Ekatars much, but do have a 12" I'm selling now on this forum, because I got a 14" this weekend. I look forward to trying it.

[Drew Wiley]

Ice-racer - the WF Ektar handles out-of-focus issues, and has relatively low color saturation, which renders a look somewhat different than modern more contrasty lenses, but certain not as smooth as certain other older lenses. Of course, these had multi-bladed shutters like other lenses of that vintage, so this helped to some extent. But certain people did choose them for a particular "look". Maybe this distinction is more conspicuous in color than black and white.

[Alan Gales]

Perhaps, but this is for new guys who will be shelling out hard earned $$ for a piece of glass. I think they deserve to see what a given design can potentially add to the broth, so to speak. Certainly Yousef Karsh had an appreciation for what the 14" Commercial Ektar adds to the party. Others swear by Dagors.
My premise is to provide a list of examples a lens buyer con go to to see what a print from a given lens(this thread focusing in on the 10" WF Ektar) actually looks like in addition to the data inked to on the Large Format Home Page.

John, I bought a nice example Fujinon W 250mm f/6.7 lens for $300 including shipping and I have seen them go for less money. It's single coated and in a Copal 1 shutter. The wide field Ektar has a little more coverage but the Fuji is said to be a little sharper. For examples, Jock Sturges used the Fujinon on his early work. It's a cheaper alternative to the 250mm Wide Field Ektar which may appeal to a newbie on a budget.

[John Kasaian]

John, I bought a nice example Fujinon W 250mm f/6.7 lens for $300 including shipping and I have seen them go for less money. It's single coated and in a Copal 1 shutter. The wide field Ektar has a little more coverage but the Fuji is said to be a little sharper. For examples, Jock Sturges used the Fujinon on his early work. It's a cheaper alternative to the 250mm Wide Field Ektar which may appeal to a newbie on a budget.

Alan, that's a great point! If you know of examples of other prints taken with the Fujinon W 250mm people can see, please post the where they can be found as well as where Sturges' early work can be seen in a new thread dedicated to the Fujinon W 250, so this thread doesn't get derailed.
I'd like people to actually see examples of prints, rather than having to rely solely on test data. The more different lenses represented, the better.
Anybody want to start a thread on 12" Dagors? 14" Artars? 240mm G Clarons? Convertible Symmars or Turner-Reichs?
All were employed by respected and published photographers (who could use them to their advantage) at one time or another.

[David Lindquist]

Does anyone know for certain when the Wide Field Ektar series was introduced? My _Kodak Reference Handbook_, copyright 1945, shows for Eastman Kodak large format lenses the f/4.5 Kodak Anastigmats in several focal lengths, the No. 70 8 inch f/7.7 Kodak Anastigmat, and the f/6.3 Eastman Ektars in focal lengths of 8 1/2, 10, 12 and 14 inches. The Eastman Ektars are described as having the inner air-glass surfaces "treated by a special process which reduces reflections." Not mentioned anywhere are the Wide Field Ektars nor is anything shown under another name that looks like this lens series. All of which makes me think that the Wide Field Ektars didn't come out until after World War II. Which also makes me think every time I see those dates for "Edward Weston, Carmel Highlands" and "Merced River Cliffs" that those dates are, well, wrong. (Or maybe the dates are right and the lens given is wrong). (Or I'm wrong and there's more information that I don't have). I know Ansel Adams himself has said he did not always keep the best of records.

David