need help and suggestions for buying wf ektar 100

[Janko Belaj]

I would like to have small and light wide angle lens for my field camera (Tachihara 4x5). After some reading here and there, I have decided to find some good but not expensive Kodak Wide Field Ektar 100 6.3, there is one on auction right now (7510309817), seller will ship to Europe, but... right now price is 163 USD. I have to add to that value shipment cost and probably some taxes here... That may be about 50 dollars more and than it sounds just a little bit too expensive.
I'm not in hurry, I have one Super-Angulon 90mm but is too heavy and too dark for just "having fun" in the field. What do you thing? To search more, or to get this one?
(of course, if someone here is current winning bidder, I hope he or she won't find this post upsetting.)
tnx for help.

[Bill_1856]

It's a nice lens, but doesn't really offer any advantage over a good Schneider f:6.8/90mm Angulon, and I'd prefer a Compur to the Supermatic shutter. A Super-Angulon, of course, will give a lot better coverage if you need them, and is only 1/2 stop slower. Unlike longer FL lenses, I think that I'd stick with your SA, and forget the WF Ektar.

[Janko Belaj]

Tnx for fast response Bill, but I would really like to have lighter (and if possible brighter) lens than my old SA. I like to call him "my dearest enemy", "the ugliest friend"... Heavy, dark, cumbersome (doesn't have "button" to hold aperture open while composing so I have to use cable release... that isn't complicated but I find it irritating). And, my SA is mounted on Sinar's lensboard and I'm using it mostly for interiors so I will need to mount it on Linhof's board (size 00?). O.K. That won't a be a too big problem, I just have made Sinar-Linhof adapter for other lenses (new one from Sinar cost over 700 dollars?!?!) so I could use that SA on Tachihara as well... but somehow, I don't want that (look at names I'm giving to him).
About Angulon and WF Ektar... I will quote just one of many notes I have found around: "This lens can be more useful than a 90mm Angulon by providing good coverage, thus allowing a bit of movement for scenes near infinity." (prairienet.org/b-wallen), and some data: table on graflex.org state that K. WF Ektar 100 have circle of 183mm, and Angulon (from schneideroptics.com) "Image Circle Diameter at f/16 = 154mm". So it seams that WF Ektar have some more room for movements over Angulon. Useful or not, I can't tell, haven't work with any of those two.
And at the end, I have admit that I have absolutely no knowledge (yet) about differences between shutters, and have no idea what kind of shutter is that Supermatic... will learn that too ;-))

[David A. Goldfarb]

The WF Ektar will have more coverage than the 90/6.8 Angulon, but it will probably be in a shutter larger than the 00 shutter you have for your 90/8.0 S-A.

I would suggest that you start shooting 11x14" with old portrait lenses, so that the Super-Angulon won't seem so big to you anymore, and you'll think of it as your light and handy wideangle lens for informal snapshots.

[Arthur Nichols]

There is a bunch of 90mm WA DAgors on the famous auction site right now, you might consider one of those.
Art Nichols

[Janko Belaj]

hehehe;-)))
Yes David, after such experience even my Seagull (full-plate) with "small" Carl Zeiss Jena Tessars (180 and 210) would look like a snapshot camera... But than, somehow I can't imagine myself climbing on hills with such equipement.
Arthur (or anyone else), what is the real coverage of Goer(t)z 90mm WA Dagor? On graflex.org there is data about 156mm, and on one ebay add, 220? And what is difference between Goerz and Goertz? Is this just someone's typing error?

[Dan Fromm]

Janko, the name is spelled Goerz. But since in german z is pronounced "tz," Goertz is a phonetically more-or-less correct misspelling. Probably written by someone who doesn't speak german.

Cheers,

Dan

[Mark Sampson]

The WF Ektar is a fine lens, one of my favorites, although I've only used the 250mm and 135mm. The Supermatic shutter is reliable if maintained. Remember that these lenses are 40-60 years old! I had the shutter in my 135 cleaned and set up 1n 1989, and it's still accurate after 16 years of regular use.

[Ernest Purdum]

Janko,

The Wide-Angle Dagor f8 gains a lot of coverage as it is stopped down. Perhaps this accounts for the variations in claimed coverage that you have seen. A Goerz brochure lists the following for the 92mm focal length: f8 = 70 degrees, covering 1/4 plate. f22 = 80 degrees, covering 4X5. f45 = 100 degrees, covering 5X7.

Another cause of discrepancy in coverage data is that there are no standards for how much light fall-off or how much image deterioration is considered acceptable. Unless the lens is mounted so that there is a sharp cut-off at the edge of the image circle there can be differences of opinion as to how large a circle should be considered "coverage".

The Supermatic shutter was a high-quality product and many of them are still working saisfactorily after very many years, but they are quite inconvenient to use. I think the designer was thinking more of hand-held cameras than view cameras when he laid it out.

[John Kasaian]

Janko,

Wide field Ektars are fine lenses, all were gnauss formulas that I'm aware of, I'd be inclined toward one that is coated---usually marked with a letter "L" inside a circle---maybe they all came that way, I don't know. My 10" is a real champ on 8x10. You'll find WF Ektars quite a bit smaller and lighter than Super Angulons. The 165 SA dwarfs my 10" WF(which isn't itself a small lens by any means!) WF Dagors are certainly an alternative as might be the newer Nikon Ws. As for the Supermatics, I think they are aptly named (super!) If it is an good condition it should give you excellent service. The late SK Grimes even them a thumbs up on his website. Of course if the shutter is an abused worn out junker you're out of luck but that would apply to any make shutter. As others have commented, the WF dagor is certainly worth looking at and I would add the 120 Angulon to the list as well.