Kodak (enlarger) lens flanges & retaining rings - my dumb mistake

[Will Frostmill]

So, I made that classic e*** mistake - buying the slightly cheaper thing in a hurry, and not remembering to get the slightly more expensive thing that comes with the flange.

So! I bought an Enlarging Ektanon, 162mm f/4.5, and I'm trying to figure out what I can use to screw it on to a board. The 162mm lens is apparently the same thing as a 6 and 3/8" so I went looking at Brian Wallen's Kodak lens sitehttp://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakEktarsDB6-Enlg.htm, and found this:

Adapter ring size: 50.5
Lens Attachment Series: VII

But also this:
Retaining Ring Part Number: HE26949
Kodak Enlarging Lens Flange: Number 6

So, since Series VII filters are 50.5mm, would the female ring work as a retaining ring? Surely Kodak would've used the same thread pitch for as many different things as possible, right?

(That's probably too optimistic.)
Anyway, I'll attach the scans from the Kodak references here, in case anyone else needs this stuff later:




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jim Jones]

The 50.5mm VII adapter may be to mount filters on the front of the lens, not to mount the lens on the enlarger.

[Bob Salomon]

No. Ask Grimes how much a lens flange is for that lens. Don't spend too much on the lens.

[Mark Sampson]

When I was at Kodak (long after your lens was made) we thought the Ektanons were quite sharp, but produced prints with lower contrast that our modern Rrodenstocks and EL-Nikkors. The ones we used were mounted on Omega boards; I never thought about what sizes the retaining rings might have been, though, so I can't help there.

[Will Frostmill]

Thank you everybody! I had a hunch that would be the consensus. As for paying too much...well, my spouse has pointed out many times that it is far more expensive to buy the thing that is almost right and replace it with the thing that is actually right. "Buy the thing that actually, makes you happy, not something else!"

Mark, I thought the Ektanons sounded interesting, so I wanted to try them. Do you think the lower contrast was a deliberate design decision? That would have helped control the contrast with people pushing film a stop or two, which I think a lot of non-pros would have done quite a bit back in the day. (When was it that Kodak revised box speed up one stop?)

p.s. I'm sorry about my inability to attach the scans of the Kodak literature. I'm working on that

[Mark Sampson]

Will-
No, it's almost certainly a function of being designed in the 1940s. The Kodak Ektar camera lenses from the same era are also quite sharp, but have lower contrast than the more modern, multicoated designs. Shouldn't be a factor when you go to print.