What to do with a 7inch Aero Ektar

[Martin Courtenay-Blake]

I have just purchased a 7inch Aero Ektar. Like many of my other purchases (my old Minolta original spot meter for instance) I have always wanted one but haven't really a real use for it.

Obviously it's aperture makes it useful in low light situations...but for what. I know it was designed to cover 5in x 5in aero film format but what is the overall coverage. Would it be of any use on my old half plate Kodak field camera (although I have doubts as to whether the front standard would appreciate the burden).

Could anyone with experience of using these lenses let me know of any special characteristics they may have. I am thinking of making a small and simple rigid 5in x 4in for it where the lens slightly longer than standard focal length may be quite useful. The idea of a 6 x 9 or 6 x 12 roll film camera could be interesting to follow. I know that they have been used quite extensively for large format wide field astro photography at full aperture where lens movements are not required.

Now I have this thing I'd really like to use it....if it's worth the effort, so any feedback on it's characteristics and idea's for a good use would be warmly appreciated.

Thanks to all in advance.

Martin

[Dan Fromm]

Bleach it, put it on a 4x5 Speed Graphic, and don't look back. A mount adapter will be required, also a crutch to support it. www.skgrimes.com has done at least one fairly recently.

Note that the lens is not in a usable shutter. Putting it in one will, if feasible, be expensive.

For what? Look up the work of David Burnett, on of our finest press photographers. Don't overlook his having sold pictures taken with a Holga.

[John_4185]

Your post triggered a site I've had marked. See: www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KodakAeroEktarGall.htm and envy the custom machining.

And this: home.earthlink.net/%7Emichaelbriggs/aeroektar/aeroektar.html

Methinks mounting it in a shutter will be more $$$ than it is worth.

[Frank Petronio]

I had Grimes mount one to a Speed Graphic this spring. I think a handy DIYer could cobble it together and forego Grimes, which cost an easy $500 (but they did their usual elegant job). JJ's links are wonderful, I wish I saw them before I got into it. It's such a heavy lens that you have to do a good job with the mount or it will wind up on the ground.

In the end, trying to shoot portraits on 4x5 at f/2.5 is really hard. I now use a D2X and careful gaussian blurs through gradiant masks.

[John Kasaian]

Keep in mind the thing is radioactive. I wouldn't sleep with it ---unlike my 10" WF Ektar which I've affectionately nick-named "Ektarina" but thats my problem, not yours ;-)

[William Barnett-Lewis]

That's an easy one. Since I am getting the impression it is not in a shutter, you should get it mounted on a Speed Graphic (for the focal plane shutter) and go all Weegee sans bulbs with it. More seriously look up what David Burnett has done with one recently. Eventually my 1942 Anniversary will have one especially since I hand hold probably 90% of the time. Tri-X, a 7"/2.5 lens & Diafine is available light like no-one will believe can be done with a 4x5.

You have me sincerely green with envy.

William

[Craig Wactor]

I too have wondered about these lenses. I imagine aerial lenses would be designed to have great resolution at close to infinity. I wonder about coverage though. Any ideas about the angle of view?

[Struan Gray]

Get two, mount them face to face and make a telecentric macro lens for use with roll film backs.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I had one of the 7" models at one time. Never heard anything about radioactivity till I came to this site. That was in the early 80's. I used it on a speed graphic with a 6X9 roll holder at the first suppercross (motorcycle race in the kingdome) here in Seattle. Paid a big whoppin 75.00 for it.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I have oen of these lenses - still not mounted, but a few thoughts:

1) yes, on many of them, the rear two elements are radioactive - thorium salts. (spelling?) Anyhow, my Aero Ektar sets off my geiger counter.

Store the lens face up, not face down, and you will eliminate a lot of athe radiation right there. keep it in a metal box, a heavy metal box, not something made of nearly tin foil, and the radiation count drops right off to near nothing. It's not that dangerous as long as you are not stupid about it.

However, if you want to do something really cool & fun, in your darkroom, or in a light tight back, take out a sheet of film - higher speed the better, place it on top of a table or countertop, emulsion side up. Place your Ektar lens on it, the rear on top of the film, careful not to scratch the emulsion, and of course, all of this in total darkness.

Leave the lens & film in palce for 24 hours, or at least overnight. Develop the film next day, and see what you get. Kinda like little fireworks. Pretty cool to see (alright, I am easily amuzed .

2) Many of these lenses, especially WW2 vintage, have not so good blue range focus. Fine lenses for B&W, but not for colour.

The reason is, most recon films used during WW2 - and even up to modern times, is red sensitive, near IR or even plain old IR. Works like this, roughly speaking:

The "textbook" definition of human colour vision range is 400 nm (blues) to 700nm (reds). Most B&W films cut off around - oh, 650nm, give or take. Tech Pan used to go to 690nm. "Traffic films" used in red light cameras, such as the type of film Ilfords SFX is based on/from, go to around 720, 740nm (ish) - into the near infra-red.

Most of your aerial recon films were red sensitive to around 700nm, or more. Again, depends on time frame the fim was sold, brand, etc, etc. I think an aerial 70mm version of Kodak's plus-X was still sold (special order) up until a few eyars ago. Somebody correct me on that, but I remember it went to around 700 to 720nm ish.

As a result, the aerial recon lenses were designed quite often to focus more sharply in the red end of things. Works like this: a "normal" apochromatic lens would focus three colours at one point - blue, green and red. But for an Aerial recon lens, the three "colours" that make it apochromatic might be green red and infra-red.

That's why these lenses were often sold/supplied with yellow and red filters - to cut off the blue end of the spectrum.

So if you plan on B&W and use a yellow filter, probally will work great. But some of them will nto work very good on colour. There is a variation on them.

3) Use the C A M E R O S I T Y code - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 to date your lens. My lens is serial number is EM as the starting letters, ergo EM = 43, so my lens was made in 1943. I cannot say for 100% certian, but I find you are more likely to have a radioactivbe lens if it is WW2 vintage as opposed to post 46/47. Don't quote me as gospel on that, but in the few I have seen, that's how it seems to go.

Lastly, neat lenses, but mounting is problematic. Yes, it will cover 4x5, and how many large format lenses out there are as bright as F2.5? So I would say have fun with it, enjoy it, just be smart about using it, and don't expect miracless
have fun

joe