WWII Kodak Aero Lens Usage History

[Tin Can]

I recently got a 7" Aero Ektar. It was matched to a like new 1951 Speed a long time ago, perhaps in the 50's. Same original owner with period mount.

I am wondering more about how these lenses were originally used.

Yes the K24 camera was used, unfortunately the matching original source K24 was lost to me a few years ago, same owner...He has passed and the family have no clue. At that time they could not put all 3 items in the same place.

Searching has found a few websites and we of course have many posting modern portraits using the Aero Ektar.

I am interested in how WWII troops used it. Altitude, f stop, shutter speed, and film speed.

I know they sometimes processed the film inside the aircraft while returning from a mission.

Here are some websites i found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F24_camera

I also have the OE yellow filter, but it's best as lens cap...

Soon as we get good Sun, I will try the Sunlight cure for the browning rear element.

I also have a far worse condition Pentac 8" which is very poor. I think they were both used for similar Aerial photography usages.

IMG-2207 by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr

IMG-2206 by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr

IMG-2205 by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr

https://web.archive.org/web/20180813...aeroektar.html

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1491082

https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/aero/

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...6R0S9potVjVsmw

[jp]

I'd like to know specifically too how these were used.

These two videos are less than an hour and provide a quick overview of some of the early cold war activity regarding aerial surveillance. A scene shows some big film; larger than would be used in a 5x5" AE lens like we have. I suspect as altitudes increased during the cold war, WW-II systems quickly went out of favor. If you want to dive deep into any of the incidents in the video, there are plenty of other resources to watch or read if you like rabbit trails. It appears technology for aerial surveillance changed quickly in the decade after WW-II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKbL-bcq3k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBYI6fXbswM

Even a stop of light lost to darkened thorium glass isn't all a bad thing. Shooting outdoors at f2.5 means pretty high shutter speeds, so a little ND (with gentle yellow filtering) is usually helpful.

[Bob Salomon]

I'd like to know specifically too how these were used.

These two videos are less than an hour and provide a quick overview of some of the early cold war activity regarding aerial surveillance. A scene shows some big film; larger than would be used in a 5x5" AE lens like we have. I suspect as altitudes increased during the cold war, WW-II systems quickly went out of favor. If you want to dive deep into any of the incidents in the video, there are plenty of other resources to watch or read if you like rabbit trails. It appears technology for aerial surveillance changed quickly in the decade after WW-II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKbL-bcq3k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBYI6fXbswM

Even a stop of light lost to darkened thorium glass isn't all a bad thing. Shooting outdoors at f2.5 means pretty high shutter speeds, so a little ND (with gentle yellow filtering) is usually helpful.

I was a rec tec USAF photographer from shortly before the Cuban Crises till the Tonkin Gulf incident, our squadron, while I was in, flew Cuba as well as the Universities of Alabama and Mississippi during integration of those schools.

We used 5” for aerial obliques at lower levels and 9” for verticals at high levels.

[jp]

I was a rec tec USAF photographer from shortly before the Cuban Crises till the Tonkin Gulf incident, our squadron, while I was in, flew Cuba as well as the Universities of Alabama and Mississippi during integration of those schools.

We used 5” for aerial obliques at lower levels and 9” for verticals at high levels.

Thanks! Great to learn how the equipment was used. I'd never have imagined aerial photography would have been used in those university integration issues but it makes sense for some good reasons.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks! Great to learn how the equipment was used. I'd never have imagined aerial photography would have been used in those university integration issues but it makes sense for some good reasons.

We were flying the campus and the dorms looking for crowd gatherings. When printing 5x5 to 20x20 with a Log E enlarger and putting one probe on a window and then other on a spectral we could actually see into the rooms!

[Tin Can]

In the 70's near where I live now we had large rural parties, kinda like Honeysuckle Rose movie with Willie Nelson. A great movie BTW.

But for several years we were aerial observed by the Air Force flying a big airplane very low, very slow. They were using a movie camera hanging out the wide door. Maybe stills too. I have wrote about this on the forum before.

We were skinny dipping in the pond and It looked like the soldiers were going to fall out getting a good look at naked women.

I think Bob commented before on the Air Force base they came out of.

Nobody cared, not us and not the soldiers, but somebody sent that aircraft our way.

Sure they were grabbing license plates and faces. I could clearly see the photographers.

[EarlJam]

My dad had a 7" Aero Ektar, a few K24 magazines, and a mirror attachment (45 degree, I think) amongst his things, but no camera. I made an attempt in locating a camera but had no luck, so sold the lens and ended up scrapping the magazines. The only references to camera use that I recall were for aerial photography. My dad told me that one of the benefits of being in a Signal Corps darkroom was that there was always film available. The techs would take the short-ends from the reconnaissance magazines and cut them down to roll film and various plate size widths and lengths, for personal photography.



The Germans had a similarly fast Xenon for their aerial camera, but shot on 4" wide rolls rather than 5", due to more limited resources (or so I've heard).

[Dan Fromm]

The Germans had a similarly fast Xenon for their aerial camera, but shot on 4" wide rolls rather than 5", due to more limited resources (or so I've heard).

Interesting if true. I always understood that the 125/2 Xenon was fitted to the Volk Handkammer, a hand-held aerial camera that shot 7x9 on 80 mm roll film.

I don't know about the 125/2, but the design of early Xenons was licensed from TTH.

[EarlJam]

Interesting if true. I always understood that the 125/2 Xenon was fitted to the Volk Handkammer, a hand-held aerial camera that shot 7x9 on 80 mm roll film.

I don't know about the 125/2, but the design of early Xenons was licensed from TTH.

You're very likely correct on the film size used with the 125/2 Xenon. At the time I was researching it for sale, I knew that it didn't cover 4x5 or 5x5, but never did find a reference to 7 x 9 cm on 80mm film. Thanks for the clarification.

[Dan Fromm]

You're very likely correct on the film size used with the 125/2 Xenon. At the time I was researching it for sale, I knew that it didn't cover 4x5 or 5x5, but never did find a reference to 7 x 9 cm on 80mm film. Thanks for the clarification.

Funny thing is that the 125/2 Xenon might come close to covering 4x5. TTH patented many variants of the Opic, see Eric Beltrando's site dioptrique.info for details, none that covered more than 50 degrees according to Eric. But I have a late 100/2 TTH Opic type taken from a Vinten F.95 aerial camera (shot 6x6 on 70 mm film) that covers 2x3 well.

Sad thing is that years ago I came across a coated 125/2 s/n 6xx,xxx (I'm not being cute, I don't remember all those digits) at a very good price and foolishly didn't buy it.