Ilex Paragon Anastigmat Series S 12 inch FL

[John Jarosz]

Just found out today that Ilex made 2 versions of this lens, a F4.5 and a F6.3. Mine is the F6.3.

Performance wise, is there much of a difference between the 2 versions? Not a big deal to me, but just interested to know.

I use mine on an 8x10. I guess the 4.5 version would be easier to focus.

Thanks
John

[Chauncey Walden]

It is my belief that the f/6.3 Tessars are considered to have higher image quality than their f/4.5 cousins.

[Ari]

To add to the confusion, there are also two series of the Paragon Anastigmat: A and S. And there's a 12" version with adjustable soft focus, one without.

Never tried the f/6.3 but I've had two versions of the 12" f/4.5 for a while, I'm selling the non-soft focus lens.

Maybe at f/11 the f4.5 and f6.3 versions would look similar, but at f/4.5 the 12" I have is quite splendid: smooth, creamy bokeh, and very sharp where focused.
Good contrast control, too.

I imagine the f/6.3 is a bit smaller in size; mine's a real chunk of glass, heavy.
I use it on 8x10 as well.

Here's a sample shot using the lens wide open and at f11.
https://flic.kr/p/2j3PeeU

[Peter De Smidt]

I haven't had those lenses, but I have had a couple of the Ilex 254mm Paragons. Both were outstanding performers.

[mdarnton]

My 12"/6.3 is one of my favorite lenses, but I don't have the f/4.5.



Eric
by Michael Darnton, on Flickr

[rdenney]

Isn't the f/6.3 a copy of the Kodak Commercial Ektar? [digs through old posts.] Yes--Calumet teamed up with Burke and James to hire Ilex to design a replacement for the recently discontinued Commercial Ektar. That resulted in the f/6.3 model of the 12" lens that was marketed variously, by Calumet as the Ilex-Caltar, by Ilex as a Paragon, and by B&J as an Acuton. The design is tessar-derived, but was freshly calculated in the late 60's. It mounts in a No. 4 shutter, which was a requirement to fit on the 4x4 lens boards used on Calumet and B&J cameras of the day.

The f/4.5 version is the more classical tessar implementation, which is an older design. A 12" f/4.5 lens would need a No. 5 shutter, which I seem to recall struggles to fit on a 4x4 lens board.

Lynn Jones (RIP) was part of the team that developed the f/6.3 lens, and he thought it was every bit as good or maybe better than the Kodak lens, which is certainly highly regarded. I believe Dr. Jones would have expressed confidence that the f/6.3 is a newer and better design than the f/4.5.

Comparing the 12" f/6.3 Ilex-Calumet that I own to my 8-1/2" f/4.5 Paragon would do nothing to challenge his opinion.

Rick "agreeing that differences might be subtle at small apertures, though maybe smaller than f/11" Denney

[Vaughn]

Dr. Jones also designed the Computar Symmetrigon 210mm f6.3. And along the same lines, it sounds like. A very fine lens for 4x5 and 5x7...not enough coverage for 8x10.

[John Jarosz]

Thanks guys. Very insightful

John

[Ari]

I never found the Commercial Ektars to have a smooth look, often giving choppy/pulpy blacks. They also didn't deal well with higher-contrast scenes, often blowing out whites. My $0.02.
So saying one is a better lens is quite subjective as I'd take the f/4.5 Paragons over any of the Commercial Ektar lenses any day. But that's the look I'm after.
I only know the Series-S lenses, so that's my basis for the opinion.