13" F10 Eastman Anastigmat, #553

[E. von Hoegh]

So a friend is mailing this to me. I know it's an Artar type, and that it's uncoated.

Beyond that, I need help.I assume it won't cover 8x10 at infinity.

[Michael Jones]

I believe you are correct; its a Kodak "artar." My 12" RD artar covered 8x10 at f22 nicely, I'd wager the Kiodak will, too... My 20" Kodak anastigmat f10 covered 8x20 very nicely (the images were a bit flat and needed extra development). Good luck.

Mike

[Mark Sampson]

Coated versions went by the name "Copying Ektanon". I have one of those in barrel mount but have never used it. Does yours have a letter code as part of the s/#?

[E. von Hoegh]

Well I JUST got home with the lens. The glass is perfect. It's reasonably well made, but certainly not a Goerz. I held it up to the window, and it does not seem to cover 8x10 at infinity. (Corners are dark)

But I'm thinking it might become part of an 8x10 horizontal enlarger - I know it's a bit long, but I have more room than money right now.

(edit) Mr Sampson; the serial number is marked " No 513" NOT 553! 553 is the # of my Deardorff; 513 is the # of the lens.

Please pardon my confuzzlement - I was tired and annoyed when I made this thread.

[Michael Jones]

Well I JUST got home with the lens. The glass is perfect. It's reasonably well made, but certainly not a Goerz. I held it up to the window, and it does not seem to cover 8x10 at infinity. (Corners are dark)

Does it have an iris/sperture? And it still does not cover 8x19 stopped down to f16-22? Wow.

Mike

[Jim Galli]

I have one lost in a cupboard somewhere. Been 5+ years since I've seen it. Coated iirc. I shined it on an 1114 once upon a time and while it didn't quite illuminate that, it was obvious it would on an 8X10. You really have to watch the corners on Artar's that are not mechanically vignetted though. You might very well have a stunning image in the 5X7 area that turns to pure mush in the corners. Best seen on your own ground glass.

[Mark Sampson]

If your lens has a s# with the two-letter 'camerosity' code as part of it, you can tell its age. Not all EK lenses used that identification system. See the front page of this site for lots of detail about EK lenses... but not yours.

[Tracy Storer]

Give the lens a better chance, put it on the camera to really see what it'll do. I had a 19.75" example and was surprised to see it nearly covered 20x24. I suspect your 13" will do nicely on 8x10 unless there's an integral lensshade.

[E. von Hoegh]

OK. I put it on the camera, and it DOES appear to cover with room for movements!

The lens is in a black lacquered barrel with a "captive" flange. The barrel rotates within the flange, and is locked by a thumbscrew and pressure piece bearing on a beveled flange on the barrel.

The lens is marked as follows; Front bezel:"Eastman Anastigmat F=10 13 in. No. 513 (no date code). Outside of front cell: "MADE BY EASTMAN KODAK CO. ROCHESTER N.Y. U.S.A." Aperture ring: "EASTMAN KODAK CO. ROCHESTER N.Y. U.S.A."

It is not cut for stops, and I assume the odd flange arrangement means it was meant for use with a prism.

The glass is perfect, the barrel is very nice. And it looks razor sharp.

I'm putting it as pre WWII (it's not coated).

Thank you all for the input.

[Dan Fromm]

Bill, tell us more about the odd flange arrangement.

I ask because I have a 203/7.7 KA that's normal enough except that it is threaded externally at the front. I've always understood that the threading was to attach it to a prism, also that the prism, when used, goes in front of the process lens, not behind.

Cheers,

Dan