Gosh they're all very smart in your office.
(Nice shots)
Gosh they're all very smart in your office.
(Nice shots)
Re: Kodak Ektar 127mm f/4.7 - opinions?
Not counting the lens mount, is the Kodak Ektar 127mm f/4.7 the same as the Mamiya Press 127mm F4.7 P?
I have one from a Speed Graphic that my Dad bought in 1951, and then have used it from about 1973 to present. The 127 Etar was only lens I had for on it for many years. Very sharp, especially in the centre, at the smaller apertures, but a bit mushy in the corners at the wider ones. Highly detailed landscape shots that I did with this camera and lens have been displayed at 30X40, and larger, and still look very good, and I received many compliments about that work. Most were amazed when I told what they were shot with.
I added a 203 Ektar a couple of years ago, and it is an outstanding lens, deserving of the reputation it has! A good reasonable cost option for these cameras.
Keith
No. Kodak and Mamiya are independent companies. Neither made lenses to be sold with the other's name on them.Originally Posted by Rudy Ternbach
OK, granted, but were they both copying a third company's previous lens design? Just wondering.
No, Kodak's tessar type Ektars were covered by US patents issued to Kodak employees and assigned to Kodak. They are in no sense copies of lenses made by Zeiss. And neither are Mamiya's tessar type lenses.
You are making, I think, the common mistake of confusing a design type, very broadly defined, with a prescription. The broadest definition of the tessar type is a pair of singlets in front of the diaphragm and a cemented doublet behind the diaphragm. In actual prescriptions of tessar type lenses (visit www.dioptrique.info, click on Nombre de Lentilles and look at the prescriptions of the various 4 element lenses Eric presents) curvatures of the various surfaces differ, sometimes changing sign, the elements' thicknesses vary, and so does spacing. The glasses used (refractive index, dispersion) also vary. Not surprisingly, Eric's calculations indicate that the lenses don't all perform equally well; coverage varies and for the same coverage corrections for, e.g., astigmatism and coma, aren't equally good.
I have the 127 I got with my first Crown Graphic. Years later, the camera (and many others) have come and gone. The 127 Ektar is the lens I've had longer than any other. It is a great lens; I have no intentions of parting with it.
Oddly enough, I bought a nice 4x5 Speed Graphic a few months ago, with yet another 127 Ektar; this one has a different shutter (Supermatic), and is noticeably smaller, i.e. the lens elements are completely different! Same aperture though. The 152 seems to be less common, and I don't use the 127 as much since I've calibrated the rangefinder to work with the 150, an equally great lens.
Thanks guys, nice to know its good for colour too
Not too concerned about movements to start with, just sharp images for now
Will def need to get something longer for the kind of portraits I take (id link but theyre digital images, havent dev'ed the 6x7 recent stuff yet).
Yeah getting it with a Speed Graphic.
Sounds like a bargain at $98 US + $56 US shipping for the camera, GG, shade box for the GG, 4 film holders, the ektar lens, shutter release cable and some other kind of cable that I dont know whats for
Just itching for it to arrive so I can fiddle.
I'd call that a good deal. My '47 127 supermatic sits in front of a Crown, and I hacked it for x-synch. When paired with a Vivitar 283, it's a cool-looking press camera that's the center of attention a Little League games. Rangefinder is a boon--calibration steps available on the web somewhere.
Here are a couple of examples of 127 Ektar images. The first was made the day I got my camera in the mail, before calibrating the rangefinder. Second was made with same set up after I calibrated the rangefinder. Both hand held, first on Plus X, second Tmax.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks