Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

  1. #1

    Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

    I own a nice example and had been thinking of selling it since I had acquired a Fujinon f6.7 250mm for taking portraits. The Kodak is known for sharpness but in test shots in comparison to the Fujinon the resulting images were softer and with less contrast. I'm thinking that I may prefer this looks at times which is one reason why I decided to keep the Kodak. I am hoping for any insights on my experience. I shot in natural window light at f7.7 on the Kodak.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    now in Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    3,617

    Re: Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

    i would expect the Ektar's performance to improve if you stop it down. Like most LF lenses, they really weren't meant to be used wide open, and are quite sharp @ f/22. The Fujinon, with the advantages of modern glass formulas and better coating, will likely have more contrast than the Ektar in a comparison. (I can't comment on the Fuji's resolution vs. the Ektar.)

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
    Posts
    5,808

    Re: Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

    I have not used the Kodak 203 but use a few other older Kodak lenses. I prefer them for portraiture WAY more than "modern" lenses. I agree with your experience. So do my subjects, who alsways seem to like the softer look than a clinically precise sharp look.

  4. #4

    Re: Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

    I'd have trouble calling my sample anything but sharp wide open.



    Here's a crop - you can see my shadow in his eye.


    Exposure was something like 1/2 second at f/7.7 on Tri-X. I'm rather fond of that little lens.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    229

    Re: Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

    I have some old literature that describes the f7.7 Kodak anastigmat as a diffraction limited lens, that is it was sharpest wide open and began to decrease in resolution as it was stopped down. This holds only for the center of the field. At the edge of the field, it needed to be stopped down to be sharp. The same article describes the early Zeiss f6.3 Tessar as having the same properties. My copy is a reprint of an article by Verne Reckmeyer on the testing and evaluation of photographic lenses published in 1934.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    435

    Re: Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

    I have several decades of experience with numerous Kodak 203's. They are 4 element all air spaced similar to the the Goerz Artar. They are incredible lenses and I've never seen a bad one. If they are un-damaged, the poor quality is likely to be at your doorstep. The only real problem is narrow angle of view, around 45 degrees (regardless of what Kodak says) while the Fujinon you are discussing is a fine lens, it will have a bit less contrast than the Ektar but will cover 70 or more degrees.

    Lynn

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,589

    Re: Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

    Will it cover a whole plate negative?
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    419

    Re: Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

    It'll cover 5x7 with some movements so WP wil be a stretch.

    Dan

  9. #9
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chillicothe Missouri USA
    Posts
    3,065

    Re: Kodak 203mm Ektar Question

    The Christopher Perez and Kerry Thalmann tests http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html show the 203mm Ektar to be a good performer. Even an uncoated prewar version tested as well as a few of the later competitors.

Similar Threads

  1. Kodak Ektar 203mm f7.7
    By Paul Cocklin in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 1-Apr-2018, 20:36

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •