203mm Ektar f7.7 vs modern APO Plasmats for color

[paulbarden]

Now a piece of ancient history, first hand: In 1973 Ansel Adams said to me, while sitting in the Beinecke Rare Book Library at Yale looking at Paul Strand prints, "That 203 is my favorite lens. Give it a try." I don't think he was blowing smoke. I gave it a try and I have stuck with it

My 203mm Ektar is my favorite lens on the 4x5 (and sometimes on the 5x7), used often for making wet plate collodion images, and almost always shot wide open. Superb lens.

[Brian Berry]

First of all I work exclusively in color, sell wildlife/wilderness prints in galleries, and my primary reason for even getting into LF is bigger prints than I can muster from my MF gear (scanning and digitally printing, I'm thinking 24x30" on up). Hiking long distances in the wilderness, the prospect of my Meridian 45B as a folder not only greatly speeds up set up but simplifies dust control. Current thinking is that I can live with focusing challenges more than IQ issues. Few slow compact lenses are available nowadays, so I'm searching for the best image quality in small compact lenses, whatever the era or shutter issues.

Yesterday, I was ready to pull the trigger on a pristine coated late-version Ektar 203mm f/7.7 in a Compur, until I allowed myself to be disabused of the notion by Leica/Linhoff/Schneider dealer who emphatically stated that images taken with such an older design would be obviously inferior to just about ANY modern MC lens (incl a 150mm Caltar-E-- though I seriously doubted this assertion), and that the lowered contrast and lack of color correction of the Ektar would be immediately apparent in a side by side comparison of prints. That I might get away with using the Ektar, but only in B&W.

At apertures of f/11-22, test charts would seem to recommend this lens as being wicked sharp across the board, equaling or exceeding almost anything more modern.

Is this really so, or was the dealer blowing smoke? Anybody using an Ektar 203 with Velvia/Provia/Astia F who can shed some light?

Now, I'll concede the subtleties of color balance and contrast might be arguably improved by better multi-coatings with more air/glass surfaces in certain flare-prone situations, but doesn't the necessity of APO glass have more to do with correcting 3-color chromatic abberations introduced by extreme lens design than anything else? (Don't get me wrong, I've got a bunch of ED glass in wilder Nikkor zoom lenses for 35mm, and am a true believer in that milieu, but I just don't get it that there's any discernible improvement in modest lens designs of fewer elements that are proven stellar performers without it.). What's so extreme about a lens with a moderate image circle at this focal length? Does it not take sharp focus in all three colors to get sharp B&W test result, too, or am I mistaken about this? And, at the requisite f/16 or smaller taking apertures used in field photography for adequate DOF, isn't diffusion pretty much the great equalizer, anyway?

My 203 f7.7 Ektar (coated in a comper shutter) was a gift to me from Ansel Adams. The quote? When he gave it to me he said, "This is my favorite lens." This was in 1971. A little less contrast than a plasmat, he indicated, and he also indicated that he didn't really like plasmats!
I also think he was ebarrassed to admit that so late in the game he still did a lot of copy work. "perfect for that," he said, "flat field and keeps all its corrections in close, even at 1:1."
And so it has proved to be. Mr. Adams's negatives in those days were mostly made on plus-X souped in HC110 at high dilutions. "This lens with that film and that developer give me a straight line response," he said. That was a quality he valued. They looked thin to me (!) but who am I to say!
About color, he didn't comment. I am not sure that he valued shooting transparencies all that much. I did -- 4x5 Fujichromes were my bread and butter in those days, including hundreds of transparencies from artwork, headed to color separation houses. That Ektar outperformed my Symmars and my Rodenstock enlarger lenses in that application. Later I acquired an Apo-Symmar and it was excellent -- I still have it and use it. But it is too contrasty for models and portraits! Honest! As for landscapes and outdoor work, that Ektar is a prize. I often shoot it alongside my 8-1/2 and 10-inch Commercial Ektars, which have paradoxical high micro contrast and less overall contrast. The 203 Ektar has a different look, more nearly like Red Dot Artars but with much more coverage. Try one and see!

[Brian Berry]

My 203 f7.7 Ektar (coated in a comper shutter) was a gift to me from Ansel Adams. The quote? When he gave it to me he said, "This is my favorite lens." This was in 1971. A little less contrast than a plasmat, he indicated, and he also indicated that he didn't really like plasmats!
I also think he was ebarrassed to admit that so late in the game he still did a lot of copy work. "perfect for that," he said, "flat field and keeps all its corrections in close, even at 1:1."
And so it has proved to be. Mr. Adams's negatives in those days were mostly made on plus-X souped in HC110 at high dilutions. "This lens with that film and that developer give me a straight line response," he said. That was a quality he valued. They looked thin to me (!) but who am I to say!
About color, he didn't comment. I am not sure that he valued shooting transparencies all that much. I did -- 4x5 Fujichromes were my bread and butter in those days, including hundreds of transparencies from artwork, headed to color separation houses. That Ektar outperformed my Symmars and my Rodenstock enlarger lenses in that application. Later I acquired an Apo-Symmar and it was excellent -- I still have it and use it. But it is too contrasty for models and portraits! Honest! As for landscapes and outdoor work, that Ektar is a prize. I often shoot it alongside my 8-1/2 and 10-inch Commercial Ektars, which have paradoxical high micro contrast and less overall contrast. The 203 Ektar has a different look, more nearly like Red Dot Artars but with much more coverage. Try one and see!

[tundra]

This. I only shoot my Ektar with monochrome but it is razor sharp in pretty much all lighting situations. So is my 8 1/2" Commercial Ektar which is much bigger but roughly the same focal length.

Kodak sold the Ektars and Commercial Ektars as pro-quality lenses in their day, and they still are.

At the price of a 203mm these days, just buy one and try it. I liked mine so much I had it CLAed to get the shutter speeds tidied up.

It's an A+ lens.

[Chuck1]

I've been on the fence
Over the:
203mm ektar
200mm nikkor
210 repro claron

[paulbarden]

The 203mm Ektar is a marvel. I use it on 5x7 more than I do on 4x5, and it's a spectacular lens in a tiny package. (It's a really small lens, compared to many/most)