I am looking at buying my first large format camera (4x5) and am not having much luck finding information on Kodak Ektar lenses. In particular a 203mm f7.7 It comes with one of the cameras I am looking at. If anyone can help me I would appreciate it. Thanks.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.ca), May 23, 2000

Answers

It's a good sharp lens. A bit slow, but I used one for years. If it is in a Kodak Supermatic shutter, you may have to contact Paramount Sync Cords for the correct plug.

Also post your message at: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and- a.tcl?topic=Large%20format%20photography

-- Tony Brent (ajbrent@mich.com), May 23, 2000.

I think you will be happy with the Ektar. I've taken many photos with my 152mm Ektar, and I recently purchased a 10" Ektar for my 8x10. They are good lenses, but modern designs have less flare and better contrast.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), May 23, 2000.

The 203 f:7.7 may seem slow, but it can be used wide open, so for practical purposes it's faster than f:4.5 Tessar designs, or f:5.6 6.3 Dagors and Symmars. It's a wonderful lens.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), May 23, 2000.

I have a 203mm 7.7 Ektar and I really love it. I bought it for my 4x5 and with that camera it is a slightly long lens. It also covers 8x10, though there are some people that claim otherwise. With the 8x10 its a good wide angle (with some distortion at the edges). I also have a 12" Commerical Ektar for the 8x10.

They are fine lens and the price is usually right. Like any of the older lens there are some aspects that have been improved with more modern lens, but with practice and care you can take very fine images with them.

-- chuck k (kleesattel@msn.com), May 23, 2000.

Thanks everyone for the detailed and prompt reply. I was quite pleasantly surprised by the positive comments on the lens and will certainly seriously consider this particular camera now since the body is in such good shape. Thanks again.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.ca), May 23, 2000.

Check out this site:

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/ektar.html

I have a 10" Wide Field Ektar for 8x10" and a 100mm/f:3.5 Ektar that I adapted for 35mm and they are both fine lenses.

-- David Goldfarb (dgoldfarb@barnard.edu), May 25, 2000.

Just curious what camera you are looking at that has the Ektar. I had a nice Graphic View II outfit with 127 and 203 Ektars that I used for years. It was also the camera I learned on in the Navy. Good outfit.

-- Tony Brent (ajbrent@mich.com), May 29, 2000.

I also have a Graphic View outfit, with a 203mm Ektar. It appears to be surplus from some branch of the U.S. military.

I have an old Kodak data book, dating from the 1950's, and if memory serves, it does not recommend that particular lens for either large enlargements nor critical colour work.

However, when I was a student enrolled in the Photographic Arts program at Ryerson Polytechnic University in the late 1970's, I used that lens to shoot plenty of 4x5 colour negatives and transparancies, a number of which I made into 11x14 dye transfer prints. I can assure you that I didn't have any problems. I still use that lens today, and while the coating may not be up to currents standards, the lens performs fine!

One thing should be mentioned, and that is that the lens was originally designed for a 5x7 camera, with swings, tilts and all of the usual view camera movements. So, when used on a 4x5 you have plenty of coverage. But, with that coverage will come flare, especially if the lens picks up any sky in its field of view, even if you can't see it on the ground glass. So, a deep lens hood is an absolute necessity!

-- Terrence Brennan (tbrennan13@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.