Can anyone give me the coverage run-down on the 127mm Ektar?
Is this a usable lanscape lens?

-- Matt O. (mojo@moscow.com), March 21, 2002

Answers

This will cover 4x5 with very little movements. It's semi-wide on a 4x5. Very sharp lens! One of the best ektars. Shade it well. Should do fine for landscape if the angle of coverage suits you. The ektar 203 7.7 is also superb and very light weight for a longer focal lenght.

Paul

-- Paul van der Hoof (paul.vanderhoof@losangeles.af.mil), March 21, 2002.

Yes, it is razor sharp at f22, but it is noticeably soft at f16. I also like the shadow contrast that some people descibe as "sweet." It's a superb lens for the money. Try a Commercial Ektar if you haven't yet. The 8 1/2 inch f6.3 can be shot wide open and give stunningly sharp results.

Greg

-- Greg Rust (kgeicrust@aol.com), March 21, 2002.

I used the 127mm 4.7 Ektar for several years when starting out in 4x5. It came off a 3-1/4"x4-1/4" Speed Graphic. It worked well, considering the coverage/contrast issues mentioned above. Sharp enough stopped down but the images don't "look" like those from a modern multi-coated lens. I replaced mine with a Kodak 135mm 6.3 Wide Field Ektar, a real sweetheart of a lens. Kodak LF optics were as good as anyone's in their day (c.1940-64)and are still perfectly respectable.

-- Mark Sampson (MSampson45@aol.com), March 27, 2002.