Graflex.org

[dogjoke]

Say, something I have been thinking about is that it seems like the Ektar is slighly more crispy and sharp than an Optar. Is this just me or is this a fact.

As a rule, I am really impressed by Kodak's old lenses. I have a radioactive Aero-Ektar that is painfully sharp. Good pictures and happy developing to all!!!

[Les]

What was better 50 years ago is irrelevant. Some say Kodak had better quality control, brochures at certain points have had Optars more expensive than the same focal lenght Ektars.

At this point, what determines the performance of the lens is it's life, and therefore every Ektar and Optar has to be tested on it's own merits. An old Optar that barely passed inspection but was stuck onthe shelf for 50 years may now out perform an Ektar that was top of the list when it left Rochester but saw battle at Iwo Jima, Saipan and Seoul, and then left in a damp basement for the last 39 years.

So test what you have, if you like it, keep it, if you don't sell it.

[dogjoke]

I wonder if I had a hacked lens such that the front and rear elements were not originally paired. The image was crisp but there was something lacking.... My ektar is glass-sharp. My aero-ektar makes the standard ektar look like a soft focus lens. Let us face it, Kodak lenses of old were hot tuna.

[Graflex Sid]

Well said,Les..
What's that saying:swings and roundabouts..my OPTAR 101mm may perform better because it has pin rollers in the 120 back..but really I suppose this is 'nit-picking',because my Quarter Plate cameras don't have a pin roller in the back..but still give brilliant pix with the Optar and Ektar lenses.

As Les says:it's the luck of the draw where these cameras have been stored is the most important thing,some look like they have been dug up from the battlefield of Corregidor (hark at me giving a history lesson),whereas others look like they have just left the factory.

But saying that,they still are a superb lens (both)when they are is perfect condition.
May they reign forever...Amen!