| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
antjam65
Joined: 27 Dec 2001
Posts: 42
Location: MA, USA
|
 Posted: Fri May 23, 2003 6:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I've noticed a few references on this forum recently to "Uncoated Ektars" and the L in circle denoting coated lenses, etc. I have a 105mm f3.7 Ektar without the L in circle after the serial number, but the lens is obviously coated. Also, according to JC Welch, of the Graflex Historic Quarterly, "all Ektars are coated" and the L for Lumenized was only added to the serial number when Kodak realized the marketing value of touting the benefits of coated lenses.
So what's the deal? Does anyone out there have an uncoated Ektar? Are they all coated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2003 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2003-05-22 23:51, antjam65 wrote:
I've noticed a few references on this forum recently to "Uncoated Ektars" and the L in circle denoting coated lenses, etc. I have a 105mm f3.7 Ektar without the L in circle after the serial number, but the lens is obviously coated. Also, according to JC Welch, of the Graflex Historic Quarterly, "all Ektars are coated" and the L for Lumenized was only added to the serial number when Kodak realized the marketing value of touting the benefits of coated lenses.
So what's the deal? Does anyone out there have an uncoated Ektar? Are they all coated?
|
Hi, Anthony.
I have an uncoated 101/4.5 Ektar, s/n E0 3946; a 1946 lens. I also have a coated one, s/n EI 205, a 1948 lens, in a broken shutter. EI 205 has the "Circle L", EO 3946 doesn't. EI 205 looks coated, EO 3946 doesn't. And I have a 127/4.7 Ektar, s/n ER 7138, a 1945 lens that lacks the circle L and is obviously not coated.
Not all Ektars are coated, end of discussion. JC is mistaken.
I shoot a lot with EO 3946. It is a great lens, so good that it is the standard against which I test everything else.
For tessar-type lenses, coating probably helps contrast a little.
If you want real confusion about what's coated and what isn't, try Wollensak. I have some obviously coated Wolly lenses, including a 160/5.6 Pro Raptar that has to be one of the last lenses they made, that is coated and doesn't have the Circle W.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
antjam65
Joined: 27 Dec 2001
Posts: 42
Location: MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2003 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the input - so there are uncoated Ektars. If you notice this reply, I'd like to know how you like the Pro Raptar? Is it great? (I guess that's kind of a biased way of asking...)
Thanks again,
AJ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2003 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2003-05-23 04:56, antjam65 wrote:
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the input - so there are uncoated Ektars. If you notice this reply, I'd like to know how you like the Pro Raptar? Is it great? (I guess that's kind of a biased way of asking...)
Thanks again,
AJ
|
It is super, just super. About as good as my uncoated 101/4.5 Ektar. Test (VERY informal) is how well blades of grass at 30 feet can be read on an EPP transparency. I shoot both mainly at f/11 and f/16.
I also have a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar. Cost $12. I've tried it out as a taking lens. Out and about at f/11 and f/16, the 101 Ektar is much much better. Wide open at 2:1 and 4:1 the EP Raptar is about as good as a good 100/6.3 Luminar. My own 100 Luminar is a dog, Charlie Barringer (pres. or something of the Zeiss Historica Society and a neighbor) lent me one of his 100 Luminars for test. His is pretty good, mine is awful.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
antjam65
Joined: 27 Dec 2001
Posts: 42
Location: MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2003 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Dan - I'll add your observations to the other glowing reports I've heard concerning the Pro Raptar. Since I like taking close-ups I'll also be on the lookout for an Enlarging Pro Raptar (might even enlarge with it when I find a Japanese apartment with space for an enlarger).
Thanks again,
AJ
[ This Message was edited by: antjam65 on 2003-05-24 01:03 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2003 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2003-05-24 01:00, antjam65 wrote:
Thanks, Dan - I'll add your observations to the other glowing reports I've heard concerning the Pro Raptar. Since I like taking close-ups I'll also be on the lookout for an Enlarging Pro Raptar (might even enlarge with it when I find a Japanese apartment with space for an enlarger).
Thanks again,
AJ
[ This Message was edited by: antjam65 on 2003-05-24 01:03 ]
|
Anthony, if you're referring to sales puffery on eBay by dagor77@earthlink.net, I think you'd better discount it a little even though many of the lenses he sells really are very good.
For example, he says great things about Staeble Ultragon (also sold as Eskofot Ultragon, Helioprint, Repromaster) lenses. A couple of years ago I searched rec.photo.equipment.* for news of them. Opinions were split, ranging from "outstanding" down to "nothing to write home about." This last was from Steve Grimes.
I think two things are going on. First, there's some variation from lens to lens. Second, we're not all equally critical. Hence the need to buy lenses with, where possible, the right of return and to do acceptance testing.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ricksplace1
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Posts: 17
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I referred to "uncoated ektars" in one of my previous posts referring to lenses made by Kodak, of the same basic design as ektars (four element tessar-types) but not called ektars. For instance, a friend of mine uses a 105/f4.5 "anaston", coated with the circle "L" in a supermatic on his century graphic with excellent results. I picked up this lense for him in a Kodak Tourist at a yard sale for $10. To summarize all the other posts, there are lots of good lenses out there, coated and uncoated. Try 'em and see the results. I have a 135/4.5 Enlarging Ektanon, coated, that I use on my 4X5 speed. Close-ups are outstandingly sharp, infinity loses the corners. I paid $5 on ebay for it. Just 'cause it's cheap doesn't mean it won't give surprising results. That's what is fun about graflex's, you can mix and match for hours of enjoyment! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
