Graflex.org

[vic valis]

...did a search of hte various help board posts on the aero ektars, but didn't find the specific info/opinions I was looking for (though I'll admit I'm lazy). I'm looking for lenses with a very narrow depth of field, and although I watch for vintage lenses I know of (I like the look of images shot with the Pentac), I've heard that the aero ektar will also produce a very limited depth of field if used, like I want to, for closer up work such as portraiture. Anyone tired this? Anyone have an opinion? Let me know.

jeff

_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."

[RichS]

Depth of field is completely controlled by magnification. Any type of lens makes no difference. All 150mm lenses will have the same dof...

What will change is _apparent_ dof by using a larger or smaller arperture...

The reason an Aero lens may offer the look of less dof is that it will usually have a larger arperture, or open wider, than other 'standard' lenses. This only really shows more clearly the real dof of that focal length. If you shot a 150 aero at f/32 and any other 150 at f/32, the apparent dof would be the same...

So, look for an aero (because they are sometimes very cheap) or any other lens that opens really wide, they'll all have the same 'look'...

And if I didn't explain that all too well, forgive me as my head is in other areas at the moment...

[vic valis]

Okay thanks for the info. I belive they have an f2.9 max aperature. So I will watch and maybe buy one, but I won't spend a fortune on one. Thanks.

jeff

_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."

[t.r.sanford]

My recollection is that the "Aero Ektar" popular with the wide-aperture fraternity among "Graflex" users for the past six decades is a 175mm. f:2.5 lens. They were all over the place as military surplus, in the 1950s and '60s, and still turn up on eBay quite often, at reasonable prices.

There also was a 12-inch "Aero Ektar," which I think worked at f:4, or maybe f:3.5.

In my youth, people were warned that these lenses are corrected for infinity focus, whereas most civilian camera lenses are corrected for about ten feet (three meters), so results at usual working distances might not be optimal with an "Aero Ektar." Some users on this site who are familiar with the lenses claim that they work very well in normal shooting situations, regardless of optical theory.

[RichS]

I don't have any idea what difference it would make in the real world about that infinity correction? But it would seem a lot of people do like those lenses. I always wanted one simply because they're radioactive I'm just not willing to pay to going rates for one as a conversation piece/nightlite


_________________
----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
----------------------------------------

[vic valis]

I hear they're not ALL radioactive, depends on the run of glass they used. In any case, I got mine for about $20, good to experiment with.

jeff

_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."

[RichS]

I don't honestly know? From what I've heard, it went more by focal length. The 178's are supposed to be. My 305 deffinitely is not. I haven't heard much about the 153, 184 or 610's though? Supposedly the radiation turns the rear element brownish, but I've heard that doesn't happen to them all. I've also heard a good dose of sunlight will clear it up. I've also heard of poeple trying that and it not working... So much for what I've heard But there are a few articles on them specific to radiation on the net that aren't too hard to find with a search. I did that a few years ago and read up on them. If I could find one for 20 bucks, I'd grab it...

[vic valis]

yeah, I came across an site on radioactivity a month or so ago and they ued one of the lenses as the experimental subject for detecting radiation, hadn't planned on buying the lens at that point though. We'll see what happens... it's supposed to be in good condition so I'm not too worried.

jeff

_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."

[RichS]

Oh, I thought you already had it. In that case, enjoy it and just have some fun. If it doesn't work out, then it's either a nice converstion piece, or we could make a deal

Just don't sleep with it under your pillow, or carry it around in your pants pocket!

[rocklaneeast]

I have both the aero and the pentac. The aero is coated, contrasty and sharp wide open. Problem is that close in you may get sharp eyes but very unsharp everything else which looks strange on a portrait. Stopping down helps or a 67mm zeiss softar can be fitted into the backof the ektar to soften the whole image up.

On the other hand the Pentac is sharp, uncoated but also low contrast wide open this may be the look youre after (67mm softars actually screw into the back of the pentac as will a yellow to boost contrast.

Ive also used an aerostigmat 300mm+. This is a little long for Speeds so I fitted a 77m CU1 filter to shorten it up. It doesnt have the sharpness of the extar so has more of the vintage look.

[vic valis]

That shallow depth of field is what I'm looking for. Something that will remind viewers of a vintage photograph without having to be vintage equipment. I love my Verito lens, but it's a real bastard to determine if it's focused when shooting hand-held.

jeff

_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."

[vic valis]

Okay, got my lens, 7 inch aero ektar... it's beat up but generally clean. Let it sit on top of some polaroid film a couple of days and processed it... no exposure, so should be fairly safe. I was rushing a job mounting it, would have temporarily affixed it in the board with gaffer's tape, but don't have to rush it now. Anyone know what size threads it uses so I can come up wth a flange of some sort? I think someone suggested a plumbing supply store for possible flanges. I looked, but nothing looked useful.

jeff

_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."

[disemjg]

Ouch; no flange. That is going to hurt. And while I am not familiar with this lens, I doubt the plumbing supply is going to do the trick.

SK Grimes has a good list of flanges on their web site, including some big ones. Hopefully one of them will fit; you may have to give them a call to see. Otherwise you are talking custom machine work.

Which reminds me that one of my projects, making a flange for my 7 1/2" WF Ektar in #4 Ilex, has to move to the front burner as I have an Ansco 8X10 coming in and need the lens. No more excuses.

[rocklaneeast]

Temporary fix

I simply made a board with correct hole size
fitted the lens through
took inside of used roll of gaffer tape
reduced the width
a little tape around the back of lens
when fit seemed to be tight and right
pushed the cardboard tube on
this held board and lens tight enough
so I could try the lens out

It was so effective I still use it that way

[vic valis]

I came up with basically the same solution, tough it ain't permanant. Will come up with someting else sometime soon. The neg for the one shot I used if for last week looks great, can't wait to scan it.

jeff

_________________
That money talks,
I'll not deny.
I heard it once;
It said "good-bye."