The "Lenses" section of the site discusses several notable Ektar lens, such as the 50/f2 from the Bantam Special/828. Is this just a general discussion of Ektars, or are some of these lenses actually useful on a Graphic 2X3? (Can't imagine that they'd possibly cover 4X5.)

thanks.
________
hot box vaporizers

Quote:

On 2002-07-16 17:57, hellerharris wrote: The "Lenses" section of the site discusses several notable Ektar lens, such as the 50/f2 from the Bantam Special/828. Is this just a general discussion of Ektars, or are some of these lenses actually useful on a Graphic 2X3? (Can't imagine that they'd possibly cover 4X5.) thanks.

Kodak applied the name Ektar to the best lenses in a line. "Ektar" has, as you should have read, no implications for lens design.

The shortest Ektar that will cover 2x3 is the 80/6.3 Wide Field Ektar. I don't think the 80 mm Ektar for the Hasselblad 1600F will cover 2x3, it is a normal lens for 6x6. All Ektars from ~ 100 mm up will cover 2x3, excluding Cine Ektars which cover a 16mm motion picture frame.

If you're looking for an inexpensive wide angle lens that will cover 2x3, I think you're out of luck. That said, years ago I turned up a 75/4.5 Velostigmat Series II and asked about it on Usenet. Richard Knoppow replied that he found a claim that it would cover 6x9 in his collection of Wollensak propaganda (sorry, sales material). I haven't yet put the lens on a board and shot with it, although I did put it on an improvised board and look through it. It illuminates 2x3, but I don't know how much of the frame is acceptably sharp.

Cheers,

Dan

You read my mind about the low-price WA. thanks

________
buy glass pipes