[LargeFormat] 250mm Wide Field Ektar

[Michael Briggs]

On 08-May-02 Clive Warren wrote:

> Les asked before I could - and the answer to the question about the meaning 
> of life, and nature of the 10wf is?

The article had three basic points:

1) the wide-field ektar has coverage intermediate between plasmat and
super-wide angle designs.  This coverage is highly useful for the moderate wide
angle, like 250 mm for 8x10.  The wide-field ektar has 80 deg coverage vs 75
deg for the Sironar-S.

2) "The Ektar is sharp; its resolution is all you'd need."

3) With eight glass/air surfaces, and pre-dating multi-coating, the wide-field
ektar has more flare than the Sironar-S.   The difference in the negative
depends on the scence being photographed, e.g., "Compared to negatives made
with either Sironar lenses [an N and an S], the middle values of Ektar
negatives shot in sunlight needed a half to a full paper grade of extra print
contrast to achieve the same snap and liveliness   This presents little
difficulty with flat subjects and normal development, but if a contrasty
subject is straining the overall film contrast range, you don't want to use
additional print contrast to get pleasing mid-tone separation."
Also, "But the news was far from all bad.   With pictures made in dim, soft,
but full-range light, the venerable classic delivered results very nearly
indistinguishable from the modern lenses."


> At 19:31 07/05/02 -0500, Michael Briggs wrote:
> snip
> 
>>I haven't found an article about Kodak lenses in the index of View Camera,
>>nor
>>in looking at the tables of contents of the 1998 issues.  Perhaps what is 
>>being
>>thought of is an article in Photo Techniques -- "Kodak 10-inch Wide Field
>>Ektar: How does this cult classic stack up today" by Carl Weese in the 
>>Sept/Oct
>>1997 issue.   The article compared a 250 mm f6.3 Kodak Wide-Field Ektar with
>>a
>>Rodenstock 240 mm f5.6 Apo-Sironar-S.
>>