A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Aristostigmat" ???



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 1st 04, 01:52 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Aristostigmat" ???


unfortunately, "Ektar" was simply a trade name designating the better
quality Kodak lenses, rather than a description of the lens
formula/design ;-( Richard Knoppow's comment of 27 Mar 2002 cited on that
page makes this observation too.

So while all Tessars should be 4 elements, all Ektars are not tessars, and
so some could be triplets as Feininger states (the cited source for the
listing). For example, the 105mm f/3.7 Ektar is a three element Heliar
(again, from mf/ektar.html pages), the famous kodak medalist ektar has 5
elements for 6x9cm RF, the 45mm f/2 ektar on the kodak bantam special
(28x40mm) had 6 elements, and so on.

But I will add a note with your comments to the page on the next update
cycle, highlighting this point some more ;-)

regards bobm

--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #12  
Old April 1st 04, 02:58 AM
AArDvarK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Aristostigmat" ???


Need anything looked-up ... I got the vade mecum right here, no sweat.

Oh, and thanks for the reference to your page, very useful. And thanks
for the .xls table for download too. This cult of lens formulas has me
gripped. Know any other good reference sites?

Alex


  #14  
Old April 1st 04, 08:46 PM
Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Aristostigmat" ???

Hum..? I thought a Heliar was 5 elements. I also thought the 100/3.5 (Medalist)
and 105/3.7 Ektars (Press Cameras) were pretty much the same optical design. In
fact, I had heard that they were really the same lens, despite the slightly
different numbers on the label, just differing in the mount.

Bob Monaghan wrote:

For example, the 105mm f/3.7 Ektar is a three element Heliar
(again, from mf/ektar.html pages), the famous kodak medalist ektar has 5
elements for 6x9cm RF


  #15  
Old April 3rd 04, 05:04 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Aristostigmat" ???


yes, that's right; it is a triplet but with cemented elements at each end
(in one reference anyway), so it does have five elements in 3 groups...

in any case, the point is that "Ektar" doesn't refer to lens element/group
configuration (cf. Tessar) but rather to a branding by Kodak of its better
lens with this name ;-)


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #16  
Old April 3rd 04, 06:18 PM
Dan Fromm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Aristostigmat" ???

"AArDvarK" wrote in message news:5p98c.2063$1I5.1412@fed1read01...
Mr. Knoppow, what do you think of the book
"A lens collector's vade mecum" ? at this site:
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/ any comments
on it?

Alex


PMFJI. Incomplete, inaccurate, infuriating, internally inconsistent,
desperately needs to be worked over by a good copy editor, and quite
useful.

By the way, it is not necessary to quote the entire damn message
string.

Cheers,

Dan
  #17  
Old April 3rd 04, 09:11 PM
AArDvarK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Aristostigmat" ???


"Dan Fromm"
PMFJI. Incomplete, inaccurate, infuriating, internally inconsistent,
desperately needs to be worked over by a good copy editor, and quite
useful.

By the way, it is not necessary to quote the entire damn message
string.

Cheers,

Dan


That is exactly what I wound-up thinking ... some lenses
I would like to know about are merely "mentioned" only.
And no image circles are given. Not too hot but I wouldn't
dump the book either.

Alex


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.