Dan, Just telling it as Kodak tells it. I have a few of these Ektars and it is indeed hard to tell there's any coating anywhere. I think they kept the coating off the exposed surfaces because it was so soft.

Quote:

On 2006-01-10 14:47, glennfromwy wrote: Dan, Just telling it as Kodak tells it. I have a few of these Ektars and it is indeed hard to tell there's any coating anywhere. I think they kept the coating off the exposed surfaces because it was so soft.

Glen, ol' EO doesn't have the L in circle Luminized symbol, EI has it. EO doesn't look coated, EI does. My money's on "Kodak started coating everything sometime in 1946," not on "Kodak started coating everything 1/1/46."

Cheers,

Dan

Between friends, I doubt that Tessars benefit much from coating. My uncoated ancient B&L f/6.3s are no flarier than uncoated EO, and EO's no flarier than for sure coated EI.

One of my favourite Tessars is an ancient (SN 122000, about 1908~1910) Zeiss Tessar in a sunken mount; an 18cm FL that I have on one of my 4X5 RB-Ds. It was the shortest lens I could mount and reach infinity without mirror interference.

I was astonished at its performance, which as Dan points out does not appear to be hindered by its lack of coating. It has no haze, which makes a big difference. I would match its performance easily with the coated postwar Tessar types found on the press cameras.

Quote:

Between friends, I doubt that Tessars benefit much from coating.

Very true, the Tessar design was not prone to flare. The Sonnars, on the other hand......
As to using the solonoid, here's the deal: a trigger button on the flashgun trips the solonoid, which in turn A) fires the bulb and B)trips the shutter. If set up right, the lead time on the bulb will ensure that the shutter is all the way open when the bulb peaks.
Top

Dan and Glenn,
I have here a 101 Ektar, coated, but with the serial number EO 537. Which to me indicates an early 1946 production. I have read here in the past that in the imdiate post war period it was not so uncommon for Ektars to be coated but not carry the luminized trademark which some have cited as a sales moniker. Anyway, I do not have information as to when the luminized name was actually applied to the Ektar line. I am also aware that it is a simple matter to switch out a lens retaining ring and know all too well how much things get moved around form this camera to that shutter and so on... This particular lens is very obviously coated, much like the Rapter line, and very different from the crystal clear early 1940's models I have in the Ektar line.

Ah, to further complicate the issue, I remember running across Kodak Tech notes to the effect that some fully (inside and out) coated Ektars were let out on government contract well before the consumer ever saw a Kodak lens with any kind of coating. Sthephen, you are right about the early ones without the "L". All informmation I've seen seems to indicate that the Luminized name came when they started fully coating them. Can you determine if your lens has outside surface coating?

Quote:

On 2006-01-14 11:14, troublemaker wrote: Dan and Glenn, I have here a 101 Ektar, coated, but with the serial number EO 537. Which to me indicates an early 1946 production. I have read here in the past that in the imdiate post war period it was not so uncommon for Ektars to be coated but not carry the luminized trademark which some have cited as a sales moniker. Anyway, I do not have information as to when the luminized name was actually applied to the Ektar line. I am also aware that it is a simple matter to switch out a lens retaining ring and know all too well how much things get moved around form this camera to that shutter and so on... This particular lens is very obviously coated, much like the Rapter line, and very different from the crystal clear early 1940's models I have in the Ektar line.

(1) I believe what you say.

(2) My 1946 101/4.5 with serial number higher than yours isn't coated. And it may have been the lens issued with my 2x3 Pacemaker Speed, which was an early 1947 one.

(3) Beats the living daylights out of me.

Cheers,

Dan

Yeah it looks fully coated just like the Luminized and all my other exterior coated lenses. Doubtfull it is original to the Spring back Crown 23 it came on due to a micky mouse lens board mounting. That is why I brought up the issue of parts switcheroos. And the other issue of mass production during total war economy more than likely led to not only surplus dumping, but also I have noticed lenses with a two year older production number present on cameras I believe to be in original configuration like a couple of my Speed 23's.

It's an enigma, I tells ya!

So you are suggesting we need to get our hands on a non-photgraphic piece of vintage equipment to crack the mysterious Ektar code? Could it be that CAMEROSITY is only a red herring and that if we had an ENIGMA machine we might actually gain insight as to the reality of Kodak Ektar production?
(OK sorry but next time I capture a German U-Boat I will try out the decoding machine)