I found this lens on the auction site and was wondering if anyone has used one or has heard of it? Here is what the ad says...

"Kodak Anastigmat No.32 6-3/8" f/4.5 # EE32-502K in Graphic No.3 Kodak Supermatic Shutter with retaining ring. A very nice "old school lens" with vintage quality glass with a couple air bubbles (a sign of quality in the time). All shutter speeds sound crisp and accurate"

Also would this work in my Century?

6-3/8" converts to c. 162 mm, so yes, from that standpoint, it should work fine. Lenses up to c. 203 mm (and, I think, longer tele lenses like the 250 mm [=10"] Optar) will focus on the Century, although far out on the bed fully extended.

An EE series Kodak lens was made in 1944 ("CAMEROSITY").

I don't think that you can use it on a century as a No.3 Kodak Supermatic Shutter I think is to big to go on a lens board!?!??
ask and see how big it it .
one of my Kodak lens books show a #32 to be in a #2 Compur!!
and thats to big for a Century!!
a #1 Compur will work But not a #2

Banjo, you'd be surprised how large a shutter can be used on a Century. My biggest -- and it just squeaks in -- is an Ilex #3.

OK got out a newer Kodak lens book it shows it in a No.3 Kodak Supermatic Shutter the diameter of the lens board mounting hole is 2" or 50.5mm it don't give the overall size for the shutter But that is always biger then the hole
given that the Century lens board is only 2"1/2 sq. or 63.5 a 2" hole
don't give much room fot the nut
Now the old Kodak Anastigmat are not coated lens so not as good for color
the EE makes it a 1944
I just look at it on ebad & it don't show a circled L so its not Coated

OH and just to know one of my Compur #1 shutter that I had mounted
on a Century lens board looks OK but I can't adjust a the apertures while
on the camera as it hits the slideslocks that hold it in place
the other one I can adjust the apertures but only affter I turned the shutter 90* so now the relase is on the bottem now so it a cable

Banjo, here http://www.bnphoto.org/ is the mother lode of information on Kodak lenses. I don't agree with you at all that a #32 KA won't be good for color. I have a number of uncoated Zeiss Tessars that are just fine for color, also an uncoated 1946-made 101/4.5 Ektar that's very good for color.

As I told you, I have an Ilex #3 on a 2x3 Pacemaker board. There's plenty of room for a #3 Supermatic and retaining ring.

Kodak apparently started soft coating inner surfaces sometime in the early '40s, went to hard coating on all surfaces sometime in '46 after they'd made my 101/4.5 Ektar.

hey Dan
Yes some of the uncoated are good! AND some of the Kodak lens
are coated & just don't say that they are!!

But I have one of only five that I know of Ektar F3.7 / 105mm
EC2345 circled L Coated lens that 1941

But most of the Lumenized coated lens don't show untill about 1948
my 1946 Kodak lens book talks about coating but it don't say anything
about Lumenized coating but my 1948 Kodak lens book does

and at http://www.bnphoto.org/ he talks about my Ektar F3.7 / 105mm
EC2345 as I sent him photos to show that it a 1941 with the Lumenized coating

would this be a good longer lens to use. I only shoot B&W..but like a really sharp and contrasty image

Joey Anchors wrote:

would this be a good longer lens to use. I only shoot B&W..but like a really sharp and contrasty image

It might be a good longer lens to use. Ask it, not us.

Sorry, the rest of your question can't be answered.

There's no guarantee that a used lens is in new condition. A used lens can be cruddy or scratched, inside and out. When new nearly all lenses deliver what you want. The only way to find out whether a used lens is good enough is to get it, clean it if necessary, and then ask it what it can do for you.

I've bought too many used lenses. Some arrived cruddy but cleaned up nicely. Others arrived cruddy and wouldn't clean up. And some arrived in good order. Some of my cruddy lenses shoot well, others don't.

Buying a used lens involves some risk. If you can't accept that -- not everyone does and there's nothing wrong with not accepting it -- buy used only with the right of return or buy only new.

[quote="Dan Fromm"]

Joey Anchors wrote:

Buying a used lens involves some risk. If you can't accept that -- not everyone does and there's nothing wrong with not accepting it -- buy used only with the right of return or buy only new.

well I didn't win the auction. Speaking of new lenses.. what would be a good lens to look at in same size 50mm to 70mm and 135mm to 150mm?

[quote="Joey Anchors"]

Dan Fromm wrote:

Joey Anchors wrote: Buying a used lens involves some risk. If you can't accept that -- not everyone does and there's nothing wrong with not accepting it -- buy used only with the right of return or buy only new. well I didn't win the auction. Speaking of new lenses.. what would be a good lens to look at in same size 50mm to 70mm and 135mm to 150mm?

50 - 70? 47 Super Angulon, f/8 or f/5.6. 65 Super Angulon, f/8 or f/5.6. There are many other lenses that will do, most for 4x5, larger, heavier, and more expensive than the SAs I mentioned. There are also the 65/6.8 Angulon and 65/6.8 Optar/Raptar; these just cover 2x3 and opinions about them are all over the map. Smaller, lighter, less expensive than either 65 SA.

135 - 150? There are too many to talk about. Just about any 135 - 150 mm lens made for 4x5 will do well on a Century. Its hard to make a bad mistake with any of them as long as the lens is in good order. I'd avoid anything from Wollensak, not because they're all terrible but because Wolly quality control wasn't that stringent. And I'd limit my search to modern (post-WW II) lenses even though I have and am very happy with a Zeiss 150/6.3 Tessar made in 1912.

I respect Dan's evaluations; however, my experience with Wollensak (Optar) lenses has been fine. There's no doubt that there is sample variation in most products; as I said in a previous post, "luck of the draw." I wouldn't reject any lens out of hand without testing it, if possible. When it's not possible, do as Dan says and buy only with a return option.

Well I have the chance to buy a Kodak Ektar 105mm 3.7f in a Graphic Flash Supermatic shutter for around $275. It is firing fast at all speeds, but other than that everything looks good. What do you guys say about a good example of this lens?

I mite just be cheep! but to me that high! if you watch for a 23 crown with
a ektar 105mm you can get it for less