Price of 10" WF Ektar?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
I was eyeballing a WF Ekatar(10") and the fella wants 450.00 for it. Is this a fair price in good condition? It is mounted in the Ilex #5. He says there are slight cleaning marks.MMMMMMMM Thank you in advance for any attention you give this! Mike Pry
-- Michael Pry (email@example.com), October 10, 2001
-- Sorin Varzaru (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 10, 2001.
The 250mm Wide Field Ektar has a well deserved reputation for a lens of post WW2 vintage - great coverage and optical performance that gives current lenses a run for their money. Many have cleaning marks that were likely a result of soft early coatings as much as photographers grabbing shirt tail or a handkerchief in a pinch to clean her up a bit. You will find two opinions of cleaning marks on this forum. Those that are more driven by a great deal and claim that there is no effect on the final images and those that are picky about what they screw on to their lensboards. For a lens that has no visible cleaning marks, prices go to $900 +. For ones with obvious cleaning marks, $450 is right where I have seen them sell. Are those that pay $900 for the best Ektars getting taken advantage of? I do not think so. I have one that was literally new in the box unused from 1949 and it is sweet.
To be honest with you, if the cleaning marks are not to excessive, you will probably incur little risk by purchasing the lens and giving it a try and selling it if it does not work for you. I think the weak link in the equation is the #5 Ilex shutter, Big, bulky and cranky at times. Usually, they are off at either end of the offered shutter speeds and I have been told to fire off the shutter to exercise it before you make your photograph. You will also need a shutter release with a deep throw because you cock and fire the shutter concurrently. I had to go to a camera store and try out several before I found one that would cycle the shutter. The ones I used for my Copals simply did not work. Good Luck
-- Michael Kadillak (email@example.com), October 10, 2001.
I've been tracking price on this lens, and $450 is reasonable. Sometimes they go a little higher. It sounds like one made in '49 is OK. (From previous post.)
You can tell the date of manufacture from the serial number by using the code CAMEROSITY, which corresponds to 1234567890. For myself, I'm looking for an RSxxx, which would indicate a lens made in '57. I've not seen any 250mm WF's made after this time.
-- neil poulsen (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 2001.
I've been using a 135 wf ektar for some time with the same kind of cleaning marks described in the ebay post. Side by side with shots made with a new multicoated fuji 150 I can't see any difference between chromes and b&w. If the marks are light I wouldn't be too concerned. As for price, it seems pretty consistent with whats out there. If you're still concerned you could contact George Ury. I belive he had one rated excellent+ for about $550.
Hope this has been of some use.
-- Kevin (email@example.com), October 11, 2001.
Economics 101 and laws of supply and demand in our free society dictate prices. There's a reason the WF250's still fetch even that much $ and you have to ask yourself what is more modern and covers (almost) as much for the same $. A 240 G-Claron in a Copal 1 shutter is MUCH more attractive to me for the same $ ballpark. In spite of Schneiders consevative image circle given at their website, mine reaches out to the 380-390mm world at f22 1/2 and smaller. Not the 440 that the old Kodak boasts, but still worth considering when you add in weight and reliability. The 270mm G-Claron will cover the same as the Kodak 250. Apples and Oranges?? That's up to the individual. The Fuji 250 6.7 is tempting but now you've left the $450 realm that the Kodak hovers in. J
-- Jim Galli (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 2001.
For $446, you can get a new 240mm G-claron from Robert White. I would go for this over a big old Ektar in an unreliable shutter. The G-claron is much smaller, lighter, and coated. I have used the lens on 8x10, and it covers fine. I know use the 270mm G-claron, and have yet to reach the limits of the image circle. I have also used a Fujinon 250mm f6.7. This lens is okay, but the G-claron covers just a much. Both are 80 degree lenses. The Fujinon is more expensive, bigger, and heavier than the G-claron. Some think the Fujinon 250,, f6.7 is multi-coated, but none of them were mulit-coated. Go with a new G-claron from Robert White.
-- William Marderness (email@example.com), October 12, 2001.