Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Are the Cine-Ektars covered in this subforum as well?
I have two Cine-Ektar lenses for 16mm cameras so far. Another is on the way and I hope to put together a suite of good focal lengths for this 16mm film project I'm slowly embarking on.
Anyway, my 25mm f/1.9 Cine-Ektar is yellow like an SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4. I've read and heard that Kodak was one of the main users of Thorium in their lenses. My 15mm f/2.5 is evidently radioactive as I found a photo online of it ticking away on a Geiger counter.
Is there any information out there beyond the first two pages of Google about the design of these lenses? I'm interested in the whole lineup. The build quality is second to none along with the fit and finish. The images, both still and moving, which I've seen from the Cine-Ektars, is fantastic.
Phil Forrest
I have two Cine-Ektar lenses for 16mm cameras so far. Another is on the way and I hope to put together a suite of good focal lengths for this 16mm film project I'm slowly embarking on.
Anyway, my 25mm f/1.9 Cine-Ektar is yellow like an SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4. I've read and heard that Kodak was one of the main users of Thorium in their lenses. My 15mm f/2.5 is evidently radioactive as I found a photo online of it ticking away on a Geiger counter.
Is there any information out there beyond the first two pages of Google about the design of these lenses? I'm interested in the whole lineup. The build quality is second to none along with the fit and finish. The images, both still and moving, which I've seen from the Cine-Ektars, is fantastic.
Phil Forrest
Lewis Francis
Member
I've been a huge fan of Kodak's Cine lenses since stumbling across a Cine-Kodak Royal Magazine 16mm Camera with a Ektar 25mm ƒ1.9, Ektanon 63mm ƒ2.7, and Anastigmatic 15mm ƒ.2.7, along with a couple meters, one of which still worked, in a flea market for $20. I've since added and restored a couple more 63mm, a 50mm, 102, and 152, and they're easily my favorite adapted lenses.
Depending on the model, I get barely noticeable to mild to extreme vignetting (the 15mm) on my m43 sensor; larger sensor users wouldn't find these useful without adding cropping to their workflow.
I would love to see some examples of 16mm movies made with these lenses; I've so far just shot stills.
Depending on the model, I get barely noticeable to mild to extreme vignetting (the 15mm) on my m43 sensor; larger sensor users wouldn't find these useful without adding cropping to their workflow.
I would love to see some examples of 16mm movies made with these lenses; I've so far just shot stills.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
How did you adapt the Kodak M mount native to the 16mm magazine camera to your M4/3 camera? As far as I can tell, there are no adapters available for the M mount to anything else. Unless all your lenses are S mount with M adapters...?
Thanks,
Phil Forrest
bluesun267
Well-known
I've shot 16mm on a Kodak Cine-Special with the Cine-Ektar 15mm you mentioned, and the less common 25/1.4. Also had the rare 40mm/1.6. All were excellent lenses with a special quality to the images they produce. I love the star-shaped aperture in the 25mm lens (don't know if the 1.9 is the same)--great for interesting out-of-focus effects. The Ektars are not as good sharpness-wise as the equivalent Switars on a Bolex (which I've also had a lot of experience with), perhaps less clinical is the word (though I wouldn't necessarily describe the Switars as clinical either). I find the Ektars very similar in rendering/sharpness to Wollensak c-mount lenses of the same period, which can often be found cheap (though not in Kodak mount). Cheers.
I did notice part of the charm of the Ektars is the slightly warmer color balance though I never noticed any real obvious yellowing ala the Takumar.
I did notice part of the charm of the Ektars is the slightly warmer color balance though I never noticed any real obvious yellowing ala the Takumar.
Lewis Francis
Member
All are S-mount except for the 25mm ƒ1.9, which is M-mount. For the M-mount, I took a round file to a C-to-m43 mount adaptor to open the throat wide enough for the lens to pass, then fixed it in place using JB Weld. Took a couple attempts to get infinity focus.
Adapted 1951 Kodak Cine Ektar 25mm f1.9 16mm movie film lens by Lewis Francis, on Flickr
The original Kodak S-mount to C-mount adaptors were hard to find, and expensive when you did. Eventually someone in China started making knock-offs and are now easily sourced.
Lewis Francis
Member
Do you have any Kodak Cine lens example clips you could share?
Forgot to mention my 25 isn't yellow, either. Has the OP tried the UV cure?
bluesun267
Well-known
All my 16mm exists as prints, or original reversal. Which I am currently trying to figure out the highest quality/most economical way to digitize and upload to Vimeo. I had a 2K scan of a recent film (not shot with the Cine-Kodak however) and by the time Vimeo compressed it, it was unpresentable, to put it kindly...Wish cine film were as simple as stills!
Lewis Francis
Member
Thanks, anyway, the price of digitization has kept me away from experimenting with the medium. Sigh.
bluesun267
Well-known
Oh, don't let that keep you away. I'm only trying this now for "business" reasons...(let's leave it at that).
Get yourself a good projector that doesn't scratch and shoot Tri-X reversal (or soon, the new Ektachrome). The Kodak Pageant is the best basic projector that has manual loading and won't scratch film, as long as you keep it clean. You can find good ones all day on the 'bay for $100-$200.
Like slide projection, once you see just how sumptuous the projected image can be, you'll wonder why digitization is so important. Tri-X Reversal is a very special stock with beautiful grain, rich d-max. Think of it as the improved version of Agfa Scala.
Also, ORWO UN54 can be processed as reversal. A bit higher contrast than Tri-X and very little exposure latitude--but when you nail the exposure--WOW!
Lewis Francis
Member
Great info, thanks for the tips -- I'll keep an eye out for that projector during my thrifting.