68degrees
Well-known
Would you say they are comparable or is one much better than the other?
Brian Legge
Veteran
What lenses specifically? There were a lot of Ektars and Solinars... 
68degrees
Well-known
What lenses specifically? There were a lot of Ektars and Solinars...
Ok. The Ektar f/3.5 100mm, 5-element Heliar type found on the Medalist and for the Solinar, I was thinking of the 75mm 3.5 found on the Agfa Isolette II with Synchro Compur.
Are they close or is one clearly better/sharper than the other?
ZeissFan
Veteran
On paper, the Medalist Ektar should outperform the Isolette II Solinar for several reasons.
First, the Ektar is a five-element design and is a unit-focusing lens. That is, the entire lens moves toward and away from the film plane.
The Solinar is a four-element Tessar type and in the Isolette II is a front-cell focusing design (only the front lens element moves while focusing). The Solinar in the Super Isolette is a unit-focusing lens.
Note that the Solinars in the folding Solinette II and Super Solinette were unit focusing, while those in the Silettes were front-cell focus lenses.
You probably would notice the greatest difference when both lenses are shot wide open and at close to medium distances.
I've always been satisfied with the performance of the Solinars in 35mm and 120 formats.
I didn't shoot enough with the Ektar to make any expert judgments, although I recall that I thought it was a very nice lens.
First, the Ektar is a five-element design and is a unit-focusing lens. That is, the entire lens moves toward and away from the film plane.
The Solinar is a four-element Tessar type and in the Isolette II is a front-cell focusing design (only the front lens element moves while focusing). The Solinar in the Super Isolette is a unit-focusing lens.
Note that the Solinars in the folding Solinette II and Super Solinette were unit focusing, while those in the Silettes were front-cell focus lenses.
You probably would notice the greatest difference when both lenses are shot wide open and at close to medium distances.
I've always been satisfied with the performance of the Solinars in 35mm and 120 formats.
I didn't shoot enough with the Ektar to make any expert judgments, although I recall that I thought it was a very nice lens.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Honestly, I think its hard to go wrong with either of those lenses. Good clean examples in functioning condition are excellent.
105mm 3.5 Ektar for 2x3 cameras - similar to the lens of the Medalist - close to wide open:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/7134893949
Solinar on a Super Speedex (perhaps around f/4?):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6235022988
105mm 3.5 Ektar for 2x3 cameras - similar to the lens of the Medalist - close to wide open:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/7134893949
Solinar on a Super Speedex (perhaps around f/4?):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6235022988
furcafe
Veteran
I have both lenses (Medalist II & Super Isolette/Super Speedex), but can't say that 1 is clearly superior to the other. Considering their age & single-coating, etc., both are excellent performers, even wide-open.
Then again, 1 is in a 6x9 camera & the other is in a 6x6, so have rarely used them side by side.
Then again, 1 is in a 6x9 camera & the other is in a 6x6, so have rarely used them side by side.
68degrees
Well-known
love this pic.
How do you think the Solinar front element focus only lens would compare in sharpness to the photo below from the Unit focusing super speedex?
This Isolette II Synchro Compur I just found is in MINT condition except that the focus is so stiff it wont turn at all and I dont want to force it. Ive heard its easy to fix (and easy to break) this but i havent researched it yet.
How do you think the Solinar front element focus only lens would compare in sharpness to the photo below from the Unit focusing super speedex?
This Isolette II Synchro Compur I just found is in MINT condition except that the focus is so stiff it wont turn at all and I dont want to force it. Ive heard its easy to fix (and easy to break) this but i havent researched it yet.
Honestly, I think its hard to go wrong with either of those lenses. Good clean examples in functioning condition are excellent.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/7134893949
Solinar on a Super Speedex (perhaps around f/4?):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6235022988
Robert Lai
Well-known
I have the Agfa Super Isolette (same as Ansco Super Speedex) as well as the comparable Super Ikonta BX. Both are 6x6 cm folding cameras. However, the Agfa Super Isolette is unit focusing, and can come in much closer than the Super Ikonta. The Super Ikonta is limited to about 5 feet minimum focus distance, and it is front cell focusing. The Super Ikonta has an 80mm f/2.8 Tessar, while the Agfa has a 75mm f/3.5 Tessar equivalent (4 elements).
Wide open and up close, the Agfa is superior in sharpness to the front cell focusing Zeiss camera.
Wide open and up close, the Agfa is superior in sharpness to the front cell focusing Zeiss camera.
Thomas78
Well-known
I do not have a Solinar lens but I am very satisfied with my Medalist II and its Ektar 100mm f/3.5:
(at minimum focus distance (3.5 feet) and f/5.6 or f/8)
Medalist2_04_Delta 100_008 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
(at minimum focus distance (3.5 feet) and f/5.6 or f/8)
Medalist2_04_Delta 100_008 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
nosmok
Established
I hate to make uninformed, blanket statements (no really) but as a general rule anything that says "Ektar" on it will punch WAY above its weight. Kodak had a real sweet spot in the 40's and 50s, and many of those lenses are still hard to beat today in absolute terms and impossible to beat in relative (bang for the buck) terms. Check out Chris Perez's lens tests for actual numbers. I find myself shedding newer cameras and concentrating on the old Kodak gear, the shots are just thrilling. What isn't thrilling is respooling to 620.
--nosmok
--nosmok
68degrees
Well-known
nosmok
Established
Actually yes. Mine takes really great shots, amazing for such an old camera in desperate need of a CLA. I was amazed at how well it dealt with flare even-- my test roll was shot in a SoCal summer, some at the beach, and those shots have that bright white reflection off the water without a general washing out. Very Beach-y, if you know what I mean.
Turn-offs of the Signet 35 are the rinky-dink shutter and the odd body locking mechanics, which I have to relearn every time I use it. But as a daytime picture taking fixed lens rf, the Sig35 turns out results as good as the far more costly Konica S3 IMO.
--nosmok
Turn-offs of the Signet 35 are the rinky-dink shutter and the odd body locking mechanics, which I have to relearn every time I use it. But as a daytime picture taking fixed lens rf, the Sig35 turns out results as good as the far more costly Konica S3 IMO.
--nosmok
Roger Hicks
Veteran
68degrees
Well-known
what do you mean by odd body locking?
nosmok
Established
The way the back opens/ comes off for film loading. There's a slider on one side that you press a tiny release on and then slide, but visually it's not immediately obvious 1) which side of the body actually has the slider and 2) which direction you push to slide the clasp open. I'm not proud to admit it really gives me trouble each time.
Another plus to counterbalance: the Sig35 focuses down to 2 feet. Very close for its time.
--nosmok
Another plus to counterbalance: the Sig35 focuses down to 2 feet. Very close for its time.
--nosmok
