Kodak Medalist I & II - Color Rendition

[SIG970]

Hello all. I'm quite interested in these cameras and have been able to find many great B+W images made with them. Color images seem somewhat harder to come by...

What are your impressions of the Ektar lens as regards color photography? I might have once read that they do a good job and were somewhat designed to handle color emulsions as those emulsions were just becoming usable at the time these were made, but I could be imagining that.

At any rate, I would appreciate your thoughts and any sample images you wish to share. Cheers!

 

[John Wiegerink]

My Medalist's I & II both take absolutely beautiful color photos. I used to shoot a lot of Fuji Velvia 50 in my Medalsit II and never complained. As for their ability to take fine pictures, I really don't think there is anything much better made today. The cameras are a little quirky, but not in the lens department. Once you get the hang of respooling 120 to 620 spools, the rest is frosting on the cake. My absolute favorite classic camera, and I have many classic cameras.

 

[SIG970]

My Medalist's I & II both take absolutely beautiful color photos. I used to shoot a lot of Fuji Velvia 50 in my Medalsit II and never complained. As for their ability to take fine pictures, I really don't think there is anything much better made today. The cameras are a little quirky, but not in the lens department. Once you get the hang of respooling 120 to 620 spools, the rest is frosting on the cake. My absolute favorite classic camera, and I have many classic cameras.

Thanks for the info. Any preference between the I and the II?

 

[John Wiegerink]

The only real advantage the II has over the I is it has an ASA flash contact for the use of flash bulbs. The shutter buttons are also a little different, but that doesn't make much difference in my opinion. You won't be able to notice any difference in the pictures from either one. If I were to buy one today, I would look at condition and operation as very important. In other words, make sure it is working properly and in nice condition.

 

[SIG970]

The only real advantage the II has over the I is it has an ASA flash contact for the use of flash bulbs. The shutter buttons are also a little different, but that doesn't make much difference in my opinion. You won't be able to notice any difference in the pictures from either one. If I were to buy one today, I would look at condition and operation as very important. In other words, make sure it is working properly and in nice condition.

Thanks again.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hello all. I'm quite interested in these cameras and have been able to find many great B+W images made with them. Color images seem somewhat harder to come by...

What are your impressions of the Ektar lens as regards color photography? I might have once read that they do a good job and were somewhat designed to handle color emulsions as those emulsions were just becoming usable at the time these were made, but I could be imagining that.

At any rate, I would appreciate your thoughts and any sample images you wish to share. Cheers!

All modern lenses (= anastigmats, the first to market was probably the first Zeiss Protar, originally badged Anastigmat) are designed to be achromatic. Chromatic aberration is as large a problem for black/white film as for color.

I've never had a 100/3.5 heliar type Ektar. I've two of the slightly longer 105/3.7 Ektars, still have one. No color problems, not particularly sharp and not enough coverage.

Asking people what their experience has been is silly. The only way to know how a lens' transmission varies by wavelength is to measure directly with a spectrophotometer. Testing with film is subject to many errors. Exposure errors shift colors. Variations on lighting shift colors. Variations in processing shift colors. Variations in viewers' perceptions shift perceived colors.

I've learned, to my amusement, that although roses are red gators shot on E6 film in deep shade are blue. The lens used to shoot the gators had nothing to do with this.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hi Dan. For the sake of the uninformed, could you please add an approximate date when “modern lenses (= Anastigmats” began. I think some people might be shocked how long ago that was.

 

[Dan Daniel]

If you scroll through this Flickr search for Kodak medalist you can see a variety of color images-

Flickr Search — “kodak medalist”

www.flickr.com

I know someone who has both a Medalist I and II. He thought that the II was a bit more contrasty and crisp for color work.

As Dan Fromm says in a different way, it's difficult to know what to make of images processed and posted by others. So so so many variables.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the 60s when in high school I worked part time for the local photographer, he did a lot weddings with a Medalist, made great prints up to 16X20. He used a custom color lab, so any issues with the color would have been corrected in printing. Sometime in the late 60s or 70s he got a Mamiya Press with a wide angle lens, I could not see any difference in the color between the two.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Dan. For the sake of the uninformed, could you please add an approximate date when “modern lenses (= Anastigmats” began. I think some people might be shocked how long ago that was.

1892

 

[SIG970]

Thank you for the info and the Flickr link.

 

[reddesert]

The lens designs should be fine in terms of achromatism, as others have said. The main issue with older lenses and color photography is, IMO, loss of contrast/saturation due to flare/internal reflections from uncoated lenses. Flare happens to both B&W and color film of course, but I think it's easier to compensate for it in B&W images. Anyway, I'm sure the Medalist II lens is coated. I read that the Medalist I lens is coated on inner surfaces (which is where it matters), but I don't have personal experience with it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The lens designs should be fine in terms of achromatism, as others have said. The main issue with older lenses and color photography is, IMO, loss of contrast/saturation due to flare/internal reflections from uncoated lenses. Flare happens to both B&W and color film of course, but I think it's easier to compensate for it in B&W images. Anyway, I'm sure the Medalist II lens is coated. I read that the Medalist I lens is coated on inner surfaces (which is where it matters), but I don't have personal experience with it.

All of the Medalsit I's and II's I have and have seen have coated lenses. Some are marked with an L within a circle (Lumenized), but many of the Medalist I's aren't marked, but are still coated nonetheless. For its age, the Ektar is pretty good in the contrast/flare department, but certainly not as good as lenses from the early 60's on.

 

[SIG970]

Thank you gentlemen. Just purchased a Medalist II that was converted to take 120. Apparently it was CLA'd as well... we'll see when it arrives. Appreciate everyone's input and insights.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thank you gentlemen. Just purchased a Medalist II that was converted to take 120. Apparently it was CLA'd as well... we'll see when it arrives. Appreciate everyone's input and insights.

Was it a complete conversion or just one film chamber converted. I was always a little leery of the conversion since it involved taking out one of the film roller bars. I much rather just respool to 620 spools. I'm very good at that and can do it in less than 2 minutes if I want, but usually take my time. Still, it doesn't take me long to do up ten rolls of film.

 

[SIG970]

The seller couldn't say - was selling for a friend's estate and he seems to have been quite the collector. Bit of a risk, but the seller assures me it is great working condition with only some small specks of dust in the viewfinder, clean glass otherwise (pics he sent would seem to support this). Hence the "we'll see when it arrives". There's always PayPal buyer protection if it's butchered. Price was $209... so not a huge gamble either way. I'll update the thread once I receive and run a roll of fill through it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Sounds like a pretty fair price, especially for one that's been converted to 120. Yes, please let us know how it works for you and if you have any questions feel free to PM me or post here. Have fun with your new toy.

 

[SIG970]

Thanks. Will do.

 

[blee1996]

I have used Medalist II on and off for some time now, using both B&W and color film (C41 and E6 re-rolled from 120). The Ektar lens is coated (lumenized), has medium contrast, high resolution, and quite neutral color palette. It is in line with the state of art of that era, such as the Leica Rigid Summicron 50/2 and Voigtlander Ultron 50/2.

The Ektar 100/3.5 is slightly different from more modern designs such as the EBC Fujinon 90/3.5 on the Fujica GW690 series. The newer Fujinons have higher contrast and thus "more vibrant" color with E6 film. I like them both for their own character.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have used Medalist II on and off for some time now, using both B&W and color film (C41 and E6 re-rolled from 120). The Ektar lens is coated (lumenized), has medium contrast, high resolution, and quite neutral color palette. It is in line with the state of art of that era, such as the Leica Rigid Summicron 50/2 and Voigtlander Ultron 50/2.

The Ektar 100/3.5 is slightly different from more modern designs such as the EBC Fujinon 90/3.5 on the Fujica GW690 series. The newer Fujinons have higher contrast and thus "more vibrant" color with E6 film. I like them both for their own character.

I couldn't have said it any better. I've owned the Fuji GSW690 and GW690 and their lenses are very hard to beat. Like you say, the Ektar and the Fujinon are both great lenses, just different. I prefer the Ektar for people pics just a little more than the Fujinon. Of course, you can throw a diffuser/soft filter in front of the Fujinon for people pics.

 

[SIG970]

Thanks... this is more or less what I was looking for (not that the other comments weren't useful as well).

 

[SIG970]

Got the Medalist II. 120 conversion is on both sides and seems to have been done well. Ran a roll through it yesterday and the film seems to sit flat, good tension on winding, though there is a little less space on the top side between the image and the edge of the film strip, a little more on the bottom, a little bit of a slant (take up spool sits a little higher because of the spring on that side?). All aperture and shutter speeds seem good. Attached are a couple of pics of the camera.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Looks like a Ken Ruth conversion. In the takeup spool chamber, is there a roller tucked behind the outer roller, with both ends narrowed down a bit?

It looks as if the feed side roller might be canted. Sight the roller (main body, not the little spinny bits at the ends) against the main body film rails, both 'height' and offset from the end of the film rails. But all in all, minor issue. Mr. Ruth sure knew how to clean up that rangefinder system! Enjoy.

$209? Sigh....

 

[blee1996]

That is definitely a steal for an excellent camera with expert 120 conversion! Hope you get some great photos out of it, and do share them.

 

[SIG970]

Dan, you have sharp eye - definitely a cant to the feed side roller and that would explain the slant to the image on the film strip... like you said, a minor issue. There is such a roller on the take-up side (see photo). Also I don't have any way to print or scan right now, but when the day comes that I do, I will post some images.

On another note, if I might bother you all some more... the camera came without a lens cap (or case). My thought was to buy a lens hood and then find a plastic push-on cap that covers that; I'll also grab some series VI filters as well. However, when I look search for "Kodak Series VI Lens hood" I see a lot that look like they screw into a sort of adapter ring that then is push-on... guess my question is what model/style screws directly in in place of the retaining ring that is on there?

Your advice is greatly appreciated.