Kodak Anastigmat 6.3/126, an Art Deco beauty

[alex ph]

Following a succesful experience with an old Kodak Ektar 3.5/50 I put my eye on an even older triplet Kodak Anastigmat 6.3/126. It came cheap attached to a broken and still beautiful Kodak Six-16 camera, like this one. So I unscrewed the lens and put it on bellows to atatch to a Sony A7.



Before doing that, I needed to wipe a bit the lens, so I unscrewed the glass from the front and from behind. That came easy. And what makes a noticable difference with Ikonta and some French triplets of the same or earlier era, in Kodak the second lens (in the middle) is fixed within the barrel. So cleaning it seems even easier, as all you need is to pass on the surfaces without a risk to invert one glass or another.

The shutter has a "T" option which leaves it eternally open. So, no need for further unscrewing.

The glass looks uncoated. My lens has an early form of fungus (tiny filaments everywhere), later I will try some harder treatment. For the moment, that does not seem to affect the IQ.

The images are estonishingly sharp WO. Even though I am aware the FF sensor uses the central area of the lens. What is even more surprising, close-ups seem to show a deeper OOF dissolution at f6.3 than some of faster lenses put on the same FF. But this might be a simple illusion.

Here come some samples, after slight exposure and contrast tweaks.

#1 WO, autocontrast


#2 WO, autocontrast


#3 A 100% SOOC crop from the previous, impressively sharp for a WO triplet


#4 Bokeh WO


#5 F11 close-up focused (I discover some dirt particles on the sensor, sorry)


#6 F11 focused further


#7 The lens put on Sony NEX with a lens booster, WO in a poorer light which gives quite nice "breathing" colour

[Ultrapix]

just wow

[jamaeolus]

Very nice. It always amazes me the images that can be achieved with glass made almost a hundred years ago. It one must remember their limitations so of course technique is paramount when using these things. Contrast is not great to begin with so backlight is problematic. Flair will be noticeable unless you have a deep hood for any shot where the sun could kiss the glass. They are probably not going to do well in very low light situations since they aren't very fast. Based on your images it seems you know this already.

[Jozef_AV]

Simply incredible, seems to be a gem, congrats to a great find.

I have a Rodenstock Trinar 105mm f4.5 and although for its age it is a decent lens, its nowhere near the performance of Kodak Anastigmat 6.3/126, even when stopped down to f8 or so.

Recently I acquired a fetish for bubble bokeh, so i was wondering if you could share how does the Anastigmat fare in this department, since this too is a triplet.

Thank you.

[kds315*]

[serkol]

[alex ph]

Thank you, fellows, for your substantial feedback!

Jozef_AV, I did not have a chance to test the lens against a well lit folliage, as the sun does not make nice performer in the moments the scenery gets in my reach.

I add a couple more shots WO in sunset, taken with Sony Nex and a speed booster.

#1


#2


#3


And a couple of links to interesting threads in this forum dealing with two other lenses from Kodak folders, Kodak Anastigmat 7.7/152 and Kodak Anastigmat Kodar 6.3/10.5cm. The first which must be a triplet seems to have a lower contrast while the second, a doublet, loks like a nice performer.