Old Aerial Camera

[Paul Alsing]

My son bought a property that had an old metal storage bin, and in it was an old aerial camera, almost certainly military. He wants to get rid of it and was going to haul it to the dump. I told him to hold off on that because it might be a treasure to someone out there!

Attached are 6 photos of the thing, many of which have me holding a tape measure across various parts for scale. There is one photo that does not show much, only showing the overall length to be about 34".

If anyone has any interest, let me know. One picture of the rear lens shows that it is covered with spiderwebs, but they seem to come right off.

This would be a free item... but it is in Ramona, CA.

Let me know

858-254-0429

pnal...@gmail.com

[Peter Santangeli]

Hey Paul,

I'm actually driving down to San Diego on the 23'rd for a week to visit my daughter, and would be super interested in this.

pete

--
Observing Sites, Observing Reports, About TAC linked at top of:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sf-bay-tac
 
Subscribers post to the mailing list at:
 
sf-ba...@googlegroups.com,
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Astronomy Connection (TAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf-bay-tac+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/ae9fba39-3c8a-4d3a-a82c-d5b9282ea4fan%40googlegroups.com.

[Steven R.]

Watch out for thorium glass, mildly radioactive.

Cheers,

-Steven

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/CALeFARxSj0EEtC8SdvOF6ZH_zCDpXwwuWVLxymoJQ3z0Daf9Mg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jeff Crilly]

It looks like a Kodak Aero Ektar perhaps 48” focal length.   Does it weigh 125 lbs?

https://www.reddit.com/r/VintageLenses/s/8IbZx6kr4Y

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 19, 2025, at 2:54 PM, 'Steven R.' via The Astronomy Connection (TAC) <sf-ba...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/CANaV7GGk6Yq5KOxa0VX4NKC8c9LcZCnOd0LCP6tmSSF105%3DFpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Alsing]

Thanks Jeff... I put your picture on CoPilot to compare with my own pictures and got this response... which leaves me very confused. I am clueless about the subject matter. In either case, it is a rare piece of optics

\Paul

............................

Your friend’s lens is not a standard Aero‑Ektar — it’s the monster 48" (1217 mm) f/6.3 Aero‑Ektar

The Reddit post you linked is exactly about that ultra‑rare lens. It weighs about 125 pounds, which matches what your friend reported.

This is not the common 12" f/2.5 Aero‑Ektar used on K‑17/K‑37 cameras.
It’s the 48‑inch version — a completely different beast.

✅ What the Reddit source confirms

• It’s a Kodak Aero Ektar 48" (1217 mm) f/6.3
• Weight: ~125 pounds
• Used for aerial reconnaissance around WWII and the Korean War

This explains:

• The huge diameter
• The massive weight
• The unusual housing
• Why it looks nothing like the 12" Aero‑Ektar

✅ How this compares to your unit

Your lens is:

• ~36" long
• ~11–12" front diameter
• At least 125 lbs
• Cone‑shaped, not barrel‑shaped
• Mounted in a motorized base

Those characteristics match the Fairchild K‑38 long‑focus cone, not the 48" Aero‑Ektar.

Side‑by‑side:

✅ Bottom line

Your friend’s lens is the 48" Aero‑Ektar from the Reddit post.
Your lens is not that — it’s a K‑38 long‑focus cone, a different and equally rare reconnaissance optic.

If you want, I can help you:

• Build a proper ID sheet for your lens
• Compare optical formulas
• Trace possible aircraft platforms
• Estimate collector value

Just tell me where you want to go next.

---

From: sf-ba...@googlegroups.com <sf-ba...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jeff Crilly <jeffc...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2025 6:52 PM
To: sf-ba...@googlegroups.com <sf-ba...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: sf-ba...@googlegroups.com <sf-ba...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [TAC] Old Aerial Camera

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/6636E409-C2A9-47F8-8702-AC48B5E7A161%40gmail.com.

[Peter Santangeli]

Probably a K 38. Much more common. 

I’ve actually wanted to play around with one of these since I was a kid. For what it’s worth, unless it has some real vintage value, which is kind of unlikely, my plan will be to completely remount the optics in a 3-D printed tube.

I’m not worried about thorium lens. It will be a camera, not a visual scope. And yes, it may have browned a bit but that’s what image processing software is for :-)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/BYAPR20MB2408DF5C64E93BE4D5F24807FDB7A%40BYAPR20MB2408.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

[Yuen So]

Paul's post reminded me of a K36 aerial camera lens sitting in my garage. Anyone here can have it for free. See attached photos. FL=36". Front lens is ~6" diameter, though it is nominally F8. 

I got it from an army surplus outlet in the 80's thinking that it might make fun RFT. Needless to say it has been sitting idle for decades. I have not even looked through it with an eyepiece.

Just email me if you are interested.

Yuen

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/CALeFARy6m1WiaVUz7Zs436SxdONUAuqpLmM%3DuUticUSZkPQ_Cw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Scrivener]

I'm curious, optically how good are these old aerial lenses compared to what we see in modern apochromatic refractors? How many elements? 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/832770562.1699407.1766360783357%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Yuen So]

I believe my sample was used for aerial reconnaissance in the mid-20th century for large film format, possibly 9"x18”. I labelled it K38 on the box. I don’t know the # of elements, but the lens is quite large, about 10” in length with 6” diameter front & 4.75” rear elements. FL=36” /F8. Weight is approximately 15 lbs per my bathroom scale (lens only without the camera).  ChatGPT and Gemini both said they were of “high quality” at least for the time period and for its intended purpose. However, one shouldn’t expect apo quality.

Certainly like to hear Jeff C. and others opinions as they may know more.

Y

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/CAFv1_F27YQagGyf-gmrZTamZFZyZcefZL-m44%3D1xSM95CgqCgA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen Migol]

I have shot some large format astro with the K38 years ago at GSSP.  Being an F8, it's pretty slow for the magnification.  The benefit of it being slow is that there is less chromatic aberration.

Two years ago I was able to mount a version of a similar 1200 mm f6 lens and shoot at Calstar.  I found the lens has significant focus distances for different wavelengths.  It would have to be used with filters to get pinpoint star images.  When using a loupe on the ground glass, we could see some blue fringe on Jupiter.  Again, filters would be fine for getting the most from the lens.

These were intended to use black and white film, usually with an orange, red, or infrared filter.  I have a roll of Aviphot film that I'll eventually start cutting up.

Pete, when you get that lens, let me know, I'd like to take a look at it and we can compare notes!

Stephen

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf-bay-tac/D19A8176-EB64-40DC-A969-09D77B3D0CF0%40yahoo.com.