210mm wide angle

sanking said:

I had a 210mm f/6.8 Angulon at one time in the past and the circle of illumination was slightly greater than that of my 210 Computar. However, performance at the corners, even for contact printing, was dismal. The 180mm (8X10) Protar V I have gives much better performance on the corners than the 210 Angulon, as does the 210 Computar.

No surprising, since the Angulon is really nothing but a Dagor by another name, and Dagors are simply dreadful beyond about 85 degrees.

Sandy

Click to expand...

I agree that dagors perform very badly beyond 85 deg! I thought I was the only one who felt this way.

I did a quick test with the 240mm Graphic Kowa I have yesterday - Sandy's 520mm image circle seems spot on at f64. Interesting that the test shot I did shows the lens to be tack sharp right up to the edge of the image circle - the lens really is a screaming bargain if you can find one.

Donsta said:

I did a quick test with the 240mm Graphic Kowa I have yesterday - Sandy's 520mm image circle seems spot on at f64. Interesting that the test shot I did shows the lens to be tack sharp right up to the edge of the image circle - the lens really is a screaming bargain if you can find one.

Click to expand...

Just make sure that the lens fits into a shutter, if that's what you want to do. Some do, some don't. At F64, I doubt a shutter is really needed, though. Do ULF shooters tend to use lenses in shutters?

I only use lenses in shutters, but I know a lot of people don't. Personally, I find the hat trick or a lens cap too risky given the effort required to get a ULF camera to where you want it to risk vibration caused by not having a shutter. Yes, a Packard is a solution too. At present, with the current availability of a fast film with great reciprocity charateristics like Tmax 400, I find that I am shooting a lot at around 1/2s which is a bit tricky without an accurate shutter. Also, it probably depends what process your negatives are destined for: If you print on Pt/Pd, you really do not want to have a negative which is a stop denser than you need (because you couldn't get an accurate exposure) - I loathe printing when exposure times get beyond 20 minutes - it really destroys my productivity and takes the fun right out of it.

You are right with the Kowa - 240mm. On some, the front element cannot be simply unscrewed and then put into a Copal 3S shutter - however, I can tell you first hand that SKGrimes can easily remount the front element from this type into a "Copal 3S" fitting mount for about $200. If you spend about $200 for a Kowa which cannot be unscrewed, you can still end up with one of the very best 240mm wides for ULF for around $700 by the time you've found a Copal 3S shutter ($300 with a bit of luck and $200 for the remount by SKGrimes). I actually sold my 210mm XL as soon as I had tested my 240mm. Yes, on occassion the slightly shorter focal lengh would be nice, but not $2000 more appealing. The 210mmXL is also a beast to lug around. I never carried it on me.

Peter De Smidt said:

Just make sure that the lens fits into a shutter, if that's what you want to do. Some do, some don't. At F64, I doubt a shutter is really needed, though. Do ULF shooters tend to use lenses in shutters?

Click to expand...

All of the Computars that I have seen screw directly in Copal shutters, the 210mm into a Copal 1, the 240, 270 and 305 Computars into a Copal 3.

All of my Computars are in shutters. Some ULF shooters use lenses in barrel mount and that is practical for some applications, but most of my exposures are in the range where a shutter is very useful, say 1/2 to 1/30 of a second.

Sandy

My work is long to very long exposures so shutters aren't required. I prefer to shoot 10 secs and longer if possible to add some softness with trees blowing around and water cruising by. For me this adds some a bit of lightness to images that are otherwise very sharp. There are some occasions where I would like a shutter but I've been doing this for some time with ULF and 8x10. Of course originally I did it out of necessity as my first 8x10 lenses were in barrel and I had to adjust, but now I have managed to make this part of my look. I only have a shutter on the wolly 200mm wide angle and all other lenses are barrel, which is fine with me.

Harrigan said:

I agree that dagors perform very badly beyond 85 deg! I thought I was the only one who felt this way.

Click to expand...

The only exception would be the wide angle f/9 Zeiss Dagor. Reports are that it covers quite a bit more than regular Dagors. Kerik Kouklis uses one and has commented favorably on it several times.

Unfortunately the wide angle Zeiss Dagor is not often seen for sale. Like the Computar it is, while not rare, rather uncommon.

Just curious if anyone knows in what focal lengths the Zeiss Dagor was manufactured?

Sandy

sanking said:

Just curious if anyone knows in what focal lengths the Zeiss Dagor was manufactured?

Click to expand...

Just off the top of my head... so it might not be 100% complete:

7.5cm, 10cm, 12.5cm, 15cm, 18cm and 24cm.

I have no experience with the longer focal lengths, but the shorter ones (7.5cm, 10cm and 12.5cm) cover about 100 degrees at f32.

Kerry

In addition to the above, I think there may have also been a 21cm f9 Zeiss Dagor.

Kerry

What is the basic history of the f9 zeiss dagors? Were they designed as process dagors? They are certainly scarce and expensive on the open market. I assume they perform better than the wa goerz dagors?

In addition to the above, I think there may have also been a 21cm f9 Zeiss Dagor.

Kerry

This is correct. I have one and it covers 11x14.

What is the basic history of the f9 zeiss dagors? Were they designed as process dagors? They are certainly scarce and expensive on the open market. I assume they perform better than the wa goerz dagors?

The f9 dagors are wide-angle lenses. My 180 covers 8x10 with a good range of movement. They are similar (in performance) to the f8 goerz dagors (Am Opt and earler versions). I never had the later style goerz "gold dot" variety so I do not know if they have the same coverage. They are definately not process lenses.

Peter