Goers Dagor: single coated, serial #s ?

[DREW WILEY]

I utterly hated that Compur 3 shutter. Unlike a Copal, even the high speeds were spot on. But there was no T setting, and the damn thing had a distinct buzzy vibration too it (every example I've tested). This actually affected 4x5 field camera sharpness, though not my more solid 8X10. Then the contrast was just toooo much for my outdoor chrome work of the era. In the long run, I figured out that the single-coated Kern in Copal was better for my personal needs. But I have never encountered another lens with the color purity snap and sheer microtonality in b&w work quite like that MC Kern.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ian - what you say sounds true. Schneider did s very poor job marketing shuttered G-C's by classifying them as tabletop studio lenses, though they are superb at infinity too, and by publishing graphics industry image circles which are obscenely conservative by typical photography standards. The single-coat was deliberate - they simply didn't need multi-coatings. I don't think it had anything to do with cost or some alleged entry-level market. These were sold as specialty lenses to begin with, and except for smaller max apertures, optically exceed general-purpose plasmats. Lots of us use them. They're wonderful in the field. And they weren't cheap to begin with! Fuji A's a very similar but multi-coated.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

One of my first lenses was a Dagor 7" factory coated lens mounted in a Rapax shutter. I have an image of Big Sur that I took with that lens which is stunning. I wish that I had kept it. I currently have a Symmar-S MC 180mm which is given me good results. But, every time that I look at that Big Sur photo . . .

I've been updating my 4x5 lenses to MC versions, and to more recent models like Apo Symmars. But for 8x10 (black and white), all my lenses have ended up being single coated.

I draw the line at coating, though; all my lenses will be coated. Ansel Adams compared uncoated lens images with the same image taken with a coated lens in one of his books. That was enough for me.

 

[Ian Grant]

One of my first lenses was a Dagor 7" factory coated lens mounted in a Rapax shutter. I have an image of Big Sur that I took with that lens which is stunning. I wish that I had kept it. I currently have a Symmar-S MC 180mm which is given me good results. But, every time that I look at that Big Sur photo . . .

I've been updating my 4x5 lenses to MC versions, and to more recent models like Apo Symmars. But for 8x10 (black and white), all my lenses have ended up being single coated.

I draw the line at coating, though; all my lenses will be coated. Ansel Adams compared uncoated lens images with the same image taken with a coated lens in one of his books. That was enough for me.

My 1913 120mm f6.8 Goerz (Berlin) Dagor is uncoated and has very high contrast, I tested it with macro bellows on a DSLR along with a 165mm f5,3 Tessar and an f6.3 135mm Ihagee-Goerz (dialyte) lens all in excellent condition optically. The results were as you'd expect the DAgor had excellent contrast almost as good as the DSLR's standard (zoom) lens, the Tessar had noticeably less contrast than the Dagor and the Dialyte was another step worse still.

Like you I prefer coated lenses and used an uncoated 135mm Tessar in the past and replace it with a post WWII 1953/4 CZJ T coated 150mm f4,5 Tessar, the coating is very effective and the lens doesn't flare in conditions where my MC zooms are useless. I just don't like the look of images from uncoated Tessars but the uncoated Dagor is fine, the only reason I hardly use it is the Compound shutter takes a pneumatic release, not a cable.

Ian

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Adding a data point:
I have a 10 3/4 inch f6.8 serial 398xxx that I can't find many references to compare dates to. Doesn't look coated, but single coat may fool me.
Testing it takes perfectly fine shots on 8x10 wide open in a high contrast environment, won't know more until the camera it sits on is back on a tripod and I have some time.

 

[Dan Fromm]

If the list here http://www.largeformatphotography.info/classic-experts.html is correct, your lens was made before 1927 and can't possibly have been coated when first shipped.