Goerz Dagors...What's so special?

[jp80874]

Mike,

I bought a 12" gold rim Dagor for architecture because it had much more coverage than the 305 G Clarion I was using on 7x17. It had the coverage, but I fell in love with the different look of the Dagor, maybe a glow to the highlights. I have found it very difficult to describe the different look, but it is there. The 12 inch has now become my standard lens on the 7x17 and my 8x10. Mathematically that may not make sense, but I “see” much wider on the 7x17 than on the 8x10. It seems like normal lens to me even though it is wide for 7x17. A normal 7x17 lens is about 466mm or so rather than 300mm.

re: enlarge vs contact, I enlarge 8x10 to 20x24 and contact print the 7x17.
re: "I'll get there some time." See the maturity and LF thread. Maybe you aren't old enough yet. We will let you into the old folks home when you are ready. Don't wait too long though. The beds are filling up fast.

John Powers

 

[sanking]

At one time I owned a 19" f/7.7 Dagor and it covered 20X24" with lots of movement, but wide open it was very soft on the corners of this format. It was a Process Dagor, and judging by the serial number was made prior to 1920. At some point it was after coated.

It was not a particulary sharp lens, even stopped down, but produced a very plesant kind of creamy look with nice bokeh.

Sandy King

The Series IV was a wide angle lens. IIRC, Goerz claimed it covered 100 degrees, but I can't seem to find the brochure on Camera Eccentrics site although the Series IV is mentioned in passing in the earlier Goerz catalog. I think Tracy saaid the 19" covered 20x24 wide open - which I can't test - but the small size and large coverage are very attractive to owners of older banquet cameras like the 8x20 and 12x20 Koronas that might gasp and die with a f:7.7 Dagor attached to it. A picture of my 19" Double Anastigmat Series IV is attached, mounted in a Copal #3 on a Linhof Technika board.

Cheers, Steve

 

[RobertP]

If your looking for a razor sharp lens then don't by a Dagor. I have no idea where the perception came from that a Dagor is a sharp lens. Of course my 16 1/2" is probably one of the oldest in use and the serial number dates back to 1903. But that old non-coated piece of glass has a lot character/bokeh. Now if I stop down to f45 it is plenty sharp enough for me and contact printing in 8x20 and 12x20. Even doing portraits in these formats with it I find I don't have to worry about it being to wide as I thought it would be initially. I think with ULF you don't have to worry about the proper focal length for a portrait lens as you do with the smaller formats. Now with that said, I'm no optics expert so please don't ask me to explain why ULF would be exempt from the proper focal lengths for portraits. But I can show you a few pics that will explain it pretty well. An even better example is to take a look at some of the fantastic portraits that Zebra shoots in 20x24 with a 550 lens.

 

[RobertP]

As far as weight goes, that is something I always have to contend with. I own a Wisner 8x20 Expedition. It has both vertical and horizontal backs and front standards. In either configuration, especially the vertical, this 11lb camera shoots with some pretty large lens. I use a 17x20 Wollensak Versar (22 1/2") lens that is a pretty heavy cannon. I just use this under the lens. The problem with this camera is not ever the weight of the lens but the small 5 1/4" lens boards that it was designed with. I'm still scratching my head on that one. If Ron ever reappears I'll ask him why such small boards on ULF cameras. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[sanking]

I have owned several Dagors that were very sharp when stopped down to f/16 - f/22. My 210mm G-Claron is a Dagor design lens and it is very sharp and has superb contrast.

The plasmat design gives sharper results wide open but is no sharper than a Dagor when stopped down, and has less coverage.

Sandy King

If your looking for a razor sharp lens then don't by a Dagor. I have no idea where the perception came from that a Dagor is a sharp lens. Of course my 16 1/2" is probably one of the oldest in use and the serial number dates back to 1903. But that old non-coated piece of glass has a lot character/bokeh. Now if I stop down to f45 it is plenty sharp enough for me and contact printing in 8x20 and 12x20. Even doing portraits in these formats with it I find I don't have to worry about it being to wide as I thought it would be initially. I think with ULF you don't have to worry about the proper focal length for a portrait lens as you do with the smaller formats. Now with that said, I'm no optics expert so please don't ask me to explain why ULF would be exempt from the proper focal lengths for portraits. But I can show you a few pics that will explain it pretty well. An even better example is to take a look at some of the fantastic portraits that Zebra shoots in 20x24 with a 550 lens.

 

[Mark Layne]

There are also wide angle Zeiss-Goerz f9 Dagors
Mark

 

[RobertP]

My Dagor doesn't get real sharp out on the corners on a 12x20 until f32. So apparently you have owned a few that are better corrected than mine. A 19" would probably give me a larger sweet spot than the 16 1/2 and perform out to the edges at a larger f stop a little better. Now I have a Kodak 21 1/4" Ekatnon that is way sharper than my Dagor at f16 but it is a coated lens and the higher contrast probably helps a lot. But I'd rather have the character of the Dagor in most cases and that's subjective I know.

 

[mike c]

I'm peddling as fast as I can JP.

 

[renes]

Hello,

I have oportunity to by a DAGOR f/6,8 F=16,5cm C.P.Goerz Berlin with serial no. 460468. It is not indication anywhere "anastigmat" or "Serie III". But do not know how this lens differ from those most famous Dagor Berlin Anastigmat Seri III lenses? Is it worth paying 200$ and is it good choice for b&w landscape? Want to fit it to my Voigdlander Bergheil 9x12.

regards.
Piotr

 

[Ian Grant]

There's less information on the Internet about Berlin Dagor's. The German Dagor's are more frequently Barrel mount and not in a shutter.

You need to balance that price against the price of a modern lens second-hand, not much more. All Dagor's are Anistigmat's that's what AGOR stands for Double Ansatigmat Goerz, (in German).

200$ may be a fair price for a Dagor in very reasonable condition, but there are too many variables without much more detail, particularly about the condition etc.

Ian

 

[renes]

Ian,

Thank you.

The lens is installed on C.P.Goerz Compur shutter.
Has 4 little dust spots on the rear but the owner states it will not influence upon quality of the picture...
All others look good.

What about "Serie III"? is this any of importance?

 

[Ian Grant]

I've no experience of Berlin Dagor's so can't really help more, Compounds are good shutters, you need to here iton the slow settings, it should be very smooth, my 12" is in a Compound.

Ian

 

[Ole]

What about "Serie III"? is this any of importance?

The Doppel-Anastigmat GOeRz Serie III is what became the DAGOR after renaming. Others got other names - and some others became DAGOR too. Serie III is the f:6.8 one.

See above - (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[renes]

Ole, Ian,

Great thanks, you are always very helpful!

Probably I will buy mentioned Dagor 165mm but I am a bit worry about a few small dust spots on the lens rear... had you issue of that ilk? could it make influence upon quality of the picture?

I have also possibilty to buy Carl Zeiss Jena 165mm F6.8 Double "Amatar" lens for 300$ instead Dagor Anastigmat 165mm ... I know Amatars was similar to Goerz Dagor lenses, do you know what is the differences between Zeiss Amatars and common Goerz Dagor Anastigmat? Do they differ in photo character?

 

[Ole]

The Amatar is a completely different lens from the Dagor. Both have three cemented elements in each cell, but that is the only similarity!

The Dagor is roughly like this: | ()() where the "|" is the aperture plane. The Amatar is | )()( ! The construction is called "Reverse Dagor", and the Amatar and the Schneider Angulon are the most common lenses of this type.

Personally I love the Amatar. But they tend not to fit in standard shutters, so I use mine on a Speed Graphic...

 

[renes]

...
Personally I love the Amatar. But they tend not to fit in standard shutters, so I use mine on a Speed Graphic...

What is so special in Amatar comparing to Dagor?

 

[Ole]

I just like what it does to my pictures - nothing quantifiable, but it's good.

 

[mark]

Show off.

I have a 300 MM I have yet to shoot. I got it for a song because the shutter was dead. I found a 300mm Symmar and shutter, cheaper than a shutter for the dagor. Go figure.

 

[renes]

I can buy Goerz Dagor Doppel-Anastigmat serie III F.6,8/125mm lens but I can not find info about its coverage...

Found instead it was used in Press cameras (first picture) http://www.vitalspirit.be/e-vscameramenu4.html

It is 8x10cm plate.
Could it be the lens was made for small format plate cameras?

 

[Ian Grant]

The Goerz Am Opt (American Optical) Dagor's are the same design, just produced by Carl's sons in the US

There may be slight variations but not by much.

Ian

 

[renes]

Ian,

Thank you.

What is for f6.8: 3 3/4 x 4 1/3 ?

And for f16?

I can not see it even made sharpen in PS.

 

[Ian Grant]

Renes, sorry that US list is a bit vague and not so sharp

150mm covers 5"x4" @ f6.8 5"x7" f16 and 6½"x8½" @ f45

165mm covers 3¾"x5½" @ f6.8, 5"x8"@ f16, and 7"x9" & f45

It's been stated in terms of formats once available rather than true coverage, but the 165mm has just a bit more coverage than the 150, more than enough for a 5x4 or 9x12 camera.

3¾"x5½" actually needs a larger image circle than 5"x4".

Ian

 

[renes]

Thank you.

Could you write also for Dagor 125mm lens?
This one I will have in a few days, hope its a good Dagor lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

The 125mm Dagor is:

3¾"x4¼" @ f6.8, 4½"x5½" @ f16 and 5"x7" @ f45 so only covrs 9x12 or 5"x4" stopped down.

Ian

 

[renes]

Thank you Ian.