Dogmar is okay but Dagor would have made the modern lenses envy for its contrast.
Me wishing a lot of money for portrait lenses and nice shoes.
i am happy its a goerz in mint condition, nobody worked on this lens and its still fully functional, i clenaed every element and now its like new. i always wanted to have one like new, its small and sharp lens with a little bit lower contrast, for some images perfect.
this winter i am going to use it exclusively.
Now we start in the new x-mas season and what are your wishes this year?
I want to give my Super Technika V a new bellows and to make a flange for my Rodenstock Eurygon 300mmf/4.5
BTW: the Goerz Dogmar is the better corrected lens, the Dagor has spherical aberrations, even the longer focusses need to be checked on the groundglass when stopped down. The longer the lens and larger die diameter of glass even more focus shift it has.
My 300mm Berlin Dagor has a lot of focus shift when stopped down to f/45.
With the smaller 120mm lens I don´t have this problem.
The dogmar has no aberrations anymore and I like this lenses.
Dagor's have better contrast and is far better than any other lens in that era in terms of contrast and it could be on par with any coated lenses too if it is not a very modern ones.
The contrast is another thing.
The dagor has only four glass/air surfaces, the Dogmar has eight.
When you take care to avoid the internal reflexion during exposure the Dogmar is as sharp as the Dagor and it has absolutly no focus shift.
A lot of other lenses in the Dogmar style were made, the Eurynar from Rodenstock, the Unofocal from Steinheil, Componar from Schneider, Onmar from Busch, Aristostigmat from Meyer etc.
All of it are excellent lenses and fully usable today.
Only the angle of view is smaller, between 55°-80° The Dagor has 90° at smaller stops.
Were Dogmars sold as lenses with shutters or were they built to be part of cameras that were sold as a whole package (lens included) like old 122 folders?
I have one Dogmar, one WA Dagor, and a bunch of normal Dagors in various focal lengths up to 14in/355mm. I'd love to find larger Dogmars to use on 5x7 or even 8x10 but larger ones seem to be very rare, and when I find a 200mm+ Dogmar its always in a barrel.
C.P. Goerz American Optical Co. also made the Dogmar. My copy of a 1938 catalogue and price list shows them available in focal lengths of 3 1/8 inch through 16 1/2 inch. 3 1/8 inch through 10 3/4 inch were f/4.5 lenses; the 12 inch was available both as an f/4.5 and an f/5.5 lens. The 14 and 16 1/2 inch Dogmars were f/5.5. These were available variously in Compur, Compound, and Ilex shutters.
Thanks for that info. The vast majority of Dogmars I've seen for sale are in the 150mm-210mm range (or inch equivalent--6in-8in). I'l love to find a larger one in a shutter, but they seem very uncommon--even the barrel lens version are hard to find.
Dagor's have better contrast and is far better than any other lens in that era in terms of contrast and it could be on par with any coated lenses too if it is not a very modern ones.
Some years ago I tested a few lenses on a DSLR to check contrast and sharpness, I posted the results on this Forum.
The lenses ranged from a 120mm f6.8 Dagor, to a 165mm f5.3 (rare) CZJ Tessar, and inclided a Meyer WA, and a Ihagee.Goerz 135mm 0 a Dialyte like a Dogmar.
The Dagor was by way the best it was hard to tell it was uncoated, a slight drop in contrast with the Tessar, but a significant drop with the Ihagee-Goerz. The results matched my film use with a1941 12" Goerz AM Opt Dagor, uncoated Tessars, and a Rodenstock Eurynar.
There were quite a few other uncoated lenses with similar contrast to the Dagors, Zeiss Protars, Ross Combinables, and others, but the Dagor's and Protars were the market leaders, in terms of sales.
When I bought my first 10x8 Agfa Ansco the seller told me the 12" Daor was useless, he had never tried using it, sure the shutter speeds were an issue, It was a 2-minute clean & lube of the slow speed piston. It is a lovely lens and the speeds are still accurate 21 years after that piston lube.
View attachment 412138
Ian
some if not all confuse with the sharpness. Lens can be sharp but when it produces a dull negative then there is not much of use with the sharpness at all.
Nevertheless, dagors in longer focal length understandably are becoming expensive.
If you look at completed sales 12" Dagor have been dropping in price around 20 years ago, they had become cult lenses with ULF shooters.
In the heyday of Dialyte lenses techniques were quite different. Plates and Films were more generously exposed and also developed to much higher contrasts, often using Pyro developers. That helped with lower contrast lenses.
Our modern techniques come from improved emulsions, and driven by a need to increase the quality of images made with 35mm Leica cameras, then later other 35mm cameras, this coincided with the introduction of portable light meters.
View attachment 412146
Hans Windisch summed up our modern techniques in Doe Neue Foto Schule in 1938 (my German copy is from 1944).
Ian
As an aside I have four Dagors, three are "Gold Dot" of U.S. manufacture, a 6, an 8 1/4 and a 12 inch plus a 21 cm Carl Zeiss Jena Goerz Dagor, f/6.8, circa 1929 (my first large format lens bought in 1966). Haven't seen evidence of focus shift with any of these. This may bear further investigation on my part.
David
Got a look at the 1951 C.P. Goerz A.O.C. catalog via the "Wayback Machine". By 1951 all the f/5.5 Dogmars were gone, the 12 inch, 14 inch and 16 1/2 inch focal lengths. The longest available was the 12 inch f/4.5. Wollensak Rapax, Ilex Acme, and Ilex Universal shutters were supplied depending on the size of the lens.These were still shown in the 1951 Goerz catalog on cameraeccentric (website not available at this time so I can't check the details). These would have been coated. Currently there is a C.P. Goerz A.O.C. 6 1/2 inch Dogmar, s/n 771680 on ebay. It is in a No. 3 Acme.
The Dogmars are not shown on my 1960 C.P. Goerz A.O.C. price list, the next data point I have after 1951.
David
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?