Goerz Tenaxier

[baachitraka]

Goerz Tenaxier: 12.5cm f/6.8

Seeking info about this lens. I doubt its a D-A type but I may be wrong.

Any idea?

 

[AgX]

No. Cooke-Triplet

Taken from literature. What did your lens-group inspection show? You could not have mixed up a plain triplet with a double-anastigmat.

 

[Ian Grant]

From the speed I would think it's one of Goerz's Dialytes, have you spelt the name right there's Tenaxiar f6.8 lenses some were Dialytes others Triplets, budget lenses usually in 3 speed shutters.on Roll film Tengors.

Ian

 

[AgX]

My information is for a Tenaxiar F6.8 no FL given (the only Tenaxiar I found listed).

 

[baachitraka]

From the speed I would think it's one of Goerz's Dialytes, have you spelt the name right there's Tenaxiar f6.8 lenses some were Dialytes others Triplets, budget lenses usually in 3 speed shutters.on Roll film Tengors.

Ian

Spelling seems to be correct. Yes, it comes with 3-speed shutter.

Seems that it falls under Dialytes (less contrast and more sharpness type)?

 

[JPD]

Yes, it was one of Goerz's cheaper dialytes. It could be an OK lens, maybe similar to their earlier Syntor. The Dogmar was their best dialyte, and updated version of their earlier Celor.

 

[AgX]

Yes, it was one of Goerz's cheaper dialytes.

I have information that it is of the Cooke-triplet type, Ian said both forms were sold as Tenaxiar.

 

[JPD]

I have information that it is of the Cooke-triplet type, Ian said both forms were sold as Tenaxiar.

That is possible, and I have heard the same about the Tenastigmat lens. It's best to check the individual lenses.

 

[baachitraka]

I did not bid, but I will wait for a nice dagor series III lens or a plate camera of the same lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have information that it is of the Cooke-triplet type, Ian said both forms were sold as Tenaxiar.

My information is that the name was used for a Triplet as well as a more common Dialyte. Bit like Kodak Ektars which were Tessar & Dialyte and a few other, also Xenar which was usually Tessar type except some fast ones that where 5 elements.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

I did not bid, but I will wait for a nice dagor series III lens or a plate camera of the same lens.

About 3 maybe 4 years ago I did some testes with various vintage lenses, a 120mm f6.8 Dagor, 165mm f5.3 Tessar, 135mm f6.8 Goerz-Ihagee dialyte. I used bellows and a DSLR I was interested in the contrast. All 3 lenses are in excellent condition and the results were no suprise. the Dagor had excellent contrast, the Tessar was lower in contrast but accepable, the Dialyte was significantly lower in contrast. (There's another post somewhere on this forum, as well as this one)

I have a 135mm f4.5 Eurynar on a Orion Werks 9x12 this has similar contrat to the Goerz-Ihagee dialyte. I used a uncoated 135mm CZJ Tessar for about a year but found the contrast drop affected highlight and shadow details, I swapped it for a CZJ 150mm f4.5 T (coated) Tessar and the difference is very apparent.

I think you're right to go for a Dagor, the contrast is almost teh sasme as a coated lens.

Ian

 

[JPD]

I did not bid, but I will wait for a nice dagor series III lens or a plate camera of the same lens.

I think you're right to go for a Dagor, the contrast is almost teh sasme as a coated lens.

Or go for both a Dagor and a Dogmar. The Dagor for the lovely glow at larger apertures (6,8 to 9) and nice contrast, and the Dogmar for the excellent sharpness all over the negative at all apertures. With both lenses you should always use a sun shade. The difference in contrast will be less noticeable with black and white film.

Goerz Dogmar 135/6,3 from 1916 on a 6,5x9 Voigtländer Bergheil. Very sharp, and the contrast is good, but notice the flare from the lights in the upper right.

https://live.staticflickr.com/4028/4704019765_ef55d2fce7_h.jpg

 

[Ian Grant]

Or go for both a Dagor and a Dogmar.

I have both in 120mm, the Dagor covers 7x5 (13x18) stopped down. I've not tried the Dogmar yet but it won't be much different to my Goerz-Ihagee 135mm.

Ian

 

[JPD]

I have both in 120mm, the Dagor covers 7x5 (13x18) stopped down. I've not tried the Dogmar yet but it won't be much different to my Goerz-Ihagee 135mm.

In your test the Goerz-Ihagee was the worst of the bunch, so you are probably not in a hurry to try the Dogmar. But you used a digital camera with a small sensor and in colour. I have only used the Dogmar with black and white film and haven't seen the veiling glare, only contrasty sharp results.

I'm planning to go to the mountains soon and take the Avus with the Dogmar, and I will not forgive myself if I don't take the Avus with the Rietzschel Linear (eight element "improved Dagor") with me as well.

I have looked in a couple of old Ihagee catalogues, and as usual many of the cameras were offered with different lenses. They could offer a camera with the Hugo Meyer Veraplan lenses, and Goerz lenses as the more expensive options. The Goerz-Ihagee Doppel-Anastigmat 6,3 was at the price point just below the Goerz Dogmar 4,5, and above the Veraplans. Your assumption that the Goerz-Ihagee lens is the slower Dogmar, is probably correct.

I suspected that the Goerz-Ihagee Doppel-Anastigmat was one of the cheaper Goerz dialytes, but that wouldn't make sense if they were pricier than the Veraplans.

The 4,5 Dogmar was more expensive than the 6,8 Dagor in the same focal lengths. I'm not sure why. The Dagor is slower, yes, but it has two more elements and all six of them had to be well centered and cemented, which also means more work. Both are great lenses, but they have their shortcomings. With black and white, flare can be a bigger problem than contrast with the Dogmar, and if you don't like the glow you will need to stop the Dagor down to 18 for it to completely go away. And some Dagors suffer from focus shift when stopping down (Maybe all do, but I haven't noticed it on mine).

With all the classic lenses it's the flaws that give them character, and learning to know the lenses is a fun part of the hobby. There is no point in searching for the Holy Grail here. It's more about developing a friendship with lenses you like, and use them depending on your mood.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't think the Goerz-Ihagee f6.3 lens is one of the cheaper lenses, it appears to hanve been the top lensof four for the Ihagee Venus, and one down from the Goerz f4.5 Dogmar offered on the Ultrix, This is the lens remarkable what a quick Google search finds. So yes probaly the slower Dogmar re-badged for Ihagee.

Goerz had quite a range of Duialytes, they where quite expensive to make and needed careful matching of elements, I remember reading somewhere that the failure rate of elements added to the costs.

Ian

 

[JPD]

I don't think the Goerz-Ihagee f6.3 lens is one of the cheaper lenses, it appears to hanve been the top lensof four for the Ihagee Venus, and one down from the Goerz f4.5 Dogmar offered on the Ultrix, This is the lens remarkable what a quick Google search finds. So yes probaly the slower Dogmar re-badged for Ihagee.

And the markings aren't filled in with white, just like with this Tenastigmat: https://www.ebay.de/itm/203059183602

The size of the front element is of the same size too. Can you measure the outer diameter of the lens to see if it is 29 or 30 mm? The 6,3 Dogmar is 29 mm.

It's too bad that Goerz the company is gone, and Zeiss don't have much information to give. I asked them if they had the Goerz serial numbers list, but they didn't, so finding the exact design of the Goerz-Ihagee Doppel-Anastigmat could only be done by comparing the elements of the different Goerz 6,3 dialytes.

 

[AgX]

The 4,5 Dogmar was more expensive than the 6,8 Dagor in the same focal lengths. I'm not sure why. The Dagor is slower, yes, but it has two more elements and all six of them had to be well centered and cemented, which also means more work.

I did not look into the design of these two lenses. But in general there are more aspects to manufacturing costs than you mentioned. For instance the type of glass or the radii to be grinded.

 

[JPD]

I did not look into the design of these two lenses. But in general there are more aspects to manufacturing costs than you mentioned. For instance the type of glass or the radii to be grinded.

True. I mentioned the price of the glass in a discussion about the Goerz dialytes on the Large Format Forum five years ago. The Dogmar isn't symmetrical, so all the element surfaces are ground to different radii, and Ian mentioned the careful matching of the elements.

 

[AgX]

In general in the past: the smaller the radius of the curvature, the more costly the manufacture.

 

[Ian Grant]

And the markings aren't filled in with white, just like with this Tenastigmat: https://www.ebay.de/itm/203059183602

The size of the front element is of the same size too. Can you measure the outer diameter of the lens to see if it is 29 or 30 mm? The 6,3 Dogmar is 29 mm.

It's too bad that Goerz the company is gone, and Zeiss don't have much information to give. I asked them if they had the Goerz serial numbers list, but they didn't, so finding the exact design of the Goerz-Ihagee Doppel-Anastigmat could only be done by comparing the elements of the different Goerz 6,3 dialytes.

The Goerz-Ihagee lens is slightly larger than the Dogmar so 30mm n it's also visually slightly 6xxxhigher contrast despite both lens looking optical excellent. One issue I've seen in the past is atmospheric attack on the surface of the glass, it's worst with some early Tessar, Novar lenses as well as Summar and post WWII Meyer Domiplan lenses, they all used the same optical glass for their front elements. I have a Domiplan you can't even focus, and a Novar on an Ikonta that's very low in contrast and sharpness to the extent it's unusable.

The SN of the Goerz-Ihagee lens Compur is 436xxx which is pre 1920, the Dogmar 379xxx so slightly older made during WW1. The Dogmar has white paint on the front cell markings and rear and aperture scale, the Goerz-Ihagee off white like both the Compur face plates, bot lenses have matching serial numbers on front and rear. The rear elements of the

I'll have to give the Dogmar a try, interesting it is marked 135mm and f6.3, 8. 11, 16, 22, 32, 45, and the Goerz-Ihagee 13.5cm and f6.3, 6.8, 9, 12.6, 18, 25, 38. Of course both lenses are over 100 years old and we've no idea how they were used and stored particularly as both were made during or just after WWII.

Ian

 

[JPD]

The Goerz-Ihagee lens is slightly larger than the Dogmar so 30mm n it's also visually slightly 6xxxhigher contrast despite both lens looking optical excellent. One issue I've seen in the past is atmospheric attack on the surface of the glass, it's worst with some early Tessar, Novar lenses as well as Summar and post WWII Meyer Domiplan lenses, they all used the same optical glass for their front elements. I have a Domiplan you can't even focus, and a Novar on an Ikonta that's very low in contrast and sharpness to the extent it's unusable.

The SN of the Goerz-Ihagee lens Compur is 436xxx which is pre 1920, the Dogmar 379xxx so slightly older made during WW1. The Dogmar has white paint on the front cell markings and rear and aperture scale, the Goerz-Ihagee off white like both the Compur face plates, bot lenses have matching serial numbers on front and rear. The rear elements of the

I'll have to give the Dogmar a try, interesting it is marked 135mm and f6.3, 8. 11, 16, 22, 32, 45, and the Goerz-Ihagee 13.5cm and f6.3, 6.8, 9, 12.6, 18, 25, 38. Of course both lenses are over 100 years old and we've no idea how they were used and stored particularly as both were made during or just after WWII.

Ian

You said earlier that your Dogmar was a 120 mm. I have never seen a 6,3/120 mm Dogmar before (but I don't doubt that they exist). But then you now say it's a 6,3/135 mm, and that's also what I have. Mine has the 6,3, 9, 12,5, 18... aperture scale. My Dogmar is in excellent condition. No haze, not a scratch, and the contrast is great with BW.

If your Goerz-Ihagee Doppel-Anastigmat takes 30 mm filters, maybe it can be a problem finding filters that will push on straight without touching the shutter speed dial. I have this problem with my Roll-Tenax that has a Dagor 6,8/100 and takes 30 mm filters and hood. There are filters with cutouts on the mount that can be used, though.

I'm waiting for a Rietzschel Linear 4,5/105. I will soon have more fun lenses that time.

 

[Ian Grant]

You said earlier that your Dogmar was a 120 mm. I have never seen a 6,3/120 mm Dogmar before (but I don't doubt that they exist). But then you now say it's a 6,3/135 mm, and that's also what I have. Mine has the 6,3, 9, 12,5, 18... aperture scale. My Dogmar is in excellent condition. No haze, not a scratch, and the contrast is great with BW.

If your Goerz-Ihagee Doppel-Anastigmat takes 30 mm filters, maybe it can be a problem finding filters that will push on straight without touching the shutter speed dial. I have this problem with my Roll-Tenax that has a Dagor 6,8/100 and takes 30 mm filters and hood. There are filters with cutouts on the mount that can be used, though.

I'm waiting for a Rietzschel Linear 4,5/105. I will soon have more fun lenses that time.

I made a mistake earlier in the thread it's a 135mm Dogmar, it's quite similar to my 120mm Dagor except that's in a Compound rather than a Compur. It wasn't until I went to get the lenses to check the shutter Serial Numbers that I corrected teh mistake. I wouldn't say there's haze with the Goerz I hagee it does look very clean no marks on the lens but there is a comparative slight drop in contrast, that can also be atmospheric natural blooming over time something TTH Cooke notice which led to their pre-WWII coating tests.

Changing the subject slightly I compared my 120mm f6.8 Dagor with a post WWII coated 120mm f6.8 Super angulon which is much larger of course in an Ibsor shutter, visually when focussing the Angulon is about a stop brighter, I'll get around to checking soon. This may of course be because the marked fastest aperture f6.8 is already stopping the lens down slightly, I have two other WA lenses were the viewing/focussing aperture is faster than the widest taking aperture - a Dallmeyer 4¼" f6.5/11, f6.5 for viewing, max f11 for taking, or a Wollensack 159mm f12.5 actually this lens as a viewing aperture of f9.

Ian

 

[baachitraka]

I'm waiting for a Rietzschel Linear 4,5/105. I will soon have more fun lenses that time.

Sounds rather a special lens and now I am more curious about this lens and want to ask what is its specialty?

Seems they are constructed like a dagor type but I may be wrong.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Linear is 4 + 4 and each set of 4 is two pairs with a flat face to aid construction according to the Vade Mecum.

Ian

 

[JPD]

Changing the subject slightly I compared my 120mm f6.8 Dagor with a post WWII coated 120mm f6.8 Super angulon which is much larger of course in an Ibsor shutter, visually when focussing the Angulon is about a stop brighter, I'll get around to checking soon. This may of course be because the marked fastest aperture f6.8 is already stopping the lens down slightly, I have two other WA lenses were the viewing/focussing aperture is faster than the widest taking aperture - a Dallmeyer 4¼" f6.5/11, f6.5 for viewing, max f11 for taking, or a Wollensack 159mm f12.5 actually this lens as a viewing aperture of f9.

And maybe some of it has to do with the slightly less contrast with the uncoated Dagor, and maybe the "glow" that makes it seem less contrasty at the viewing aperture?

Sounds rather a special lens and now I am more curious about this lens and want to ask what is its specialty?

Seems they are constructed like a dagor type but I may be wrong.

The Linear is not a Dagor type, but you could say that it's a variation of the same theme. I read that the eight element Linear is better corrected for coma than the Dagor, so you get better results when using the Linear as a convertible (the back component only for longer focal length). The Linear is also faster, 4,8 or 4,5, which makes focusing easier.

Rietzschel's Apotar and Sextar are similar to the Dagor but the second element is a positive meniscus and the third element is double concave. The Linear looks similar but has the middle element split in two, probably with different glass types. https://cloud10.todocoleccion.online/camara-fotos-antigua/tc/2020/04/01/13/198899206_198578580.webp

On the picture you can also see the Rietzschel Dialyt. It's a double-Gauss lens, and not like dialytes like the Dogmar or Eurynar, but "dialyt" means "separated", so the name is still correct. The front and back components are separated achromats that allow the elements to have different radii for better corrections.