dagor production pre post

[danzyc]

hello friend please could you told me which are the best manufacture of dagor?

pre war berlin?
post war american?

do you have a link of all years production?

some lens are 2xxxxxxx post war and some are 7xxxxxx pre war....i m very confusing...


many thanks

[Mark Sampson]

The best Goerz serial number information that I know of is here on the front page of this site. I do know that Dagors were made for about 90 years by many different manufacturers. Which are the 'best' ones is a complicated question.There have been many discussions about Dagors on this site already, do a search and you'll find some facts and many opinions.

[Jim Noel]

I have had several Dagors through th yeares. The best seem to have all been Goerz.

[Mark Sawyer]

I have had several Dagors through th yeares. The best seem to have all been Goerz.

Ahh... but which Goerz?

[E. von Hoegh]

O,K,. C.P. Goerz, Berlin, produced the Dagor lens from 1893 to 1926, when they became part of Zeiss-Ikon. Zeiss made lenses marked "Zeiss Goerz Dagor" up to WWII, using Zeiss serial numbers. True C.P. Goerz (Berlin) numbers stopped at Ca. 660000.

C.P. Goerz New York started U.S. production in 1899, according to Goerz literature. The post WWII lenses from Ca. 770000 and up were coated, and are well regarded.

Schneider-Kreuznach ended up with the rights to the Dagor and Artar names, and produced both; the last production Dagor being the 14" MC gold dot Dagor - a truly impressive lens (except for the restricted coverage).

Then, you have the Burke&James "Dagors"; remounted war booty glass that was sometimes good, but usually bad. They are ALWAYS marked " C.P. Goerz Berlin series III" as opposed to "serie III" on the real Berlin lenes. The serial# can be anything.

Which is best?? They go for cult prices all too often. Your best bet is likely the Goerz N. Y. post war (coated), but pre gold dot/ gold rim production.

My late 30cm Berlin Dagor is excellent, as is my pre WWI 9 1/2" N.Y. Dagor. Neither are coated, but a compendium lens shade does wonders.

My 14" gold dot MC is just lovely. 8x10 transparencies shot with this lens are just incredible - contrast AND shadow detail!

[Steve Hamley]

If you're going to do people with it, I'd think you'd want an f:6.8 lens versus the f:8 Schneider, a f:9 process Dagor, or an f:11 process (Series IV) Dagor/Double Anasigmat. If you've decided on focal lengths of 12" or shorter, most of them are f:6.8 lenses. Longer ones were f:7.7 as a general rule.

If I were you, I'd go for a late coated Dagor, non-Golden or Gold Dot if you want to save money, or a Golden or Gold Dot just from the standpoint that they are the latest versions and finding one in good shape may be easier, but be prepared to pay $1,200 - 1,500 US dollars for a nice specimen in 12" focal length. There's an old "rule" that lenses with 6-digit serials starting with 77 and up were manufactured with better quality control, so for what it's worth, there it is. I also believe that the Golden and Gold Dot versions were not manufactured in lengths over 12".

My experience generally follows that of the above poster (EVH) except that I found the 14" Schneider Dagors and Trigors rather flare prone and without the coverage of their earlier siblings.

Cheers,

Steve

[sanking]

For maximum coverage I would go with older Dagors, say from the 1910s and 1920s. Many older 12" Dagors of that period will cover 12X20, while most 14" Dagors from the 1940s and 50s will not.

However, if maximum coverage is not an issue I would go with a late coated Goerz America Dagor, or one of the last multi-coated Kern Dagors.

BTW, some of the early G-Clarons are coated, and are really Dagors in design. These are the best value Dagors on the market in my opinion. I bought one of these a few years ago from Jim Gali and it is a great performer.

Sandy King

[E. von Hoegh]

If you're going to do people with it, I'd think you'd want an f:6.8 lens versus the f:8 Schneider, a f:9 process Dagor, or an f:11 process (Series IV) Dagor/Double Anasigmat. If you've decided on focal lengths of 12" or shorter, most of them are f:6.8 lenses. Longer ones were f:7.7 as a general rule.

If I were you, I'd go for a late coated Dagor, non-Golden or Gold Dot if you want to save money, or a Golden or Gold Dot just from the standpoint that they are the latest versions and finding one in good shape may be easier, but be prepared to pay $1,200 - 1,500 US dollars for a nice specimen in 12" focal length. There's an old "rule" that lenses with 6-digit serials starting with 77 and up were manufactured with better quality control, so for what it's worth, there it is. I also believe that the Golden and Gold Dot versions were not manufactured in lengths over 12".

My experience generally follows that of the above poster (EVH) except that I found the 14" Schneider Dagors and Trigors rather flare prone and without the coverage of their earlier siblings.

Cheers,

Steve

Mr Hamley;

I've heard the same about the Schneider/Kern Dagors. I've also heard they are unsharp. I wonder were there QC issues? I've used just the one I have, and flare is certainly not an issue - nor is sharpness. Then again, I use a compendium shade on all lenses on that camera. I'll try it without the shade. The coverage certainly lacks.

Which version of the Kern did you have? I'm interested in your experiences with this lens. I bought mine because it was the cheapest coated lens of that focal length in a modern synched shutter I could find....:D Needed it for a job, and I wanted the "last" Dagor.

[Dan Fromm]

Andrew, thank you for asking y'r question and directing my attention to Steve's post.

I'm more than willing to believe your (plural, Steve and Andrew) observations that late Dagors have less coverage than early ones, but it isn't clear whether you're reporting your own on-film results or folklore. Which is it, please?

I ask because it isn't clear and because, idiot that I am, I have trouble understanding why much the same design should lose coverage over the years. I can understand that ancient lenses shot on ancient emulsions might seem softer than the same lenses shot on modern emulsions and can see how that would lead to the conclusion that way back when they covered more. Otherwise I'm stumped.

Oh, and by the way, Eric Beltrando, whom I respect highly, estimates that ancient Dagors have rather less coverage than any of us would like to believe. See http://www.dioptrique.info/base/n/n_dagor.htm . He also did the same calculations for a couple of versions of Boyer's Beryl, a double anastigmat much like the Dagor. He and I have discussed coverage issues; he's advised me not to trust my 210/7.7 Beryl S or 210/6.8 Beryl for more than 70 degrees in general use, 50 degrees for really stringent applications. Boyer's propaganda, always optimistic, claims 85 degrees for these lenses.

Cheers,

Dan

[Steve Hamley]

Dan and EVH,

I've owned a single coated Schneider (Kern) 14" GDD in shutter, a 14" Blue Dot Schneider (Kern) Trigor in shutter, and I've tried a borrowed 14" Schneider Blue Dot Trigor in barrel, also Kern.

The 14" GDD was IMO soft at least wide open, and flared very badly even with a slip-on shade pointed into the light - or the "hat"/darkslide shade, even on 4x5 much worse than other lenses. Both these lenses had front glass elements very close to the edge of the cell rim, and I've often wondered if that was the cause. I believe a compendium would be necessary for the 14" GDD I had.

The Trigors were sharper, although I did not shoot resolution charts. I don't think I ever tried the 14" GDD on the 8x20 (I don't think I had the 8x20 at the time) but the 14" Blue dot Trigors would barely cover, and I never shot 8x20 film with either Trigor before I sold/returned them. Minimal rise would vignette on 8x20, and I'd suspect the corners would not be as sharp as maybe one would desire. The Trigors also flared badly, so I sold the one I had. Now I use a 360mm Kowa mounted in a Compur #2 on 4x5, and a 360mm f:9 WA Apo NIkkor on the 8x20. The Nikkor has a quite deeply recessed front glass and performs much better flare-wise.

Before I sold the GDD and Trigor, I spoke with a knowledgeable dealer and he told me that he believed the Kern lenses were softer and had less coverage, which agreed with my observations at the time. He said he would prefer a Goerz American Optical Dagor, and that also agrees with my experience with GAO Dagors.

FYI, A friend of mine had a multicoated Schneider Kern Dagor and liked it very much.

In contrast with the Kerns I had, I have a 14" f:7.7 Goerz Double Anastigmat (Berlin) that seems to illuminate 8x20 with all or nearly all the rise the Korona can muster, and it seems reasonably sharp. I suspect, but don't know, that it will illuminate 12x20. I just got the lens 2-3 weeks ago and have it taped to a lensboard and so have not had it in the field yet for fear of tape failure, and other reasons (below). My impression is that the very early Dagors are not as sharp (certainly not as contrasty) as later coated ones (no surprise here), but they "cover" far more depending on how particular you are. If you're really particular, forget the Dagor and get a 14" f:9 WA Apo Nikkor the or a 355mm G-Claron. I have shot under field conditions on 8x20 with the WA Apo Nikkor and it leaves absolutely nothing to be desired. Very, very sharp out to the edges and superior to the 14" Dagor which also agrees with Andrew G's (posting as C.P. Goerz) comments on a previous thread on 8x20 lenses. Now, to the contrary, I've seen pictures shot in the studio with a 1911 vintage 16-1/2" f7.7 Dagor that you'd swear was shot with a modern lens. It was the favorite lens of the commercial photographer I bought it from, and it was certainly sharp and contrasty enough for him to make a living with for many decades.

FYI, I started remodeling in June 2007 and have yet to get a darkroom capable of processing 8x20 standing up going (not done yet), hence my slowness in getting some of my lens testing done. I'm afraid my knees won't take the bathroom floor anymore.

Cheers,

Steve

[sanking]

I ask because it isn't clear and because, idiot that I am, I have trouble understanding why much the same design should lose coverage over the years. I can understand that ancient lenses shot on ancient emulsions might seem softer than the same lenses shot on modern emulsions and can see how that would lead to the conclusion that way back when they covered more. Otherwise I'm stumped.

Dan

I believe that in later lenses most of the Dagors were mechanically vignetted in order to reduce flare, so even though the design may be the same metal from the shutter or barrel gets in the way.

To note the extremes in coverage I have seen, I once had a 12" Dagor from the 1920s that covered 12X20, and a 16 1/2 Dagor from the 1940s that would not cover 12X20. Of several 14" Dagors I have owned, only one, and the oldest one, woud cover 12X20.

Sandy King

[Ken Lee]

Could someone share an explanation of the persistent appeal and popularity of Dagor lenses ?

[sanking]

Could someone share an explanation of the persistent appeal and popularity of Dagor lenses ?


1. You buy into a lot of history with a lens that was designed in 1898.

2. Dagors are small and have very good coverage, more so than most plasmat type lenses.

3. At diffraction limited apertures of f/22 or more, which is how we typically use LF lenses, they give results not far off that of the very best modern lenses.

4. The off focus look of Dagors (bokeh) is very pleasant. There is a rounded look that softens contours and is very pleasing to the eye.

5. Because of the fact that there are only four air to glass surfaces Dagors have excellent contrast. Even uncoated ones transmit up to about 88% of light. Single coated Dagors are as contrasty as multi-coated plasmats, and multi-coated Dagors are the ultimate in terms of contrast.

That said, I have replaced all of my Dagors, with the exception of a Dagor type 210mm G-Claron, and the 550 f/11 Fine Arts Schneider (which is a modern Dagor design) with more modern lenses, primarily because of the greter reliability of modern shutters. I also believe that Dagors are somewhat over-priced in today's market relative to more modern lenses that are as good or better, but less well-known by many buyers.

Sandy King

[IanG]

Sandy's right about the contrast, I have a late 1930's 12" Dagor and it's an outstanding performer. Mine was returned to the Am Opt Goerz factory and coated after WWII.

The previous owner, a Photography professor in the US, never even tried the lens in the 4 or 5 years he owned it and the 10x8 camera it was with.

Ian

[E. von Hoegh]

Could someone share an explanation of the persistent appeal and popularity of Dagor lenses ?

Mr King;

Although Mr Lee has already answered your question, I'll put in my reasons.

I shoot primarily B&W, and I fell in love with the Dagor "look". I purchased a Linhof STIV three lens outfit in the late 80s, and was doing product photography on the side to finance my new LF addiction. I had an old lens, found as part of an old 5x7 junker I'd picked up as a kid at a yard sale.

I wanted to see how it would perform, so I made a board and tried it out. Surprise!! It was an 8 1/4" Dagor type of unknown manufacture - no markings whatever, in a very early Goerz Sector shutter. I noticed the lens had a different "look" than the 150 Symmar, and thought it was due to it being uncoated.

A couple years later, I needed a cheap 300 for my 8x10, and ended up with an early Dagor type Symmar, which gave the same look as the mystery lens.

After a while, I realised (by shooting with a borrowed late coated Dagor) that it wasn't the absence of coating, but the design of the lens that gave the look. So I outfitted the 8x10 with an assortment of uncoated Dagors, plus the Kern MC version. I use a 9 1/2 and the 14 almost exclusively on 8x10, and 6, 8 1/4 and sometimes 9 1/2 on 4x5. They give me images I like better than those made by other lens types.

And Mr Fromm, I am going exclusively by my "on film" results. My Kern MC has less coverage than my late (1925-6) Berlin 30 cm. The Berlin lens gives some movement on 11x14; the Kern lens virtually none.

[Steve Hamley]

Just a side note - which i've posted before - I tried a 240mm f:6.8 Dagor against a 270mm f:9 G-Claron side-by-side on 8x10. At 4x magnification you could not tell any difference in sharpness. There was no noticeable difference in color or contrast. You could not tell the diffference except by the field of view.

So, compared to at least modern f:5.6 plasmats, the Dagors are smaller, lighter, brighter, have as much or more usable coverage. What's not to like?

They are apparently not as good close up, as in 1:1. I've seen an 11x14 enlargement of a color 8x10 taken in a studio with the afore-mentioned 16-1/2" 1911 vintage Dagor at about 1:1, and there is a noticeable softness. The commercial photographer also stated that they were not great as close up lenses. However, there are process Dagors that are, like the Trigor, Argyle, and Kenro that are, and like the G-Claron, perform admirably at infinity when stopped down a bit.

I think a previous post said it best, that in any particular attribute you can find a lens that will do better, but it is difficult to find one that is as well-rounded a package as a Dagor.

Cheers,

Steve