which lens would be a better choice for 4x5 and 5x7 black and white photography? Does the 110 SS have more coverage for 5x7? Or is it a matter of personal preference? I know the dagor is alittle smaller and lighter.
Printable View
which lens would be a better choice for 4x5 and 5x7 black and white photography? Does the 110 SS have more coverage for 5x7? Or is it a matter of personal preference? I know the dagor is alittle smaller and lighter.
I never used a Dagor, but they were well reguarded in their day. The 110 is a very modern design with fine resolution and contrast. I can`t seem to run out of coverage with it. The entire XL series is designed for hugh coverage.
If you like the image quality of older glass, get the dagor. It will not be the same as the latest XL series. The 110 almost covers 8x10.
Youre talking about a huge leap in lens technology. Even without making a direct comparision, the 110XL will be sharper at the edges and overall, more even and much greater coverage, and have greater "contrast" or separation between tones.
Of course, the Dagor may well give you a much nicer look in B&W than the more modern lens.
I was just talking to a photographer the other day who was busy printing like crazy for a large MoMA aqquisition - asked what lenses they used. Nearly all Dagors - the modern lenses just don't give the same sort look in B&W as far as they are concerned. In their words they may be more "zingy" and have more contrast and coverage - but apart from the latter, that's not always what you are looking for.
(BTW - they showed me some test charts for a 180mm (I think it was) Carl Zeiss Dagor f9 - anyway - not only did it cover 8x10 with plenty of room, it was way up there with the very best of the modern lenses. So it seems the leap isn't always that great.
So in a way, it depends what you are wanting to do and how you want it to look.
(btw - my old Georz booklet says the 4 3/4" will cover 8 1/2" x 6 1/2" film at f32)
The WA Dagor is a great lens. I have never used the 110mm XL, but I can tell you that I greatly preferred my Dagor over a 120mm Super Angulon MC. The Dagor was actually sharper, more contrasty, and about 1/2 the size...
The 4 3/8" WA Dagor has more than enough coverage for 5x7, about 270mm of sharp image at f/45. But therein lies its disadvantage to modern lenses. In order to cover 5x7 on the Dagor it was necessary to stop down to at least f/32. The Super Angulon would, as I recall, cover at f/16.
Now the XL will probably be sharper, with perhaps more constrast, and a much larger image circle (I hear it covers 8x10 at f/45 or so). It will be heavier and more expensive. You can probably buy a WA Dagor for $500, and it will work just fine. I guess it depends how deep your pockets are.
There is also the myth of the Dagor-look, which Tim mentions, but I am a bit of an agnostic when it comes to that...
I regret somewhat having sold my 4 3/8" WA Dagor (Jason!). Get one with a serial number starting with 8 since the coating will be a bit better than in the lower serial no's. The older shutter may not be to your liking, it is possible to have it mounted in a Copal 1, not easy though. I would not mix old and modern lenses, since the internal contrast is visibly different especially in the lower values. I can't comment on use in colour.