What are your favorite Goerz?

[Bernice Loui]

It is not the "sharpness" of an Artar that makes them special, it is their lower contrast with better tonality, out of focus rendition and color rendition that makes them special. The primary limitation of an Artar is image circle/coverage. Back in the graphic arts/process work days, the Artar was prized low distortion and ability to produce color separation film of the same size key to color printing at that time.

The circle of illumination is larger than it's circle of specified performance that can deceive some into using them on a film format larger than it's ratings.

I do like the Artar very much for longer than normal focal length lens... and have them from 4" to 35" most are in Barrel, some in shutter. The barrel and older shutters have a round iris which aids in out of focus rendition and Bokeh.

The other is Dagor which has really good image circle/coverage for their size -vs- focal length. What makes the Dagor special is not just sharpness, it is tonality and a certain look to the images they produce. I still own a 12" Dagor and 8 1/2" Dagor specifically for this reason.

IMO, the modern lens designer did what they believed to be an improvement to the Dagor by making it an air spaced plasmat which allowed the largest aperture to be f5.6 -vs- f6.8 of f7.7 on a Dagor with similar image circle/coverage -vs- focal length. In their view this was an improvement over the Dagor. The trade off was size and harsh out of focus rendition and for many, what I perceive as excessively high contrast with less than appealing tonality. This is the hard, high contrast, sharp modern look that appears to have become generic to many modern plasmats.

As with most all vintage lenses, better to test before committing to purchase/own as there will be differences from great to awful.

Lens types are IMO a personal choice and does leave a signature on the images made.


Bernice

I've got four total, but the ones that see the most use are an uncoated 14" APO Artar (on 5x7) and a 19" Red Dot Artar (on 8x10) In fact I find the 19" Red Dot Artar extremely useful for landscapes. Even the uncoated APO Artar is so sharp, the gg sometimes seems to sparkle when composing.
I can see why they've become cult legends (but don't believe the hype--yes anyone can take lousy photographs with a Goerz, been there---done that many times!)
Which Goerz lens(es) do you use and enjoy?

[Dan Fromm]

I dunno. I like my dialyte type Apo-Nikkors and my Boyer Beryls. What's magic about the name Goerz?

[John Kasaian]

I dunno. I like my dialyte type Apo-Nikkors and my Boyer Beryls. What's magic about the name Goerz?

I didn't mean to imply any magic, only that some people have a preference for some Goerz models.

[Bernice Loui]

Add, Rodenstock APO Ronar and a host of other of similar configuration.

What made Goerz famous was the Dagor. The Artar appeared later which became the norm for process/graphic arts work.


Bernice

I dunno. I like my dialyte type Apo-Nikkors and my Boyer Beryls. What's magic about the name Goerz?

[E. von Hoegh]

The other is Dagor which has really good image circle/coverage for their size -vs- focal length. What makes the Dagor special is not just sharpness, it is tonality and a certain look to the images they produce. I still own a 12" Dagor and 8 1/2" Dagor specifically for this reason.

IMO, the modern lens designer did what they believed to be an improvement to the Dagor by making it an air spaced plasmat which allowed the largest aperture to be f5.6 -vs- f6.8 of f7.7 on a Dagor with similar image circle/coverage -vs- focal length. In their view this was an improvement over the Dagor. The trade off was size and harsh out of focus rendition and for many, what I perceive as excessively high contrast with less than appealing tonality. This is the hard, high contrast, sharp modern look that appears to have become generic to many modern plasmats.




Bernice

Bernice,
Cost was also a reason the Plasmat came along, although the Plasmat didn't become popular until it could be coated. The Dagor was an expensive lens to produce due to the short radius of curvature of two of the cemented surfaces, these surfaces had to be ground and polished one to a block. The airspace of the Plasmat gave designers two more surfaces and an extra "element" to play with, as well.
Goerz made a few "Super Dagor" f:5.6 lenses, I've often wondered if these were Plasmats.

Dagors have a fair amount of spherical aberration wide open, this gives a nice glow at max. aperture (portraits!), it also causes the focal length to grow as the lens is stopped down. Some exhibit more shift than others, but I've never seen one without shift. Always focus at the working aperture.

[E. von Hoegh]

I dunno. I like my dialyte type Apo-Nikkors and my Boyer Beryls. What's magic about the name Goerz?

Magic? None. The magic was in the Dagor's designer's head. Goerz did supply the quality though.
What I'd really like to see is the reason the Dagor type has such nice tonality. I've tried other 4 surface lenses like the Protar VIIa, and they don't have the same look.

[Bernice Loui]

It does appear cost is a significant factor as making a good Dagor also required hand sorting and tweaking of the individual lenses prior to cementing and assembly to make them function properly. This adds significant production cost to the lens.

The residual spherical aberration wide open of a Dagor is not IMO, a negative it produces a certain look which can be quite nice. Once stopped down, this progressively goes away resulting in a nice sharp lens with really nice tonality. The shift in focus can and does stifle some users as many who are not aware will focus wide open and stop down to make the exposure without checking focus stopped down.. which can result in an image surprise..

Regardless, I still like my Dagors a whole lot and they are going to stay with me for as long as I'm using sheet film.


Bernice

Bernice,
Cost was also a reason the Plasmat came along, although the Plasmat didn't become popular until it could be coated. The Dagor was an expensive lens to produce due to the short radius of curvature of two of the cemented surfaces, these surfaces had to be ground and polished one to a block. The airspace of the Plasmat gave designers two more surfaces and an extra "element" to play with, as well.
Goerz made a few "Super Dagor" f:5.6 lenses, I've often wondered if these were Plasmats.

Dagors have a fair amount of spherical aberration wide open, this gives a nice glow at max. aperture (portraits!), it also causes the focal length to grow as the lens is stopped down. Some exhibit more shift than others, but I've never seen one without shift. Always focus at the working aperture.

[Mark Sawyer]

I have a couple of Gold-Rim Dagoprs (8.25" and 12"), and the same in older uncoated Dagores. Yup, very nice lenses with that caveat of focus shift, not an issue if you can remember... The pherical aberration is pretty subtle, so I don't mind it. Those who do are probably working at f/22 or so anyways...

Would love to have a Celor or Hypar, need to get back to the Hypergon someday...

[Drew Wiley]

I've never used the Goerz lenses, but only their immediate Kern dagor successors, which have no focus shift issues and are
more contrasy than any plasmat I've ever owned, or even any other lens of any format I've ever used. I've heard people claim
the late Goerz Trigors were made by Kern, but don't see any evidence of that. Has anyone seen "Made in Switzerland" on a
Trigor?

[Jan Pedersen]

Also a happy owner of a few Dagors. 210 coated, 240 GD, 300 GR and a 360 Kern Single Coated and finally the 19 RD Artar which i believe is the sharpest LF lens i own.
The 300 GR is my favorite of the 4 but the 210 is not far behind. I don't care much for Plasmat lenses as i find them to have to much contrast.
I don't find that the 360 Kern have higher contrast than other coated Dagors but i have read the the Multi Coated Kern is very high in contrast.