others lenses to match a dagor

[CP Goerz]

As much as I love Dagors and as many as I've had to play with I never found one that would cover even 8x20 in the 12" focal length. Some folks are happy just to see a blurry and dim image and call it acceptable but thats a stretch in my own wee opinion.

I had about a dozen of the Longer Rectagons a few years ago and one of them went from me to another guy who then sold it to L+R so it may still be the same one. It was called a Goerz Super Rectagon, it looked very impressive but had a look and circle much like the WA Claron. Not that great for ULF and meant only for process photography close up work, the term wide field means something slightly different in that group.

You won't find any cheap alternatives to a Dagor or any lens in the 12" focal length I'm afraid as some have already pointed out. The best way to fake 'wide' is to allow some vignette and falloff to happen. I had a 10" lens that was my holy grail of WA for my 8x20 but when I made my first contact print it didn't look wide at all, no wider really than my standard 14" at the time.

Don't discount the series IV Protar/Anastigmat, they were meant to have less coverage but I found in practical use that the outer edge of their circle was far more acceptable than the series V. The 105/100/95 degree coverage(depending on what catalogue you happen to be reading from) of the IV ended at the 10 1/2" focal length where it was progressively narrowed down to 50 degrees or so for the longer lenses. The 10 1/2" lens only just does 8x20 stopped down so unless you are prepared to do some hyperfocal hi jinx it may not be that way to go. Possibly keep an eye open for a Ext WA Anastigmat Gundlach and various Swiss and Italian copies of the Series IV protar.



CP Goerz

[Jim Galli]

I had a big 310mm f9 Konica Hexanon GRII on the 8X20 on Labor Day. It covers easily and is sharp to the corners. Expensive though. Cost me $60 bucks. Don't confuse with the 300mm f9. I think they are 2 different animals. The 310 is a BIG lens.

[Daniele Tanto]

I have some Swiss and Italian copies of the Series IV protar and other series.
Suter of Basel made under license Zeiss Anastigmat series.
My Anastigmat serie IV f12 185 millimeters has a good coverage, but not incredible. Excellent on 8x10 format, the circle of illumination arrive until 10x12, but not really usefull to take pictures.
Suter Anastigmat serie I 270 f8 millimeters cover well 11x14 and 7x17 without too much mouvements.
Suter Anastigmat serie I 245 f8 millimeters cover easily 8x10 and 10x12 without too much mouvements.
These Suter Anastigmat were of the same series, but the 270 mm. was older and smaller than its younger brother, the reflections are the same. Take note that on a Suter catalogue I had, printed by the English agent "A.E. Staley & Co." they were claimed for 80 degrees of coverage but in the table the 245 was indicated for 8x10 inches maximum and 270 for less than 10x12 inches well stopped down. In my experience they cover.
On the same catalogue a serie IV f18 was offered and the one I hold, 185 mm. is suggested for 8x10 maximum with a cirlce of 16 inches. The bigger in the list a 265 mm. is stated for a 11x14 coverage and a circle of 27 inches. This could be the right one for the 12x20.
Koristka of Milan made in Italy under license Zeiss Anastigmat series, here there are my experiences with lenses of this maker.
The Protar serie IIIa f9 196 millimeters has a good coverage for 8x10 format, the circle of illumination, around 15 inches, arrive until 10x12 but not good to take photos.
I had a small Protar serie IV f12 150 and it had a very huge circle of coverage around 13/14 inches and for both lenses as for the Suter the images are superb.
I have also the "Monster" to cover all the ULF: Koristka Anastigmat f9 820 millimeters with waterhouse n. 306! In a catalogue it was claimed to cover 16x20 inches wide open with a circle of 64 inches!!! If someone have strong arms for some kilos of glass and brass.....the "Monster" is sweet.