» DAGOR 355mm MC GOLD DOT Schneider 14" W/ Compur #3

[Caracalla]

Good day,

Recently the DAGOR 355mm MC GOLD DOT Schneider 14" W/ Compur #3 lens was sold on eBay for $2600.00 very expensive

Why is this lens so expensive? If anybody would have some images or thoughts and where would be the best place to get another one but for less money if it is possible.

Also, what would be the equivalent of the DAGOR 355mm MC GOLD DOT Schneider 14" W/ Compur #3, any ideas?

Regards
Caracalla

[Gene McCluney]

Dagors were made for what? 60 years or so. The one you mentioned is just one of the latest ones. The quality exhibited by the Dagor style lens can be had much cheaper if you are willing to accept an uncoated example from before WW2. While lower in contrast, if you print your own b/w, this should not be an issue. There are many good examples of 14" Dagors out there for much less money.

[Caracalla]

Gene,

Any store/source that you may suggest or alternatives to DAGOR 355mm MC GOLD DOT Schneider 14" W/ Compur #3 .....? Anyone else that you know using one? Much appreciated, Thanks

Regards
Caracalla

[sanking]

Good day,

Recently the DAGOR 355mm MC GOLD DOT Schneider 14" W/ Compur #3 lens was sold on eBay for $2600.00 very expensive

Why is this lens so expensive? If anybody would have some images or thoughts and where would be the best place to get another one but for less money if it is possible.

Also, what would be the equivalent of the DAGOR 355mm MC GOLD DOT Schneider 14" W/ Compur #3, any ideas?

Regards
Caracalla

The 355 f/9 G-Claron would be the closest thing to the 14" Gold Dot Schneider Dagor. The G-Claron is a plasmat type design, which is a derivative of dagor type, and has better resolution at the wider apertures, but it is not multi-coated. Cost would be about 1/3 of the 14" Gold Dot Dagor.

The 14" Gold Dot Dagor is the last of the Dagors made, and it is multi-coated, making it a very contrasty lens. However, if the goal is image making, as opposed to collecting, it is not a very good buy IMO. It is certainly an excellent lens, but for ultra large format the 355 G-Claron is very superior since it gives much larger coverage. And for smaller formats there are lens that sell for less that will give better performance.

Sandy King

[Caracalla]

Sandy,

I will certainly look at the 355 f/9 G-Claron. Could you please elaborate more on the lenses for smaller formats that sell for less that will give better performance. Much appreciated, Thanks

Regards
Caracalla

[Jim Galli]

Check your pulse for magic bullet attackis. Yes, the GDMC is a lovely lovely lens. A lot of pluses in a very small elegant package. But $2600? I wouldn't accuse anyone else, but I know I have to constantly remind myself, "it's the image stupid". IOW some images made with a $26 lens can trump the ones made with the $2600 lens simply because they are wonderful.

OK, OK. If you twist my arm I'll cave in and sell you my lowly single coated GD14 for a mere $2150.00

[Michael Graves]

I've got a 14" Apo-Artar that set me back a whopping $225.00 plus another $45.00 to Carol Flutot for a CLA. I'd bet a thousand bucks that if me and Jim were to shoot the same subject without knowing the other was doing it, and then if you compared the image shot with his Gold Dot and the one shot with my Red Dot, his would be much, much better than mine.

Not because the lens is better. He's just a good photographer and I'm not. However, if he used both lenses to shoot the same image, I'd love to see how many people could see the difference.

[sanking]

Sandy,

I will certainly look at the 355 f/9 G-Claron. Could you please elaborate more on the lenses for smaller formats that sell for less that will give better performance. Much appreciated, Thanks

Regards
Caracalla

Almost everthing used in the 355-360 range will give better overall performance IMO than a Dagor on small formats (8X10 and smaller) and would be much less expensive. That would inlcude Symmar-S, Rodnestock-Sironar, Fujinon-W, Nikkor-W, etc. That would also include most of the Apo type lenses mounted in shuter: Red Dot Artar, Apo-Nikkor, Apo-Geronar, etc.

Of coure, some love the "Dagor" look, which is quite real. But that look results in large part from lens aberrations that give a nice "bokeh" in the out of focus parts of the image. But for the "Dagor" look older non-coated or single coated Dagors would do just as well, if not better.


Sandy King

[Scott Davis]

I'd look at a 14" Commercial Ektar as a viable alternative. Not only is it a faster optic (f6.3), but it throws a huge image circle (11x14 with movement), costs 1/5 what that Dagor did, and actually has a more pleasing bokeh (the iris in a Copal 3 is a 5-bladed iris, which yields some pretty harsh OOFAs, whereas the Ilex #5 shutter has a 20+ bladed iris, which gives a much more nearly circular aperture, thus smoother transitions from sharp to out-of-focus). The Commercial Ektars are also coated (not multi, but still) so they give excellent contrast without being too punchy.

[Chuck Pere]

I think that price was an aberration. Probably closer to $1200-1400. I got mine years ago to use for 8x10. Then it turned out that I never used the 8x10 that often and when I did it was with wider angle lenses. Now I've been using this lens with 5x7. Does have a different look compared to my other "modern" lenses. Never seems to be hard sharp or harsh. As compared to say my 150 G-Claron. I'm still not sure I like the look. Anyhow I'll trade my one owner complete with box lens for your 5x7 wood Canham with 5x7 and 4x5 back. Gotta strike while the iron is hot. Did I mention the small size 60mm filter, and that Compur shutter is nice even without a T setting.