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.... 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

[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