dagor production pre post

[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

[Ken Lee]

Could someone share an explanation of the persistent appeal and popularity of Dagor lenses ?

[sanking]

Could someone share an explanation of the persistent appeal and popularity of Dagor lenses ?

1. You buy into a lot of history with a lens that was designed in 1898.

2. Dagors are small and have very good coverage, more so than most plasmat type lenses.

3. At diffraction limited apertures of f/22 or more, which is how we typically use LF lenses, they give results not far off that of the very best modern lenses.

4. The off focus look of Dagors (bokeh) is very pleasant. There is a rounded look that softens contours and is very pleasing to the eye.

5. Because of the fact that there are only four air to glass surfaces Dagors have excellent contrast. Even uncoated ones transmit up to about 88% of light. Single coated Dagors are as contrasty as multi-coated plasmats, and multi-coated Dagors are the ultimate in terms of contrast.

That said, I have replaced all of my Dagors, with the exception of a Dagor type 210mm G-Claron, and the 550 f/11 Fine Arts Schneider (which is a modern Dagor design) with more modern lenses, primarily because of the greter reliability of modern shutters. I also believe that Dagors are somewhat over-priced in today's market relative to more modern lenses that are as good or better, but less well-known by many buyers.

Sandy King

[IanG]

Sandy's right about the contrast, I have a late 1930's 12" Dagor and it's an outstanding performer. Mine was returned to the Am Opt Goerz factory and coated after WWII.

The previous owner, a Photography professor in the US, never even tried the lens in the 4 or 5 years he owned it and the 10x8 camera it was with.

Ian

[E. von Hoegh]

Could someone share an explanation of the persistent appeal and popularity of Dagor lenses ?

Mr King;

Although Mr Lee has already answered your question, I'll put in my reasons.

I shoot primarily B&W, and I fell in love with the Dagor "look". I purchased a Linhof STIV three lens outfit in the late 80s, and was doing product photography on the side to finance my new LF addiction. I had an old lens, found as part of an old 5x7 junker I'd picked up as a kid at a yard sale.

I wanted to see how it would perform, so I made a board and tried it out. Surprise!! It was an 8 1/4" Dagor type of unknown manufacture - no markings whatever, in a very early Goerz Sector shutter. I noticed the lens had a different "look" than the 150 Symmar, and thought it was due to it being uncoated.

A couple years later, I needed a cheap 300 for my 8x10, and ended up with an early Dagor type Symmar, which gave the same look as the mystery lens.

After a while, I realised (by shooting with a borrowed late coated Dagor) that it wasn't the absence of coating, but the design of the lens that gave the look. So I outfitted the 8x10 with an assortment of uncoated Dagors, plus the Kern MC version. I use a 9 1/2 and the 14 almost exclusively on 8x10, and 6, 8 1/4 and sometimes 9 1/2 on 4x5. They give me images I like better than those made by other lens types.

And Mr Fromm, I am going exclusively by my "on film" results. My Kern MC has less coverage than my late (1925-6) Berlin 30 cm. The Berlin lens gives some movement on 11x14; the Kern lens virtually none.

[Steve Hamley]

Just a side note - which i've posted before - I tried a 240mm f:6.8 Dagor against a 270mm f:9 G-Claron side-by-side on 8x10. At 4x magnification you could not tell any difference in sharpness. There was no noticeable difference in color or contrast. You could not tell the diffference except by the field of view.

So, compared to at least modern f:5.6 plasmats, the Dagors are smaller, lighter, brighter, have as much or more usable coverage. What's not to like?

They are apparently not as good close up, as in 1:1. I've seen an 11x14 enlargement of a color 8x10 taken in a studio with the afore-mentioned 16-1/2" 1911 vintage Dagor at about 1:1, and there is a noticeable softness. The commercial photographer also stated that they were not great as close up lenses. However, there are process Dagors that are, like the Trigor, Argyle, and Kenro that are, and like the G-Claron, perform admirably at infinity when stopped down a bit.

I think a previous post said it best, that in any particular attribute you can find a lens that will do better, but it is difficult to find one that is as well-rounded a package as a Dagor.

Cheers,

Steve