C.P. Goerz Berlin Serial numbers? (Dogmar)

[cyberjunkie]

Acura is the 'better BMW', Dogmar is the 'better Heliar'.

Sorry but I do have quite a few of each.

I am not a car expert, and i don't like spending too much money on them (never purchased a new one). If i were given a free choice, by some magic trick (and no money involved) i'd go german instead of japanese.. Though i must admit that one of two most impressive cars i've owned was japanese (an old Subaru turbo). The other one was the first car i purchased by myself, a lovely Citroen ID 2000 (those cars, the ID and the latter DS, were called "the shark" by italian youngsters... we felt they were almost mythical vehicles).

Back to the lenses:
a few of your posts brought the Dogmar to my attention. You expressed your satisfaction about the Dogmar, as a substitution for true soft focus objectives, using the single cells alone. If i remember, you reported medium softness for the shorter cell, and an even stronger effect with the longer focal.
I got my 300mm (early example, in barrel) not long ago, and i am going to make a couple DIY lensboard to try it as soon as possible on 5x7" and 8x10".
I am very curious to see the results with the two cells alone (wide open and closed one or two stops).

With the two cells, at 300mm, i will also see how it compares with Heliars. I have no 300mm Heliar, but i have two other focals, both uncoated: a 360mm even older than the Dogmar, and a pre-WWII 210mm on Compound. All of them are f/4.5, so it would be a fair fight


have fun

CJ

[Ole Tjugen]

The Dogmar is a dialyte, isn't it? So rather like the Rodenstock Eurynar, which is a very sharp lens. The best way to make a soft focus lens out of one of these it to give it a light tap with a hammer - one of my Eurynars has a cracked front element, and it is very pleasingly soft.

[cyberjunkie]

The best way to make a soft focus lens out of one of these it to give it a light tap with a hammer - one of my Eurynars has a cracked front element, and it is very pleasingly soft.

My wooden and rubber hammers got a lot of use/abuse in the last days.
I didn't knock on the glasses, though. Just fighting with very oxidized brass barrels!

I just reported what has been posted, on this forum, by Paul Fitzgerald.
He owns a few Dogmars (see his post on this same thread), and confirms that the two cells, IF used alone, show a marked softness.
All that in perfect accordance with what's written in the Vademecum, and with the personal experience of all those who tried to use dialyte anastigmats (4E/4G) as single cells, behind the diaphragm. it is common knowledge that the single cells are corrected for astigmatism, but aren't well corrected for zonal spherical aberration (and perhaps even show a little chromatic aberration).
That's exactly what you need to have a soft focus lens...
The effect could be pleasant or not-so-pleasant, strong or delicate... but this is a totally different thing, and largely dependent on our own taste.

As far as my personal taste is concerned, i don't have an answer for the moment
I still have to fit my old 300mm Dogmar on a lensboard, cause i don't have a suitable flange. I'll test it on my last toy, a Pettazzi studio camera (c. 1910), which came with a large diaphragm lens holder. It won't be very soon, though. The back is made for 10x15cm glass plates, so i am trying to adapt a 5x7" sliding back to the camera, and in the meantime i am working at all the small repair jobs that must be done.

Maybe i could find a way to test the lens before i'm done with that project. I have to find a lost Jobo tank and a box of 6.5x9cm FP4... everything should be in my girlfriend's basement
If i do, i'll post a follow-up with my own findings (i still have to test three different soft focus lenses - marketed as such, i mean - then i'll have a chance to compare the single Dogmar cells to the "true things").


have fun

CJ