What are the overall opinion of the Goerz Dagor/Artar lenses, and is there a complete reference to the types of Dagor/Artar lenses made? Were they in shutters, or barrel? How do they compare to more modern lenses?
What are the overall opinion of the Goerz Dagor/Artar lenses, and is there a complete reference to the types of Dagor/Artar lenses made? Were they in shutters, or barrel? How do they compare to more modern lenses?
Love my 19" APO Artar in #4 Acme shutter. Much more economical than any modern 19". At F11 it's slower and a tad bit smaller too (excluding the fuji 450c), but that is the trade off. Plenty of sharpness.
They made both Dagors and Artars coated and uncoated, barrel and shutter. Later ones are as good as anything else of the same vintage or better, and if the glass is clean and free of haze, can rival many if not most modern lenses.
Collectability of the "Gold" and "Gold-Dot" Dagors aside, they are primarily useful to 8x10 and larger formats where focal lengths from say 9-1/2" to 19" offer a lot of coverage that isn't available except in some very large and expensive modern lenses. Because their maximum apertures are f:6.8 -11, Dagors are often smaller and lighter than modern alternatives which make them attractive to landscape photographers who carry their gear around a lot.
Artars are also useful in the focal lengths longer than 24" where there's only one modern lens made that I know of, the 1100mm Schneider Fine Art, which is an Artar design. Again, the smaller maximum aperture made them attractive to hiking photographers, and I use a custom-mounted 10-3/4" Artar in my 4x5 kit and am very, very happy with it.
Older Dagors seem to vary in quality a bit more, some have a nice lower contrast look, and are not quite as sharp as the Artar or modern lenses, while others are just fine. Older Dagors also have larger optics in a given focal length and cover more than later ones. I have a 14" Double Anastigmat (before they were called Dagor) that does not vignette the iris on 12x20 from f:16. People shooting ULF and contact printing like these older lenses very much.
There is no complete reference that I know of, but the LF Homepage is a good start:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...c-experts.html
The Lens Collector's Vade Mecum might also be useful, available for download off eBay.
Cheers,
Steve
Last edited by Steve Hamley; 2-Jan-2009 at 08:20. Reason: spelling
I believe that Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee only use Dagors and Artars. They could have any lenses they wanted, so it's a pretty good indication of the quality of image those old glasses can produce.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Overall opinion? There's no consensus with respect to Dagors. Some swear by, others at, them. Some claim very sharp, others very soft. Some claim huge coverage, others not much. Artars are universally respected. But note that Artars have much less coverage than the least reported for Dagors.Originally Posted by Murph
In shutters or in barrel? Yes.
Comparison to modern lenses? What's modern? Dagor types were made until at least 1982, Artar types (dialyte type process lenses) even more recently.
Your questions are old and have been beaten to death and then some. Use the forum's search function.
Bill, as I asked the OP, what's modern?
I recall reading somewhere recently that their (MS and PC) vehicle was broken into in Chicago and the thief got away with quite a stash of old Dagors and Artars. Got to be heart breaking to lose the old friends that have been the tools of your trade for so long!
For contact printing the old Dagors and Artars are fully competitive with the best contemporary glass. For enlargement with formats below 8X10 there are better options IMO.
Sandy King
A coated Dagor can be a surprisingly good lens, certainly on 10x8 and larger they are excellent even for big enlargements (I don't contact print).
I'd agree with Sandy though that on smaller formats there may well be better options, but it's really very dependent on the quality of a particular Dagor, they were made for such a long period of time, and also by 4 manufacturers, Goerz Berlin, Goerz AM Opt, Carl Zeiss Jena and Schneider (Kern).
Ian
I agree. I usually use my Dagors (168mm, 8-1/4", 12", 16-1/2") and Artar (19") for negs to be contact printed--8x10" and larger mostly, occasionally 5x7".
If I need really huge coverage on 4x5", I sometimes use the 168mm/f:6.8 ser. iii Dagor that will cover 8x10", but other than that, I use more modern plasmat and planar types for the smaller formats in general.
Small negs made with the 19" Apo Artar will hold up to enlargement, but it's a big lens to use on a small camera. My 12" Dagor and 19" Artar are both in barrel and have the same rear flange size, so I can use them with one adapter ring front mounted on an Ilex 5 shutter.
Murph,
Some of my all time favorite lens is a 19" Artar on the 8x10 and a 14" Artar on
the 5x7. As Dan Fromm says there is a lot of detailed info here in the archives. As far as comparing them with modern lenses, IMHO I'd have to say that the Artars are so good that any significant difference between like photographs taken with a RD Artar as opposed to a spankin' new MC Schneider could likely be attributed more to the photographer than the lens.
Here are some of my opinions on Artars:
Longer focal lengths cover better, but normal focal lengths (for whatever your format) often cover quite nicely with adequate wiggle room for subtle movements.
Focusing at f/9 is surprisingly bright in daylight and even moderately bright artificial light.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I am sorry to have inconvenienced you, I will not post such questions again since it offends the forum.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks