9-1/2" f6.8 Goerz Dagor Am. Opt. Co. for 8x10?

[jmcd]

I am just delving into 8x10, and looking for a good moderate wide angle. Does anyone have information or experience with the 9-1/2" f6.8 Dagor, in regards to image quality and coverage? Or perhaps a more suitable recommendation? Thank you.

[neil poulsen]

From this site, the lenses that stand out are the Fujinon 250mm f6.7 (not f6.3), the 240mm g-claron, the 250mm Wide Field Ektar (2nd widest), the 210 Angulon f6.8, the 210mm Super Angulon (huge and expensive), and the 210 Super Angulon XL (not so huge, but much more expensive).

The 9.5 inch dagor had a published image circle of about 340, which is just large enough to cover, but not so large as to give significant movement.

[neil poulsen]

I would add that the following image circles:

210 Angulon f6.8: 382. 210 Super Angulon: 500. 210 Super Angulon XL: 500. Wide-field ektar: 420. Fujinon f6.7 250mm: 289 (or 298?). The image circle for the 240mm G-Claron is significantly wider than published.

[Henry Suryo]

Hi John, Neil's reply on the image circle is useful information, and I would like to add some other thoughts to consider. I settled for a 10" WF Ektar because of the image circle and relative affordability. I shoot BW only and a deep yellow filter would deliver an acceptable contrast as this lens is single coated only as are most Dagors, some are uncoated I think. Are you planning on shooting landscape where usually weight and compactness is more important or architecture where a larger image circle is necessary for the rise? Do you shoot a field camera or a monorail? I found that on my Deardorff I can get enough vertical correction from the Ektar to shoot fairly tall buildings and industrial structures. Even when the camera is tilted upward and the standards leveled, I normally get bellows vignetting before runnning out of the image circle of the Ektar although close to it. The bellows get so constricted and it's hard to maneuver to movements unless your camera has provision for a bag bellows. Anything shorter would be harder and anything wider like the 210 Super Angulon or XL would be overkill if your camera has the same restriction as mine granted you're utilizing the better part of the circle. If you don't need that much coverage, the Dagor is an excellent performer too. They do better at smaller apertures and some are known to have focus shift. The Gold Dot/Gold Rim versions are better but command a higher price. If you want to go modern, I would go for the Fuji 250/6.7. The modern lenses tend to be slightly sharper and of higher acutance from the multicoating except the G Clarons which are single coated, nonetheless excellent process lenses with big coverage and bigger as you stop down. Just my two cents, hope it helps. Best regards, Henry

[David Vickery]

Hello, I use my 210/5.6 Caltar-s II (symmar-s), I originally bought it for the 4x5 of course, but found that it covers 8x10 and is great for landscape work. If I were doing architecture or studio work then it would not have enough coverage, but it works great in the canyons and mountains of west Texas.

[Hugo J. Zhang]

Hi John!

I own and use 9-1/2 f6.8 Dagor for my 8x10 Deardorff. Wonderful lens. I have the golden dot version. Small, sharp, contrasty with a special glow. Enough coverage for 8x10. I usually shoot at f45.

Hugo

[jmcd]

Thanks all, for your helpful replies.

[Steve Sherman]

John, I just purchased a 7" X 17" camera which came with a 91/2" Dagor 6.8 lens. I shot some film and found that the lens just barely covered the 17" diagonal. Dagors are known for huge image circles and also can vary greatly from published image coverage. THis lens should cover 8 X 10 with no problem. Steve Sherman

[geoffrey james]

I'm probably biased because Dagors are all I use on my 8x10. The 9 1/2 is a great walking around lens -- I have just done a book on Paris which was pretty much all done with that lens -- and another on the Tijuana border (called Running Fence), again with many 9 1/2 inch images. Any lens with a serial number beginning 77 or higher is fine -- the gold rim/gold dot was sort of a marketing gimmick. Resolving power at f22 is about as good as it gets -- recently I have been making 40 x 50 color prints, and they are beautiful. The field of focus on Dagors isn't flat - but at 22 there us no real problem. I like them for their smoothness - I actually don't like too much conrast. The only person who uses exactly the same gear is Hiroshi Sugimoto, whose stuff is very beautiful. They are getting a bit pricey -- I paid $275 for my 9 1/2, which would be hard to do nowadays.