There are lots of Doppel-Anastigmat lenses, most probbaly from German production, but other famous makers made them too. Which Doppel-Anastigmat you like most, find most interesting and why?
Do you think Dagor takes the prize?
There are lots of Doppel-Anastigmat lenses, most probbaly from German production, but other famous makers made them too. Which Doppel-Anastigmat you like most, find most interesting and why?
Do you think Dagor takes the prize?
The original, the Dagor. Why settle for an imitation ?
My own entirely biased preference based on the experience of just one lensis the US made Goerz Am. Opt, Dagors are excellent, assuming you have a good one.
I'm lucky to own a coated late 1930's 12" (300mm) f6.8 Dagor - factory coated after WWII, the second owner a photography Professor told me it was a useless lens, he'd actually never used it - even once, and it had separation. Once the edge grime was cleaned away it was excellent for it's age & no separation, negatives/prints made with it are superb.
So for me a Dagor.
Ian
What, Ian, no Protars? No dialytes of any type? No double Gauss types? No plasmat types? Re these last two, I have in hand a convertible 95/2.8 Saphir (double Gauss) and a couple of convertible plasmat types. The first plasmat type Symmar isn't the only plasmat sold as convertible.
Piotr, what are you about to try to sell now? I hope none of the really crappy Goerz convertible dialytes.
Dan, I have Dialytes, Protars etc but going from a user point of view I find my Dagor very usable, resulting exhibition prints are on a par with my modern German lenses.Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
From a collector's point of view then if I had more experience perhaps I'd think differently. I leave that expertise to you
Ian
Not any Doppel-Anastigmat now. Rather a few Heliars soon
I want to know what someone likes own Doppel-Anastigmat lens for, why prefers Dagor to Collinear, or Hugo Meyer to Suter and vice versa, etc... and what difference he/she see in image renderings between two or more such lenses... and did Dagor's copies provided with significant value and quality...
Ok, I am going also to buy a few for my needs and would like to see if any "Dagor" copy could compete with the original
The first Symmar, a non convertible Dagor type, is every bit a Dagor . I had a 300mm Symmar and a 30cm Goerz Berlin Dagor; the Symmar was a wee bit sharper between f6.8 and f11, otherwise they were indistinguishable. Traded the Symmar, kept the Dagor.(snip)
Ok, I am going also to buy a few for my needs and would like to see if any "Dagor" copy could compete with the original
Plasmats are nice, and I hope to get a Collinear and a Doppel-Amatar to play with some day.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Ian, I'm very happy with my 210/7.7 Beryl-S. Not quite as sharp at apertures larger than f/16 as my 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR-II, but less flary and generally easier to use. Smaller and lighter than 210/5.6 Plasmats, as is my 210/6.8 Beryl that shoots as well as the f/7.7. Not sure why I use the f/7.7 instead of the f/6.8. I have no Protars, once tried out a 62/18 and found it usable but very hard to use.
Piotr, I'm sure that if Suzanne Levy-Bloch were alive she'd dispute it, but the Beryls (also sold badged Emeraude) she designed for Boyer have prescriptions that are extremely close to ones in Goerz patents. Mine have all been relatively inexpensive, they're still good values. From a user's perspective, their weakness is that many are offered in barrel and not all of them have cells that are direct fits in standard shutters. My Beryl-S, for example.
Further along those lines, I'd expect Berthiot (early with suffix "-Lacour", late with prefix "SOM ") Perigraphe Serie VIbs to be much like Dagors. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be much difference in performance -- but first trials, to be redone because of uncooperative target -- between my 135/6.8 Beryl and my 135/6.8 Perigraphe. f/14 Perigraphe Serie VIa are also Dagor types with a bit more claimed coverage than f/8 and f/9 Dagors. And f/6 or thereabouts Eurygraphes are convertible Dagors. Buy 'em and try 'em.
If you want slow with limited coverage, there are the Dagor type G-Clarons.
EvH, thanks for reminding us of the Doppel-Amatar. When Ole Tjugen chimes in he'll tell us that he's very partial to them.
There are Doppel-Anastigmats that have less than ideal reputations, IIRC they were poorly built from parts left over after the war, but I don't recollect exactly how they were marked.
I am convinced that I can produce monumentally lousy photographs with the finest, most expensive lenses on earth, which leads me to think that it is the photographer, not the lens that "takes the prize"
"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
Well said, John. As a member of the vast community of lousy photographers, I have yet to find a lens which will correct all my faults or any of them, actually.
im making a van dyke print from a dopple at the moment, its a munchen rodenstock, lovely lens
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks