I have choice between these two lenses. What are the differences and pros and cons of each. The coverage seems to be about the same with the nod going to the Angulon. The Angulon is perhaps easier to focus because of the F6.8. I will be using it on my 8x10, 4x5 and for 4x10. Thanks Art Nichols
I might make the choice based on other factors like condition, whether coated or not, shutter, etc. Both were made over a very long time period and can vary widely in desirability.
Arthur,
Just to add more feul to your burning decision, you might want to consider the 159mm F9.5 Wollensak WA Yellow Dot. Slow, but very nice! I think Butch Welch has some examples of work done with the WA Yellow Dot on his website. While I don't have any first hand experience with the Angulon and the Dagors you're considering, between the two I'd lean toward the Dagor since the photos I've seen taken with the Angulon tends to loose it in the corners quite a bit(My opinion and pure speculation that attributed this to the performance of the lens and not other factors). That isn't the case with the $uper Angulon$, however---check out the gallery in the back of Simmons' Useing the View Camera book for images made with the 165 Super Angulon---Super!
"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
The coverage for the angulon is a little better than that for the WA Dagor. I had the 120mm Angulon and thought it was soft. Here are some image circles.
W.A. 90mm Dagor (156mm). Not sure on Angulon.
W.A. 111mm Dagor (168mm). Angulon 120mm (120mm).
W.A. 165mm Dagor (289mm). Angulon 165mm (300mm).
Angulon 210mm (382mm).
Correction: 120mm Angulon (211mm).
I had the 165 Angulon for awhile that i used for 8x10...it was sharp enough and contrasty enough for the landscape stuff i was shooting but it was like others have said a little soft in the corners (not much tho)...hope that helps a little.
I have owned and used a 165mm Angulon and a 6 1/2" WA Dagor, as well as a 120mm Angulon and 4 3/8" WA Dagor. After shooting with both I have settled for the Dagors, I found them sharper, more contrasty, and generally produced, IMO, better looking results. The Angulons I tested (120mm was Linhof marked from the 1950s, the 165mm was from the 1970s) were not as sharp in the corners as the WA Dagors (both from the mid-1950s).
My WA Dagors cover 5x7 and 8x10 respectively at f/32, and at f/45 would provide about 1" of rise or fall. The Angulons were about the same.
The disadvantage of many of the WA Dagors is that they were sold in Ilex shutters, while the Angulons were sold in Compur. Consequently it is an easy matter to transfer the Angulons to new Copal no. 1 shutters, while it is an expensive task with the Dagors.
That said, the current EBay and retail price of the WA Dagors is absurd. I might also consider the Wolly which John mentioned, which seem undervalued.
I tested my 159 Wollensak against my 165 Angulon on 8x10 and, as a result, kept the Wollensak with the 8x10 and moved the Angulon down to the 5x7. It's the corners.
...I ought to add that the 165mm Angulon photos I saw that I felt were noticeably soft is the corners were take with an 8x10! Still, the Wollensak WA Yellow Dot offers, I think, great value & performance(and no, mine's not for sale!)
"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
Cooke may also revive the Series VIIb (VIIc) including the 82mm and 158mm once their triple convertible Series XV is launched...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks