Did Goerz Make a Double Anastigmat in f4.6

[Colin D]

Curious to know if Goerz ever made a Double Anastigmat in f4.6 or f4.8. I've seen a lens that is branded by a third part as Double Anastigmat f4.6, German made in early 1900's, is it likely?

[Dan Fromm]

F4.6, no. F4.8, yes; some Celors, some Dogmars. Dialyte types, not dagor types. But many makers made double anastigmats.

[mdarnton]

How about this: http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_L56.html

In the description of the very first lens it implies that Goerz had their own system of stops, and that Goerz 4.6 = f/6.8, so it seems like the lens you're referencing is a G 4.6, not an f/4.6.

[Colin D]

Ok, maybe that is what it is, it also has an f stop at f192.

[Dan Fromm]

Colin, are you trying to convince yourself that a lens not engraved Goerz was made by Goerz?

[Colin D]

Curious Dan, just curious. I know that Certo used third party lenses on their MF cameras, Schneider, Zeiss & Goerz to name a few. I already have a C.P. Goerz 135mm and was curious about a lens on fleabay that reads Double Anastigmat 135mm branded Certo, if was likely to be Goerz I would be interested in buying it to compare, and it has a shutter. Here it is, I didn't buy it.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/CERTO-DOPPEL-EUSTIGMAT-6-8-135MM-LARGE-FORMAT-WORKING-LENS-IN-A-VINTAGE-SHUTTER-/331130827195?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&nma=true&si=9YSoGYMxnIrLo%252BBlAlwfowy6oqs%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks for posting the link. Eustigmat is, according to the VM, a Rodenstock trade name, an f/7.2 dialyte type.

The lens you asked about is an f/6.3er, so engraved. This doesn't match the shutter, gives the impression that the cells may have been reshuttered. It also doesn't match Rodenstock's Eustigmat.

As I said, many many many manufacturers made double anastigmats. Double anastigmat is not a Goerz trade name and carries little information about design type and none about maker.

[Colin D]

Thanks Dan, that is interesting and informative. There were enough signs to put doubt on it being a Goerz which kept me from buying it, just as well be the sounds of it.

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks Dan, that is interesting and informative. There were enough signs to put doubt on it being a Goerz which kept me from buying it, just as well be the sounds of it.

Oh, dear, another innocent (?) seduced by the appeal of name brands. I don't want to suggest that a Eustigmat is a great treasure but the one you asked about wasn't that expensive. If you needed a slowish 135 it might have pleased you. If, though, you have too many 135s already or wanted a for-sure dagor type I can understand your not buying the Eustigmat simply to find out what it is and can do.

When I was starting out I didn't think I could afford name brand LF lenses, bought some off brand lenses that were surprisingly good and that got me to try other lenses from their makers. That's how I got into Boyer lenses. Understand, not all of the lenses that Boyer made are that good, but their better ones are good and were amazing values when I bought them. If you can afford to indulge curiosity or have faith that you can resell lenses you don't like without losing much, then you should indulge yourself.

[Colin D]

I certainly don't have the time or money or inclination to buy shoot and sell continuously with a long shot hope of miraculously finding something special or something I might like or suits my needs. One well credentialed member from here kindly provided me with a extensive history of the variants and explanation on Dagor qualities a few months ago via a PM for which I am extremely grateful and which gave me the impetuous to look for them. That Certo lens might have been cheap, but it wasn't what I was after, simple as that.

BTW I made an error by stating I have a 135mm Dagor, it is actually 8.25", very nice too.

[jesse]

This is the aperture comparison table for antique lenses

111112