PDA

View Full Version : There might be Dagors---the Dagor thread



John Kasaian
7-Apr-2017, 16:11
A new LF photographer is confronted with a plethora of different lenses. One of the most legendary is the Dagor which also commands a pretty high price on the used market.

This presents a challenge for first time lens buyers, to literally, dearly "buy" into the Dagor's reputation (like so many successful photographers in the past,) or pursue something else like (so many other successful photographers in the past.)

I thought this may be a valuable thread for new large format photographers putting together a first kit, just like last years thread on (IIRC) Wide Field Ektars.

Post famous photographer's iconic images, or your own, which prove or disprove the Dagor's reputation. Distinguish, if possible, any funkadelic attributes (surplus components assembled in a cave by myopic forest druids) that separate the garden variety Goerz from other makers.

Here is one of Ansel Adam's---
163589
Ansel Adams: Pine Cones and Eucalyptus Leaves
4x5 Corona view camera, Goerz Dagor 12-in. lens
I love this image as I can imagine the acrid smell of decaying Eucalyptus and feel the tactile pop of the pine cone as if it were pushing through the printing paper.
The question is, how much of this can I attribute to the 12" Dagor? If Ansel had used a 12" Schneider or Ektar or Wollensak, would it exhibit the same qualities?
How much Adams? How much Dagor?

Luis-F-S
7-Apr-2017, 16:56
They're awful. Get something else! I shot 14 sheets of 810 today 1 with a 6 1/2" WA Dagor, one with a 19" Artar the rest with the 12" Dagor, but they're just awful! All hype!

John Kasaian
7-Apr-2017, 17:11
They're awful. Get something else! I shot 14 sheets of 810 today 1 with a 6 1/2" WA Dagor, one with a 19" Artar the rest with the 12" Dagor, but they're just awful! All hype!

Details, please.

Luis-F-S
7-Apr-2017, 17:16
It's a sarcastic post, I only have 11 Dagors!!!

Leigh
7-Apr-2017, 17:18
It's a sarcastic post, I only have 11 Dagors!!!
It did not come across as sarcastic.

Severely negative comments such as that should be flagged with a smiley face or similar.

- Leigh

Mark Sampson
7-Apr-2017, 17:49
Well, the can of worms is open again. As far back as the early 1990s 'View Camera' magazine ran a feature about Dagors and the controversy surrounding their reputation, but I don't remember their conclusions.
And I recall asking after them at one of the (long gone) big camera stores in NYC at around the same time and being told "They're cult lenses, all of ours are going to Japan".
Somewhere on this forum (I'm not going to look it up) is a long and sometimes hilarious thread about their relative qualities.
Of course the design was in production for 90 years or so, by many makers, so anyone's experience may be as valid as anyone else's.
I have very little experience with Dagors, but what little I had was positive, and a long time ago. (Living in Rochester most of my life, and working for Kodak for so long, gave me more experience with Kodak optics.)
I would like to use an 8-1/2" Dagor for a year or two, to answer John's questions for myself, but I feel the same way about the Porsche 356, so I may never know. But I'll follow the discussion with interest!

Michael Jones
7-Apr-2017, 18:11
I agree with Luis; they are so bad I'm having one one my longer ones remounted by Adam at SK Grimes in modern shutter so I can complain more. AA used them, EW didn't. How do you dissect that?

Come on; this is like asking about how you feel about Ron Wisner or the "new" Deardorff; terribly personal and abolutely subjective. A newbie's search of the Forum or review of the literature would be at least as valuable IMHO.

Mike


It did not come across as sarcastic.

Severely negative comments such as that should be flagged with a smiley face or similar.

- Leigh

Bernice Loui
7-Apr-2017, 18:39
Some time ago the local LF group had a get together to share B&W prints. One of the members put up a print, to my reply (did not take long to figure this out), image made using a Dagor, noted as correct by the member who made the print.

For those who have been at this for a while, Images made by a Dagor does have a distinct visual signature. There is a reason why the Dagor design has surveyed for so long in the world of sheet film. Image results from a Dagor is not for everyone, like most tools of artistic expression, they are just another means to an end.

And yes, there are several Dagors in the lens collection and they remain among my all time fave LF lenses for a host of reasons that is not based on "sharpness" alone.


The beginnings of another fight over nothing thread or will this thread be constructive, sharing and educational?

Bernice

John Kasaian
7-Apr-2017, 20:18
I didn't mean to pick a fight, but only to see various examples and hear impressions that may offer something to a new shooter who is trying to decide which lens to buy.
I mean, if you like Pine Cones and Eucalyptus Leaves, it would be understandable that a Dagor would be something to covet.
One of the most formative books I read while contemplating getting an 8x10 was Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs by Ansel Adams which recorded which lens was used for each photograph (and sold me on the 10" WF Ektar, not the Dagor btw. My interest in Dagors came later)

Me? I can make a horrible photo with any lens regardless of it's reputation. :o

Bernice Loui
7-Apr-2017, 20:41
Precisely!

It appears too often discussion about lenses ends up being a heated debate-fight, which is never should be. Dagors DO have a rather special image quality. Rather fond of them in many ways.

IMO, this could be a really, really great and interesting discussion.


:)
Bernice



I didn't mean to pick a fight, but only to see various examples and hear impressions that may offer something to a new shooter who is trying to decide which lens to buy.
I mean, if you like Pine Cones and Eucalyptus Leaves, it would be understandable that a Dagor would be something to covet.
One of the most formative books I read while contemplating getting an 8x10 was Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs by Ansel Adams which recorded which lens was used for each photograph (and sold me on the 10" WF Ektar, not the Dagor btw. My interest in Dagors came later)

Me? I can make a horrible photo with any lens regardless of it's reputation. :o

Leigh
7-Apr-2017, 20:43
Me? I can make a horrible photo with any lens regardless of it's reputation. :o
Don't feel privileged.

Most of us can claim that same expertise. :p

- Leigh

Luis-F-S
8-Apr-2017, 05:39
It did not come across as sarcastic.

Severely negative comments such as that should be flagged with a smiley face or similar.

- Leigh
I didn't feel it was "Severely negative"' that is just your opinion. I tried and the smiley face didn't come through! Also I did say I just took 14 frames of 8x10 using nothing but Dagors, so I don't feel it takes much to figure out I was being sarcastic. Also, if you do a seach on Dagors, we've sort of discussed this topic many many times before!

I feel you can take a great photo with a Dagor, but so can you with almost any "modern" lens. Dagors may have had a significant advantage before modern coatings, since they only had 4 glass/air surfaces. With modern coatings, either single or multicoated, that advantage diminishes. I like being able to use a lens that was designed to be used stopped down to f/45. Covers a lot of focusing sins with the DOF. Since Dagors were manufactured into the 1980's, I bought a new one in 1988, I consider them "modern" although the original design is quite old!

goamules
8-Apr-2017, 05:51
I like Dagors for their contrast, due to few air to glass interfaces.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8192/8399467592_a0ef06068e_b.jpg

goamules
8-Apr-2017, 06:16
But they are great for color rendition too. Golden Dagor on 4x5 Velvia

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3897/14788801788_7a7403f17a_b.jpg

John Kasaian
8-Apr-2017, 07:18
I edited the original post to be less argumentative, in hopes of steering this away from being an unproductive brawl.
Not that I have anything against brawls :o

plaubel
8-Apr-2017, 07:50
To me most of time it's not of interest who has used my lenses in older days.
I don't care today's hypes nor I want to spend the money for this very "special" lenses.
I always want to see if I agree with my own lenses.

This said, I have to learn more about my 420mm Dagor for usage on my 12x16" camera, and I can't judge it at this time.

Maybe I did something wrong, but on my last pic I cannot see anything special except some missing sharpness at f/64.
Here's a purely contact print 12x16" :

163616

Next time I will try some landscapes with the Dagor.
Ritchie

Leigh
8-Apr-2017, 07:58
I didn't feel it was "Severely negative"' that is just your opinion.
Absolutely true.

I'm just a reader of this thread. Nothing more.
But if one reader thought it was severely negative, perhaps other readers did also.

- Leigh

Alan Gales
8-Apr-2017, 08:50
Me? I can make a horrible photo with any lens regardless of it's reputation. :o

John, if you are not making the occasional bad photo, it's because you are stagnant and aren't trying anything new. At least that's what I tell myself! ;)


I've never shot a Dagor. I've watched 14" Dagors on Ebay but the price keeps me away. At $1,000 something must be good about them!

Ken Lee
8-Apr-2017, 11:33
One easy way to determine the suitability of a lens is to make the exact same photograph with several lenses and compare the results.

In the absence of such a comparison, it's hard to... compare :rolleyes:

A few years back I did this blur rendition test (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/lenses/#bokehTest) of some Large Format lenses: it certainly helped me understand.

plaubel
8-Apr-2017, 11:57
One easy way to determine the suitability of a lens is to make the exact same photograph with several lenses and compare the results.



For comparisms I first took the 420mm Dagor @f/64,


then I mounted an old brass called Helvetia Extra Rapid, with a FL of around 500mm and @ f/8:

163628

plaubel
8-Apr-2017, 12:08
Sorry. I can't edit my last post - last flower is done on 5x7" with my 200mm Imagon.

Ken Lee
8-Apr-2017, 13:05
To determine if the lens design makes a difference, it's helpful to shoot an identical unchanging scene with lenses of the same focal length at the same aperture. We need to expose, develop, print and present them the same. We want there to be only 1 variable.

John Kasaian
8-Apr-2017, 14:39
To determine if the lens design makes a difference, it's helpful to shoot an identical unchanging scene with lenses of the same focal length at the same aperture. We need to expose, develop, print and present them the same. We want there to be only 1 variable.
Ideally, but that isn't how most of us purchased our first (or first couple of) lenses.
I'll propose that the process more realistically goes something like:

A) It came with my camera, so it must be OK.
B) I want a new lens and I can afford it, so there!
C) I could afford an old lens if I could find one cheap enough.
D) Ansel Weston Arbus shot Moonrise Over Twin Peaks, Big Sur with one of those and I like the "look"
E) My photo instructor/mentor told me get one of these, which he happens to sell out of the trunk of his car.
F) Everyone seems to be buying Dagors, so I want one too!
G) Whoa-ho! Like big and brassy make cool photos, dude, like psychedelic and stuff.

As an experienced photographer, what advice can you offer?

Alan Gales
8-Apr-2017, 14:50
I always recommend for a newbie to start with a modern lens in a modern Copal shutter. Like Ken says about reducing variables, you know the lens is going to be sharp and contrasty like most 35mm, medium format or digital lenses. Hopefully, the modern Copal shutter will be trouble free and accurate.

After shooting for a while if the newbie sticks with it they can buy that expensive Dagor or Heliar or whatever. They can always sell their first lens if they want and get most of their money back.

Luis-F-S
8-Apr-2017, 16:29
The advice is to get one lens and use it for a year to figure out what the heck you're doing before buying anything else!

goamules
8-Apr-2017, 16:30
Personally, they're not that expensive if you don't demand a mint condition Golden one in a perfectly calibrated shutter. You don't need all that with LF. A quick check on ebay reveals 5-6 Dagors recently sold in 9" and 12" size for under $350. If you can't spend that on the all important glass, you shouldn't be shooting LF.

Leigh
8-Apr-2017, 16:31
Different lenses can produce different photos of the same subject.
But so can a myriad of other factors.

If one has the resources to experiment, one will settle on the "look" that they like.
Lacking that, one will learn to like the "look" that they get.

- Leigh

John Kasaian
8-Apr-2017, 17:10
The advice is to get one lens and use it for a year to figure out what the heck you're doing before buying anything else!

My thoughts as well. With Dagors at a reasonable price (goamules' in reply #26) pits the Dagor against the reliability of modern glass in a Copal shutter (Alan Gales' in reply #24.)
All good replies.
4x5 lenses are usually much less costly than 8x10 lenses and right now good modern 4x5 glass from the big three are ridiculously inexpensive going by Keh's price list, so for 4x5's anyway, a more modern lens makes a lot of sense. With 8x10 though, a $350 lens more attractive from the budgetary stand point even with the likely need of a CLA added added to the bill---and for the much revered Dagor to boot!
Of course you'd still have to deal with an old Acme, Universal, Compur, or Wolly shutter but are they so bad, really? My first LF shutter was a dial set Compur followed by a couple of Universals---I didn't suffer any trauma because of it (admittedly there are a few things to figure out with using old shutters) but nothing I considered a deal breaker.

Daniel Unkefer
8-Apr-2017, 17:19
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/762/21072049485_5657d09e2f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/y74Lb2)makiflex #6 (https://flic.kr/p/y74Lb2) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I like the Schneider Angulons (have them from 65mm to 210mm in shutter and barrel). This one is a 120mm in barrel

Bernice Loui
8-Apr-2017, 18:42
8-1/2" Dagor @f16, 5x7 HP-5


Bernice


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/F56ITCxoODFbNaXSrYc4-w2jp0JGLTVg4M7VC7umpbEcqDkybYAZdlyp-nAtTFjE3C2oJmfKgJgRboT9LIwwCy3ofmrCW9pb5oPYTJPxT06X-EEEmuIO-ZMigaSrGyv0-26IqPICoTFJIaL8qQnXL_HxvThfSVCJ-EjTyhhGY82MoavqpJOz5JjNg1G6iZiLMryr0IUAjVx60WRf-FQoPWfuwoW75DFZUhb5V5-YPpf7LY4Tm0tT6UVRp3FCAO7fj3GraZ0DT6KP2CeTYDmRebVg-4aODcm3SpzXnKwSMA5cHvjCq87aHoYXNOqDbyQVsPIjISx6YhPOcrAlqhGHjKVMG0ts_fNeyGs9t20iRxo7jOE_jamh_HNWG_Yy0YnBg_-ZHcII-XqHnSLoVDqOusfJfIYRdChPX7nB3ARQlEMXtuswLGJK6wuR1h-navXI987YDlX1BFieHD0ZFoGk2vJt1dfY2loK1mIgy_2_AOae6pDBq4rEfTfpedvvvnrqedNUw5ShW9u5MVGm3n4SCb_1jk1uwFrKNHLskGQoIxnBJNbnB-IFSPjJknzQi3wFIdPH49qvfuAtGPRCj3mUVFzeklv22sI9xaj57GxomkFekUoZXGHS=w1600-h1151-no

Bernice Loui
8-Apr-2017, 18:52
Given up on "modern glass" decades ago except for wide angle lenses. Their rendition and image quality does not appeal to me. This is an opinion.

As mentioned numerous times, one of the solutions to using vintage glass is to use a Sinar shutter and be done with it.

Modern glass including many of the optics for digital cameras have IMO overly high contrast with overly appearance of "sharpness". These are the two check boxes most commonly expected from image makers, focusing on these two aspects of lens personality can often discount the many, many other factors baked into the personality of any given lens.

4x5 optics is not too difficult, low cost and still plentiful, once the step is made to 8x10, everything grows a lot including cost, weight and more. Add to this choice of optics is significantly reduced. Vintage optics like Dagor can offer compact physical size, low weight, sizable image circle with a particular personality.


Bernice


My thoughts as well. With Dagors at a reasonable price (goamules' in reply #26) pits the Dagor against the reliability of modern glass in a Copal shutter (Alan Gales' in reply #24.)
All good replies.
4x5 lenses are usually much less costly than 8x10 lenses and right now good modern 4x5 glass from the big three are ridiculously inexpensive going by Keh's price list, so for 4x5's anyway, a more modern lens makes a lot of sense. With 8x10 though, a $350 lens more attractive from the budgetary stand point even with the likely need of a CLA added added to the bill---and for the much revered Dagor to boot!
Of course you'd still have to deal with an old Acme, Universal, Compur, or Wolly shutter but are they so bad, really? My first LF shutter was a dial set Compur followed by a couple of Universals---I didn't suffer any trauma because of it (admittedly there are a few things to figure out with using old shutters) but nothing I considered a deal breaker.

John Kasaian
8-Apr-2017, 19:42
Given up on "modern glass" decades ago except for wide angle lenses. Their rendition and image quality does not appeal to me. This is an opinion.

As mentioned numerous times, one of the solutions to using vintage glass is to use a Sinar shutter and be done with it.

Modern glass including many of the optics for digital cameras have IMO overly high contrast with overly appearance of "sharpness". These are the two check boxes most commonly expected from image makers, focusing on these two aspects of lens personality can often discount the many, many other factors baked into the personality of any given lens.

4x5 optics is not too difficult, low cost and still plentiful, once the step is made to 8x10, everything grows a lot including cost, weight and more. Add to this choice of optics is significantly reduced. Vintage optics like Dagor can offer compact physical size, low weight, sizable image circle with a particular personality.


Bernice

So a new photographer who wants lower contrast images (this from viewing works of others shooting with Dagors) would rightly want to start with a Dagor or similar lens.
New LF photographers can't always equate which lens give which "look" unless the photos they are looking at has some citation. I think then, that the examples posted here will benefit new LF photographers trying to find their way among all the different lenses offered in the marketplace.

interneg
9-Apr-2017, 03:38
Fairly vast coverage stopped down and (relative) small size are the two biggest arguments for a dagor today. Their high inherent contrast mattered rather more before modern coating technologies & they never had to resolve to extremely high levels if the intended output was a contact print from a negative shot at f45.

That Schneider shifted the Symmar design from a dagor-type to a plasmat-type in the post-WWII era should say a lot about the good and bad points of dagor designs vis-a-vis contrast, sharpness, & the benefits of lens coating.

Dan Fromm
9-Apr-2017, 07:42
Hmm. I have a small pile of Boyer Beryls, more-or-less Dagors. Also some f/14 Berthiot Perigraphes, extreme w/a Dagor types, and one echt Dagor, a 45/9 Carl Zeiss Goerz Dagor.

I've shot some of my Beryls against modern lenses, one of them a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II. The 210/6.8 Beryl S isn't as sharp as the GR II at apertures larger than f/11, is much more contrasty and therefore gives better color transparencies with normal exposure because there's less veiling glare.

I like my Beryls. They're absolutely not the sharpest lenses I have near wide open, but from f/16 down. which is where I usually shoot, they're competitive. At f/11 they're usable. Since I shoot small format (2x3, 6x12) coverage isn't an issue.

f/14 Perigraphes are, when focusing at f/14 can be lived with, marvels.

I don't use my little CZJ Goerz Dagor. My 47/5.6 SA is brighter, has more coverage and a center filter. But the 45/9 Dagor is smaller and cuter.

Bernice Loui
9-Apr-2017, 09:03
Earliest of the Schneider Symmars were Dagor design. The air spaced plasmat Symmar appeared later. Not sure Dagor would be considered an inherently low contrast design, consider the last 355mm multicoated version of the Dagor commonly found in a Copal# 3.

Personality of a Dagor is a lot more complex than contrast, sharpness and...

As for Golden. Gold Dot and etc.. IMO, these are more of a marketing thing than actual lens performance thing, While later production Gorez lenses improved, the notion of Gold Dot, Gold rim and etc does not assure good lens performance. Each lens from these times should be individually tested, evaluated and considered due to the ways in which they were produced.

Schneider's Xenar became one of their most common lenses produced, sold and used.


Bernice


F

That Schneider shifted the Symmar design from a dagor-type to a plasmat-type in the post-WWII era should say a lot about the good and bad points of dagor designs vis-a-vis contrast, sharpness, & the benefits of lens coating.

Bernice Loui
9-Apr-2017, 09:15
IMO, photographers new to LF should seriously consider a lens in a known accurate-reliable shutter, and stick with essentially one focal length. Learning to use a LF camera required burning a LOT of film, wasting a LOT of film, making a LOT of mistakes, processing film, making a print and more. Mixing the potential issues of shutter-lens complexities simply adds to the already steep learning process. Once the basic skill of LF image making has been gained enough, that is when choices can be made about personality of which optics is preferred. This is where discussion like this can be useful. Better way is to view various prints made in real life using various lenses, film, paper and technique. So much is lost via the web, it can only be a most basic guide to actual image results.


Bernice


So a new photographer who wants lower contrast images (this from viewing works of others shooting with Dagors) would rightly want to start with a Dagor or similar lens.
New LF photographers can't always equate which lens give which "look" unless the photos they are looking at has some citation. I think then, that the examples posted here will benefit new LF photographers trying to find their way among all the different lenses offered in the marketplace.

Luis-F-S
9-Apr-2017, 10:56
Bernice, pretty much what I suggested in an earlier post about using one focal length. My first LF lenses were a 210 Symmar and a 120 S-Angulon based on Fred Picker's recommendations for 4x5. I then met a friend who shot 810 & 820 and he introduced me to the Dagor. I bought a 9 1/2" Dagor from Lens & Repro to use for 4x5 & 57 and slowly purchased others as they became available. I bought a new 14" MC Dagor in Compur from B&H back in 1987 for $825 from B&H which I still have. Nearly all the others, I've had re-mounted in Copals. I also have a full compliment of modern lenses from 47mm to 300mm that I used for architectural and interiors, but the Goerz lenses are used for all my B&W personal work.

interneg
9-Apr-2017, 11:21
Earliest of the Schneider Symmars were Dagor design. The air spaced plasmat Symmar appeared later. Not sure Dagor would be considered an inherently low contrast design, consider the last 355mm multicoated version of the Dagor commonly found in a Copal# 3.

The Dagor is an inherently very high contrast design. 4 air-glass interfaces. 6/4 plasmats have 8.

What I was saying is that Schneider's move in Symmar design may have been because the plasmat design offered better resolution etc at larger apertures for the same angle of coverage (70 degrees) in the f16-22 range. Lens coating sorted out the contrast issues the greater number of air-glass interfaces posed & the lower number of cemented elements will have reduced potential for errors in assembly as well as speeding up production.